

Acknowledgements

Truth springs from argument among friends. – David Hume

### Much of this book stems from the conversations I have had with everyone who has made me think over the past couple of years, in particular Jason, Steve, Shirley, Mani, Kevin, Johnny, Zsofia, Ayana, Mathieu, _Franç_ ois, Andrew, and especially my dad. I have also learned so much from all those I have discussed these issues with on the Rule of Freedom blog and Facebook page, along with many anarchist thinkers, some of whom are referenced in this book. Thank you all for what you have taught me.

Dedication

This book goes out with with love and respect to all those working and living in sovereign communities and other agorists, and all those fighting an oppressive state.

Preface to second edition

I wrote the first edition of this book over a year and a half while also doing my master's at the American University in Cairo and working. Since that time, I have continually questioned and revised my beliefs. One might call it open mindedness or lack of conviction; at any rate, it is both a blessing and a curse. This book and blog's Facebook page has been instrumental in the evolution of my thinking, as people whom I will never meet and whose real names I do not even know have influenced my thinking in ways they do not realise. I am very grateful to all of them.

One result of that questioning is to think perhaps I am not actually an anarchist. I use the word because I like all or most branches of anarchist philosophy, though I do not agree fully with any of them. The closest I come to any strain of anarchism is voluntaryism. Many anarchists do not consider voluntaryism anarchism because it considers business, profit and property legitimate. I believe it is because I believe the non-aggression principle is the ideal philosophy of freedom, and, fully implemented across the world, enables all other types of anarchism. A free society would inevitably see various forms of social organisation, few of which quite attain the ideals of the ideologues. I have also come to believe even more strongly in agorism as a means of revolution, which is much misunderstood and maligned among anarchists. I encourage anarchists of all kinds to consider my arguments and tell me where they think I go wrong.

I was almost embarrassed to name Stefan Molyneux as my ideological father, so to speak, because of how others like to beat up on him. He is a father only in the sense that he introduced me to a world (philosophies of freedom and morality) that I proceeded to explore for myself. We place too much emphasis on names (because I love this writer and hate that one) and labels (because I'm this and I oppose that). While I employ labels liberally in this book, I know anyone who has read and thought enough about a given subject has nuanced views on it, and keeps adding to those views.

This edition reflects the changes in my thinking after a year of questioning. I still have not read anywhere near as much as I would like to have read, but that just means learning is ongoing. The purposes of this book, outlined in chapter 1, remain unchanged.

Table of Contents

Part 1: Voluntaryism and democracy

\- 01 Why I am a voluntaryist

\- 02 Why more people are not voluntaryists

\- 03 Morality and the non-aggression principle

\- 04 The problem with democracy

\- 05 We need to be forced: human nature and the Leviathan

\- 06 The difference between government and leadership

\- 07 Propaganda

\- 08 The fine line between democracy and dictatorship

\- 09 Somalia

Part 2: The state

\- 10 What is the state?

\- 11 Power

\- 12 Law

\- 13 Taxation and debt

\- 14 Elections

\- 15 Interest groups and lobbies

\- 16 Bureaucracy

\- 17 Let's reform the system!

Part 3: Security and war

\- 18 Police

\- 19 Guns

\- 20 Terrorism and airport security

\- 21 The War on Drugs

\- 22 Immigration and borders

\- 23 Nationalism

\- 24 Democratic wars

\- 25 War: Counting the costs

\- 26 Support the troops

\- 27 Why do we still go to war?

\- 28 Afghanistan

\- 29 Secrecy

Part 4: Don't fear the free market

\- 30 What the free market is and what it isn't

\- 31 Rich and poor

\- 32 Government knowledge is not superior knowledge

\- 33 Intervention, central banks and planning

\- 34 The armed corporation

Part 5: The sovereign community

\- 35 Has anarchy existed before?

\- 36 Roads

\- 37 Education

\- 38 Health

\- 39 The environment

\- 40 Polycentric law

\- 41 Agorism and counter-economics

\- 42 Mutual aid

\- 43 Contract-based communities

\- 44 Breaking free

Conclusion

Part 1: Voluntaryism and democracy

\- 01 Why I am a voluntaryist

\- 02 Why more people are not voluntaryists

\- 03 Morality and the non-aggression principle

\- 04 The problem with democracy

\- 05 We need to be forced: human nature and the Leviathan

\- 06 The difference between government and leadership

\- 07 Propaganda

\- 08 The fine line between democracy and dictatorship

\- 09 Somalia

01 Why I am a voluntaryist

We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. – Errico Malatesta

It is hard to know exactly why we believe what we do, because there are so many large and small influences on our opinions and what we choose to read and believe. But it is possible to trace the trajectory of our beliefs. I have been studying politics and government for about 10 years now. My degree is in political science from the University of Victoria, Canada, and I am currently pursuing a master's in Middle East politics and revolutions at the American University in Cairo. I had some vaguely socialist tendencies as an undergraduate, but after a while I started believing that freedom was more important than forced equality. Freedom seems the best way to achieve equality of opportunity, and access to resources would be more or less equal in such conditions. I started reading economics and began to believe that the freer the people, the more fairly goods are distributed. By that time you could have called me a libertarian. But I was still a statist, which means I still believed we needed government, because I hadn't been exposed to other ideas.

One day I was on a Facebook forum for libertarians and someone wrote something to the effect that libertarians should look into voluntaryism (a kind of heretical offshoot of anarchism, or a hybrid of anarchism and classical liberalism). I might have just scoffed, but the next sentence was "Scoff if you like, but you can't really call yourself open minded until you read about other ideas, can you?" That made sense to me. I wanted to continue to call myself open minded. I checked it out on Wikipedia. At the bottom of the page it listed a few people I could go to for further reading. One of them was a guy named Stefan Molyneux, a name some readers will be familiar with (whether they hate or love him). I read Stefan's book _Everyday Anarchy_ , and every page made sense to me. I realised that everything he wrote was the logical extension of what I already knew and believed about politics and government. Everything I knew then and have learned since fit with the other pieces in the puzzle. I just had not had the box in front of me to realise what I was looking at. I came to the conclusion that, not only could we be better off without government, government itself is an inherently immoral institution.

I remember one day in kindergarten, I hit my friend, and my friend started to cry. My teacher asked me, why would you hit other people? Would you like it if they hit you? No, of course not. Since then, I realised something that I think most people can agree on: that the initiation of force is immoral. Using force in self-defense is understandable and morally justifiable, as long as it is just enough to end aggression. Initiating force, however, is immoral. Most voluntaryists believe what they believe, that government should be replaced with voluntary institutions, because they understand that government is based on force and coercion. That is the most important thing for anyone reading this book to understand: government is based on violence. Here's why.

Governments could not exist without taxation. Taxation is forcing you to pay for whatever it is the government wants to do. You have no choice but to pay. If you do not pay, you go to jail. If you resist going to jail, even by walking away, they attack you. They can use as much force as they deem necessary, and you can use none without bringing more on yourself. Taxation is a gun pointed at your head. You don't see it. But try defying it. Similarly, you have to do everything the government tells you to do, like a bad boss at a job you can't quit. That is called the law. If you do not follow the law, you go to jail. People who persistently or maliciously hurt others should be restrained somehow. But what about people who do not hurt anyone else with their actions? Are those people criminals? In the government's eyes, yes.

You can't sell sex to a willing buyer. The government, in its wisdom, has decided that you can only have sex if you do not pay for it. As a result, a large part of the sex industry has been driven underground, controlled by criminal syndicates that grow with every woman trafficked, and it is much harder to prevent violence against the women involved. You can't do drugs, even though they do not hurt other people. That is, you can't do those drugs the government has deemed illegal. You can smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or pop pills as much as you like. If the government made milk illegal, you could go to jail for selling it. It seems inconceivable that such a thing would happen...except that, as we shall see, it already has; and farmers are losing their livelihoods over it. Whatever a small clique of decision makers decides, you must follow. They know better than you, and if you think otherwise, you'd better be a fast runner.

Thus, when I speak about a government in this book, I mean that entity composed of a small number of decision makers that initiates force through taxation and law; in Woodrow Wilson's words, organised force. The state is a more complex entity, a web of institutions, that the government creates and sustains. It is described in part 2. Though this book is for everyone, it deals primarily with the rich, democratic world (particularly the US) because it is seen as the ideal of governance by most people who live there and a wide variety of educated people around the world. My intention is not to suggest the democratic world is worse than elsewhere; on the contrary, governance is far worse in most of Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The best governments are merely the least bad. I will demonstrate how and why we are better off without them altogether.

If you do not think government is force, consider this. Is there any law or policy or decision of government that you can opt out of without penalty? There will always be penalties for breaking society's conventions, but conventions are a different kind of rule. And there are laws that are found in every culture, implying they are inherent in our nature. But many laws are not based on culture or nature. They are based on the advantages they will bring to those in government and their allies. Why should we be subject to force to help those who already have the means to help themselves?

Despite being based on violence, governments could still somehow justify themselves. After all, saving the life of a child playing by the railroad tracks by pulling him away is using force. The question is, would the child thank you for saving his or her life? If letting a group have power to control people led to favorable outcomes for things that reasonable people in a society could agree upon, such as peace, freedom, justice and prosperity, the results would justify the force. But it does not. As we shall see, the results of government are rarely what is hoped for. Power is, by definition, unaccountable, and people who are unaccountable can cause all manner of mischief.

It is sometimes argued that, despite a few bad laws, the government represents the will of the people. But how could someone represent the diverse opinions of hundreds of thousands or millions of people? If even one person dissents, perhaps because he or she is oppressed by a certain law, the government does not represent everyone. Is it right to repress some people if it is the will of some others? Why not allow people to represent themselves? But that is not the point of government. It never has been. The claim that government represents people is a new phenomenon, a new claim to legitimise its actions. The purpose of government is to consolidate power in the hands of a few, so that a small group can control and plunder society as it sees fit. Were this not the case, why would force be necessary? Why could they not simply govern by suggestion?

The competitive party system could not possibly represent all the people, because only a few win. An election is when people who think their views are right (voters) vie for power in order to impose those views on everyone else. Voting is a person's way of saying he or she knows better than others what is right for everyone that falls under the jurisdiction the elected representative's policies will cover. A voluntaryist does not try to impose his or her views on anyone. A voluntaryist does not mind what you do with your money and will not try to take it away from you by force and call it taxation. A voluntaryist will not turn a gun on anyone for smoking some herb that does no harm to anyone else. He only hopes you will give him the same respect.

Your life, if you think about it, is mostly voluntary or anarchic. You do most things without being forced by government. You create things, earn money and engage in countless transactions independently of the government. Most others respect your body and your possessions. Government does not decide what food you eat, whom you marry or hang out with, which job you take (with some exceptions), which car you buy or whether you should take your bike instead. We are capable of making these decisions without being forced into them. Why would we want the government involved with any of them? Anarchy means the freedom to take these decisions and take care of ourselves. At the moment these freedoms can be taken away by those in power. Not only can our rights be taken away, but statists think there are many things, like schools, hospitals and our own safety, that we are simply too stupid or selfish or disorganised to decide about for ourselves. We must let this other group of people, whom we just have to hope are smart, selfless and efficient, tell us what to do. Anarchists of all kinds believe that the burden of proof is on those who wield power over us to explain why it is necessary. If such power cannot be proven necessary, it should be relinquished.

But most people are unwilling even to consider abandoning government because that would mean anarchy, and anarchy could not possibly work. "Anarchist" is a dirty word. When someone calls him or herself an anarchist, it is acceptable to turn a deaf ear because the anarchist has nothing of value to say. Meanwhile, wars rage around the world. Men, women and children are torn apart by bombs from the air and land mines from the ground. Genocide and famine consume lives every day. Governments killed probably 169m of their own citizens in the 20th century, and perhaps more than twice that. But "anarchist" is a dirty word.

Anarchism is misunderstood and ignored, pushed to the margins by the powerful and kept there by closed-minded people who are not interested in embracing new ideas. As such, most people think anarchists are the people inciting riots, and minarchists are in the pay of the corporate lobbies. As this book will explain, nothing could be further from the truth.

I used to believe that roads, hospitals and schools could not be built without government. But when I started reading, I began to realise a number of reasons why that belief was false. First, if the people want something, it will get built. People organise when there is something to do. They chip in what they can, and others are usually forgiving when they cannot. Second, if the people were not taxed and the economy not regulated as it is, people would have far more to spend. It is impossible to know how much more wealthy we all might be, but it is safe to say prosperity would be far greater in the absence of force. Third, there may be better ideas than what the state provides, and people acting purposefully and without coercion (i.e. the free market) will find those ideas. Fourth, societies without government by force have existed and do exist. This book will demonstrate all these points.

Democracy only allows as much freedom as the people on top are willing to grant. Anarchy means you do what you think is right. Freedom, said John Stuart Mill, is "pursuing our own good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." Freedom brings many more benefits than just the ability to decide your own path. It allows economies and the arts to flourish. It means scientific advances and technological innovation. And it forces responsibility on those able to handle it while still allowing for us to help each other.

In a democracy, we help each other, but not as much as we could, because we have less money, because it is taken away from us, and because we expect and rely on government to take care of people on our behalf. We feel better when we vote for left-wing parties that promise more money for the poor, letting us sweep the poor under the rug of our consciences and pretend government has solved one of society's problems. Or we feel good about voting for right-wing parties that promise to defend the people from various threats to society, with the hope that they will not torture and kill too many innocent people in the process.

Government has not solved any problems it has not first caused itself. Worse, it has perpetuated many additional problems. Governments have no interest in solving problems, because if the agencies and departments and programs created to deal with them end, government control over that part of life ends. Spending would have to decrease as well, reducing the number of reasons governments have for high taxes. And yet, so many people have faith that, get enough people out to vote, or get the right people in power, and government will make everything better. Is there any historical precedent for such results? Have politics and government ever made things better for everyone? Government "solutions" seem usually to require more power for the state and less for the people, ignoring the problems power leads to. Stateless solutions, on the other hand, give the people the freedom and responsibility to actually solve the problems the state only purports to.

I think most people living in our society can agree it is simply naïve to believe politicians, bureaucrats, the police and the military are looking after our best interests. They just don't have to. The only real mechanism for accountability in government is elections, and no matter how many you have, it is hard to escape the corruption of human beings that comes with power. If you believe those you vote for are required to listen to you, I suggest thinking very critically about your beliefs. Has any party or politician you have ever voted for truly represented you? If it has never gained power, it cannot represent you. If it has gained power, did it do what it had promised? My answer is, represent yourself; and if you are not invited to make decisions, do not abide by those made for you by a self-interested elite. If you want someone to represent your interests, ideas and overall goals, look in the mirror. No one has your interests and your values at heart more than you. You do not need a violent institution that does not care about you.

Anarchy means the absence of rulers. It means no one has the means to initiate violence over an entire population. It means, in Benjamin Tucker's words, "the largest amount of liberty compatible with equality and mutuality of respect, on the part of individuals living in society, for their respective spheres of action." Voluntaryists oppose the state because it is an invasion of the individual or community sphere. Anarchists disagree with those who say we need authority for the sake of authority. Anarchism is the belief that no rulers, no kings or queens, no government, no other institution of violence will represent the individual's best interests but him or herself. No rulers, no masters. It is as simple as that.

Libertarianism is distinct from anarchism in the sense that libertarians do not necessarily believe in the eventual end of the state. Libertarianism could be defined as being skeptical of granting any power to government when freedom for the individual, whether political or economic, is usually preferable. As such, they may be minarchists, meaning favouring a minimal, "nightwatchman" state, perhaps one of a parliament and a basic military, a police force enforcing a few simple laws based on the non-aggression principle (see chapter 3), very low or no taxes, and so on. Many anarchists and most voluntaryists call themselves libertarians as well. As you can imagine, they often fight over details instead of uniting against the common target: the reduction of the power of the state and other institutions inimical to freedom.

It is not necessary to call oneself a voluntaryist, an anarchist, a libertarian or anything else to believe in freedom. I use labels in this book but as little more than an expedient. The people we will meet in this book, from George Carlin to Gandhi, may or may not call themselves anarchists. So what? People can call themselves whatever they like. It is not our labels but our beliefs that condition our actions. I do not aim in this book or the blog from which it developed to convert people to a movement or ideology. The purposes of this book are for people to consider

a) the importance of their own freedom, and how and why people take it away;

b) the immorality of the initiation of force;

c) the absurdity of statism and nationalism, and the limitations of democracy;

d) how to achieve a free society.

Government cannot and will not eliminate evil, but it does provide the tools of its perpetuation through initiating force, concentrating power, taking other people's property and using it to make the rich richer, opaqueness and secrecy, controlling education and making war. We will deal with all of these subjects in the coming chapters.

We are living in a critical time. A time of massive government debt and economic stagnation. A time when power and wealth seem increasingly to rise toward a small elite. A time when the information available to us has never been more abundant, but the flood of information has never been more confusing. A time where our common humanity has never been clearer, but our ability to kill each other never greater. A time of technology that could liberate or enslave us. And a time of ideas that could do the same. We must choose our actions wisely. Will we, as individuals and societies, opt for greater freedom and responsibility, peace and justice? Or will we hand those things over to other people in return for promises?

02 Why more people are not voluntaryists

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. – George Bernard Shaw

###### Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

###### The most effective weapon that politicians use to control you isn't the police or the military they own. It's not the jails they run. It's not the laws they write. Their most effective weapon is what you believe in your own mind about your alleged obligation to obey them. – David McElroy

This book will correct popular misconceptions about anarchism and introduce the reader to voluntaryism. It is not fair to object to it as nothing but an unworkable fantasy when there are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise. Misconceptions include the image of black-hooded young people throwing rocks at police and smashing the windows of stores. These pictures are often taken out of context to portray the protesters as having initiated violence. They may have. It seems at least as frequently that the police do. Regardless, these people do not represent the philosophies of freedom. In fact, no one does.

Consider what it means to be a democrat: one believes democracy is the best form of government. That's it. Anything else is up to the individual's experiences, philosophy and hopes. Think how much democrats argue about which form of democracy is right. Anarchists are no less argumentative or diverse. Christian anarchists believe the teachings of Jesus Christ would be a good guide to a free society. Others say anarchists should not be religious, such as Emma Goldman, who said "[a]narchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."

Few people who consider themselves anarchists I have ever spoken with promote the immediate end of the state. Never mind that it is impossible; the sudden implosion of an institution with that much control over people is bound to end in chaos. I have heard some call for removing all the police from the streets, which could work if it were a decision of all the people, and they agreed to provide their own security, whether from a business or as a community. But eliminating the state is something that should take place over time.

In an irony that shows how deep our indoctrination runs, anarchists are sometimes accused of wanting to force their vision of society on others. The state is the institution that uses force to do what those controlling it wants, which means statists, people who believe the state should exist, are the ones forcing their vision on others. People tend to fear the unknown. But when presented with new ideas, they should consider putting them into practice, rather than lashing out at them. Voluntaryists want the freedom not to be subject to the violence of the whims of a few powerful people, or a majority, and they believe others deserve that freedom as well.

A voluntary society is not chaos. Most voluntaryists simply promote the absence of a coercive authority. Everywhere I have been, it is widely assumed no government would mean, in various nightmarish forms, huge amounts of violence and terror. The reason I think otherwise is because we could not have a society based on voluntary virtues as opposed to coercion without widespread agreement among the people that the initiation of force is wrong, and that voluntary institutions are preferable. Unfortunately, the people are not ready yet.

After learning about the ideas of a free society, hearing people's objections to it reminds me how used to think. People tend to assume we need government for everything they have not used their imaginations to reconsider yet. As such, whenever we do not want to think how a private firm might make money solving a problem, we say the government should do it. But why? Can we trust the government? If someone is willing to pay, whether with money or effort, someone else will come forward to provide the service. It happens every day. And strong communities take care of themselves, without need for the intervention of outsiders.

Some people have trouble distinguishing between the ideals of statism and the reality. The government is supposed to protect us, for instance. That is the mandate granted it by the people. But it is, in fact, rare to find places where the police, the military and other security services do not move outside their mandate. The government is supposed to regulate the market in ways that benefit everyone, or benefit the poor, or make things fairer. But regulations tend to have unintended disadvantages at best, and bring on financial collapse at worst. (Regulations are covered in chapter 30.)

With each generation, a new status quo emerges. We are used to the existence of the state, and have school books, television shows and government communications explaining why it is necessary. It was assumed at some point that the state was necessary for security; then it was necessary to provide education; in the end, the state has become responsible for regulating and insuring everything, and we take all of it for granted. Each new policy that may be unwanted at the time becomes indispensable with the next generation. Think of some of the assumptions that go unquestioned.

a) We are members of a nation state.

b) The nation state is necessary for our protection.

c) The nation state needs direction.

d) We need representatives to decide that direction, or else nothing would get done.

e) We will always need new laws and regulations, so we need a standing, law-making body.

f) We need a military, or other states would kill and enslave us.

g) We need police, or we would kill and enslave each other.

h) We need taxes to have a society.

i) A certain amount of poverty is unavoidable, and we need to be forced to take care of the poor.

j) Without the state, we would have no roads, no schools, no hospitals, no health or environmental standards.

k) We need a strong state because without it, terrorists and gangs and corporations would take over.

l) Government secrecy is necessary.

m) Voting forces accountability.

n) Change comes gradually, through the system.

It is possible that, at some point, the people have consented to these things if they have not risen up against them. But distinct from consent is the fact that they simply take them as given. They may not like paying their taxes, but they believe that is the way things have always been, and it must continue that way to have a society worth living in. These beliefs are ahistorical and illogical. Moreover, though it is argued that democracies are based at least partly on consent, this argument is spurious. One has not been asked to give consent. It is not consent if one is forced to accept it.

Not questioning the assumptions of our culture makes seeing the truth and accepting differences more difficult. Many people who speak authoritatively on "human nature" know little more than their own culture. Others are versed in different cultures. However, all of them are used to societies dominated by a state. We need to look past basic observation to the science of human nature (which we will in chapter 5) if we want to talk about what is possible.

Some anti-statists say the problem is we are never presented with the idea because our schools and universities are government-fed, so those who teach have a vested interest in the status quo. This idea is not without merit. We are told in school that government is necessary and serves the common good, that individual presidents or other authority figures have done wonderful things, that democracy makes government legitimate and good and means progress, that soldiers have fought for our freedom, and that the nation is more important than any one of us. Let us consider.

Professor R. J. Rummel wrote _Death by Government_ to make it clear the government is not the benign institution we are told. _Death by Government_ is about democide, or murder by the state. The explanations of government served to political science students makes Professor Rummel shake his head.

For instance, one textbook I recently read spends a chapter on describing the functions of government. Among these were law and order, individual security, cultural maintenance, and social welfare. Political scientists are still writing this stuff, when we have numerous examples of governments that kill hundreds of thousands and even millions of their own citizens, enslave the rest, and abolish traditional culture (it took only about a year for the Khmer Rouge to completely suppress Buddhism, which had been the heart and soul of Cambodian culture). A systems approach to politics still dominates the field. Through this lens, politics is a matter of inputs and outputs, of citizen inputs, aggregation by political parties, government determining policy, and bureaucracies implementing it. Then there is the common and fundamental justification of government that it exists to protect citizens against the anarchic jungle that would otherwise threaten their lives and property. Such archaic or sterile views show no appreciation of democide's existence and all its related horrors and suffering. They are inconsistent with a regime that stands astride society like a gang of thugs over hikers they have captured in the woods, robbing all, raping some, torturing others for fun, murdering those they don't like, and terrorising the rest into servile obedience.

It has even been suggested people suffer from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Stefan Molyneux believes "In general, people instinctively understand they cannot oppose the violence of the state, and they're subjected to its coercion, and so they pretend everything it does is a good idea, to avoid the horror of subjugation. If you going to be whipped anyway, why not pretend it is for your own good?" I think the violence of the state needs to be revealed to people through reasoned argument. One needs to train one's eyes to see the gun in the room.

Another reason people want a government is because they believe they know best, and they think it is right to force their beliefs about how to organise society on others. They believe redistribution of wealth is right, so they will vote for a left-wing party; or they believe a religious society is best, so they will vote for a religious party. They trust their own judgment, but not that of people who disagree with them. People who disagree need to have the right ways forced on them. The reason I do not believe in government is I do not know the best way to organise society, and I will not try to force anyone to follow my rules.

I also believe we suffer from a lack of ideas. That in itself is tied to poor education. Never mind high school: even in university we are not told about these things. In my political science and philosophy classes (where I was under the impression I was learning to think critically), we did not consider any anarchist position, or even the minarchist (small government) position. We took for granted democracy was the only system worth adopting, and discussed unrealistic proposals for making it work better. The economics department did not have a class in Austrian School economics or its method, praxeology, even though Austrians predicted the crashes of 1929, 2000 and 2008, and seem to see things far more clearly than the mainstream. Very few people take the time to educate themselves on any form of anarchism. They dismiss it partly because they think it is dangerous or unrealistic but also because they just assume democracy has proven itself the ideal system. Why even consider other ideas when we have the best one here? This might be due to ethnocentrism, which is when we believe our culture is right and the best simply because we understand it better than any other, and we have internalised it so we take all its workings as the way things are.

What is the result of this lack of ideas? In spite of all the problems governments cause, however unaccountable and dishonest politicians are, however apathetic and ignorant the public is, people still think government can be a solution to our problems. And how ironic it is to ask for more taxes, more spending, more voting, more laws, more micromanagement of the economy and more force, when those things are the cause of so many of society's problems in the first place.

We tend to get bogged down in the surface issues. Should we be taxed at 35% or 40%? Should we decriminalise marijuana? Who is the best person to represent us? But what of the more fundamental questions like, should we have government at all? Is it moral for an institution to have a monopoly on the legal initiation of force? How does power affect people? Is war really necessary, and if so, can we trust the people in government to carry it out it wisely? Do you own yourself, or should other people be allowed to tell you what to put in your body? Do you own your actions, or should you be denied your privacy by watchdogs designated by someone else? Do you own the fruits of your labour, or should other people be allowed to take them away and give them to others? Are we truly free, and if not, shouldn't we be? But people who raise these questions are usually told to shut up.

There are simply too many suppositions going unquestioned. Schools and the mass media will always parrot the same lines about the necessity of government, because it's not perfect but it's the best we've got. We are told over and over again elections are about choosing which leaders we think will best represent our interests, and no one ever says what elections really are: a winner-take-all popularity contest in which the victor has the power to impose his opinions on an entire society. No mainstream media pundit ever questions the need for the police or the military, only occasionally reporting (and often immediately legitimising) when they have done something unpleasant. No high school history or civics textbook blames the government for the erosion of civil liberties, the rise in inflation, the selling of future generations into debt or the insanity of war. They do not question the necessity of fighting the world wars, and simply say doing so was necessary to secure freedom for the people of the world. Instead, they paint a picture of determined leaders making hard choices about what would be right for the people, of brave heroes risking life and limb for the motherland.

Another mistake many people make is to read history and assume government has always existed everywhere, and has been necessary for stability. A closer look at history, however, finds most of the "services" governments have provided since their existence have been arrest and torture for saying the wrong things, taxing people into the dirt, slavery, conscription and war. It is only in very recent history they have provided anything more than that. As the scope and size of government has grown, so has its capacity to use force against its own and foreign citizens, making them as dangerous as ever. Moreover, not all societies have had "government" in the sense of an institution that initiates violence. In fact, countless societies have resisted the development of hierarchy and the encroachment of imperialism, though most have ended up violently absorbed into the kingdom, and over time, converted to nationalism and fooled into believing they are free. And the belief that governments arose and are the way they are because the people wanted it that way is simply ahistorical.

Partly due to what we have been taught, and partly to ethnocentrism and related natural fear of change, when some democrats hear the idea of anarchy, they jump on the offensive, as if you have insulted their mothers, and refuse to consider your side. They don't address your arguments or they brush them off. You give logical explanations of what is bad about government and they say, "Well, that's the price you pay to live in a society!" Then you explain the alternatives and they say, "No, the only alternatives are chaos or fascism." That argument betrays a serious lack of critical thinking and imagination. So, incidentally, does the hope that if we just get more people out to vote, we will reform and maybe even perfect the system. If I thought that was possible, I might be a democrat.

Another objection I hear is we get so many things from the government—education at all levels, cheap or free health care, police, fire departments and so on, and those things are generally good. What I do not understand is where people think the money to buy those things comes from. It comes from us. Does it not follow that if there were no government, we would have all that money back? So we could still buy those services, couldn't we? Or do you think the rich pay for all of those things for us? And since a lot of that money goes toward the people who administer it like the IRS, plus all the trillions of dollars wasted on overseas military adventurism, given to farmers and corporations who don't need it, repaying debts for things we didn't even buy, and God knows what the CIA is doing, without government we would have even more money to pay for what we want.

People do not examine very closely what their government is doing. The USA Patriot Act is supposed to make Americans safer. If so, why is it used to lock up drug users who do not harm others? Why has it been used to investigate Antiwar.com, Greenpeace and PETA? Rather than catch "the terrorists", it catches the politically unpopular. You could be next. Such examples of government abuse abound, yet people are oblivious.

But there will still be objections. People have an aversion to something radical. Radical means major changes. When someone advocates the complete restructuring of society, yes, of course he is a radical. That is not a reason to dismiss him.

There is also an interesting belief among educated people that extremes can never work. As an extreme in thought in and of itself, this question is worth examining.

There are, of course, many examples in history where extremes appear always to fail. On the other hand, there are some extremes practiced every day that we do not see as extreme because, for us, they are normal.

For example, many people live in a world where no one except agents of the government are allowed to own guns. They accept it as the right way to live. If you suggested to them everyone should be allowed to own a gun, like in Switzerland (and they're not killing each other much in Switzerland), people would call you an extremist, even though it would mean they could defend themselves and not have to wait for the police. And yet, if guns are prohibited for those without uniforms, the extreme is already the norm. We are just considering the other end of the continuum. The question is not, "is it extreme", but rather, is it worth trying, and is it true? As such, scientists test extreme hypotheses every day. Some they can reject, and some turn out to be valid.

In his _Letter from a Birmingham Jail_ , Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice – or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"

Reasonable people will agree that arguments are only fairly evaluated when they are evaluated on their logic. Truth is truth whether or not one would like to admit it. And it is possible the extreme is the truth. In the 19th century, it was unthinkable that women, all women, should be allowed to vote. The suffragettes were extremists, and radical feminists have relentlessly pushed for equality with men for more than a hundred years. They were granted the vote and a raft of other privileges that made them equal to men in many areas of life (though whether enough, not enough or more than enough is still up for debate). Gradually, the feminist arguments made more and more sense to everyone, and the extreme became the norm. Such is our capacity for logic.

Some of the same people who decry extremism deride idealism. But we all want things to be better; and the idealists, such as the suffragettes, are the ones who make the changes. In my estimation, we are all idealists; some people simply have lower opinions of humanity and themselves. My guess is people use the labels "extremist", "idealist" and "utopian" simply to discredit and marginalise people who disagree with their fundamental beliefs. Whether or not they are right is irrelevant to the labeler.

Whatever your opinions on life, there is room for left and right, up and down, in and out. We live in world of balance, and of extremes. What works best may just be the extreme in thought, so an open mind to every point on the spectrum helps us figure out what is right.

Freedom has two major drawbacks. The first is responsibility. If people are not willing to take care of themselves and their communities, they will never be free of rulers claiming to take responsibility for them. The second is vigilance. As long as we are humans, a few among us will want to enslave us, and a few more will want to stir up trouble. The more people want to be free, the easier it would be to deal with these problems together.

Ideas evolve. They gain or lose followers; they develop; they spread. It was, for a long time, believed kings had the divine right to rule over us, and thus could do no wrong. That idea is now dead. Then ideas about constitutions that restrained absolute power came along. But as they say, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. When the people got a taste of freedom, they wanted more. Power slowly spread from the king and a few aristocrats to all propertied males, and then in the past century to everyone else over 18. These ideas of freedom set slaves free, and now outright slavery is no longer considered legitimate. But barely a hundred and fifty years ago, there were people who thought if the slaves were freed, there would be chaos, and anyway the slaves were stupid and probably better off the way they were. Each old idea was taken as given until a new idea took hold. We needed to learn as a society that these new ideas were actually better than the old ones. Now it's time to take it a step further.

I expect some people will say the vision of a free society is unrealistic, so there is no point in working toward it. I wonder how realistic they believe it is to try to perfect a system based on violence. These are people who believe elections and laws will somehow turn the people who are currently pointing a gun at them into angels. If they want to believe that, I will continue to believe a little education can help them discover an alternative idea.

03 Morality and the non-aggression principle

How does one define morality? Do we all have different morals? Is there universally-preferable behaviour? Is all moralising just opinion? These are difficult questions, and will likely be debated for centuries to come. Most people do not think about moral philosophy; but without it, how can we judge what is right or wrong? The standard idea among voluntaryists is the non-aggression principle, or NAP.

According to the non-aggression principle, all aggression, or initiation of force, is illegitimate. It prohibits the threat or actual use of violence or force against people who have not initiated force against others, and are unwilling to be forced. It is encapsulated in the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you, or perhaps better in the silver rule, do not do to others as you would not want them to do to you. In other words, it grants negative rights, which oblige inaction.

The NAP is a simple standard of morality. Not everyone adheres to or even agrees with it, but it is the moral basis for a voluntary society. It is a law based not on the calculations of a politician but on the ideals of peace and self defense, property, justice, freedom and responsibility. The NAP would mean a state of equality, which according to John Locke, was when all power is reciprocal, with none having more than another.

Some say morality is arbitrary. But can arbitrary morality be considered moral? Let's take a system that said rape was all right. How could rape ever be all right to both parties involved? Either it is consensual, which means it is not rape, or one party does not consent, which means it is rape and the initiation of violence. How does this principle apply to being ruled by someone else? If 100% of people agree to be governed, fine. It is a consensual relationship. But if even one man does not give consent and wants to opt out, why would we not let him? If he can arrange to live in harmony with his neighbours, why is it necessary to incorporate him into someone else's system of violence?

The NAP grants property rights. By property, I mean the money one has been given through legitimate (voluntary, peaceful, as opposed to forced) means, the property he has acquired by spending that money, and the products of his own labour. One's body is also one's own property, which means men and women decide what gets done to their own bodies. If a man wants to get a tattoo, he should be free to do so. If he wants to smoke marijuana, or even crack-cocaine, again, he should be free to do so. If he harms other people because he is intoxicated, the crime is not the taking of intoxicants but the initiation of violence against others, and he may be restrained.

Pollution is a form of aggression, an invasion of property rights. Smoke and dust pollute the lungs or land of others. Thus, there is no _right_ to pollute. If people agree to accept it, presumably for a negotiated price, it can occur legitimately.

According to the NAP, forcing someone, even one's daughter or sister, to wear a headscarf is immoral. Forcing her to take it off is as well. Forcing someone to eat or drink something is immoral, because it violates ownership of one's own body; forcing them not to take drugs or eat unhealthful food likewise violates the principle.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, however, does not. It is irritating, and the perpetrator is likely to bring shame on himself, but he has not aggressed against anyone in violation of their safety or property. Conversely, rape is aggression irrespective of how short the woman's skirt was. The skirt did not initiate force. Bullying, spousal abuse and mind control are all aggression by this definition as well.

If there is a child playing on the train tracks and a train is coming, is it wrong to save the child? Of course not. Non-aggression is about consent. If the child would, at some time in his or her life, thank you for initiating force, it is not immoral to have helped him. If his parents thank you, it is not immoral. (This brings up questions of whether a child is property, in what respects and until what age; it also brings up the question of the morality of preventing suicide. These are details this book does not go into.)

What about property?

Every man and woman has sole claim to his or her life and every person has sole claim to his or her labor and the fruits of his or her labor. If people choose to give their lives and labor to help others, that is a choice they make and a choice they have every right to make. No one, however, has a right to take anything from another. No one has a claim on the life or property of anyone else. To believe otherwise is to sanction theft and slavery, that is, plunder. – Michael Coughlin

Products of one's own labour are one's property. Things acquired illegitimately are not. By way of example, imagine Tom walks into the wilderness, builds his own home and starts a farm. He has transformed the land into something useful and valuable. He deserves it; it now belongs to him. Then, imagine Derek comes along and seizes part of his land. What claim does Derek have to that land? Tom, in fact, has the right to defend his property, as he does himself.

Derek claims property is theft, because Tom is forcing Derek off his land. However, the land would have been useless to Derek without the labour Tom put in. Labouring in a factory brings money that can be used to buy food. Labouring on a farm brings the food. Derek is trying to force Tom to give up property previously unowned and useless (to other humans), which Tom transformed into something useful. He is trying to steal that something. Tom is merely protecting the fruits of his labour.

The right to property means if one or more people choose to live in a house and live by their own rules (again, not harming anyone else), even in the middle of a town, they should not be ruled, harassed or bullied by those outside. Collectivist ideas like democracy and nationalism work against this right. A propertyless society would be one where others would not be punished for taking something someone else had acquired legitimately. Communal property is usually fine in small societies, but when we do not know or do not like those who want to take from us, we should have the right to refuse.

Stephan Kinsella explains that our body or property is "assigned to the person with the _best link_ to the resource so as to avoid conflict and permit peaceful, productive use of the resource in question." Property is necessary because of scarcity. (It is not necessary that property is individually owned, however, or protected with literally any kind of force.) All resources are contestable, and if we want to avoid conflict over such resources, we should respect the right to property based on self-ownership. Conflict may still occur, of course, but the ownership principle makes it clear who is the aggressor.

Ownership of property thus solves the tragedy of the commons. If I own something, I can get a large amount of benefit by taking care of it myself. If it is public, anyone can use and ruin it and my taking care of it might not be worth it. If the property is truly public, in the sense of being owned by nobody, no one is likely to benefit proportionally to the effort put into maintaining it, until people begin to homestead or squat the land, effectively turning it into private property. Small, simple societies do not need private property. Where everyone knows everyone else, free riding is nearly non-existent. People use shame as a tool to enforce reciprocal social obligations. In complex societies, all property that is not private is owned by the state (though the state also lays claim to private property through taxation and outright seizure of land; thus whether statist societies have private property at all is debatable). Calling such things "public property" is misleading, as the public has little power to make decisions over them: the state is not "the public". We can merely hope they get used for purposes we approve of. When the benefit a politician or bureaucrat would gain by selling a piece of land to a developer outweighs the cost he or she might well do so.

If theft is defined as taking another's property without that person's consent, and one's property includes anything one has earned (including money) or made useful through one's own labour, Derek cannot use Tom's land without stealing from Tom. Tom, on the other hand, has not stolen from anyone, because no one had any legitimate claim over the land before he came along. One question that arises here is, how much can he homestead?

Likewise, if Tom is willing to sell Matt his land and Matt is willing to pay his asking price with money he attained through voluntary transactions, Tom's property can become Matt's. Tom's labour created the property and Matt's labour brought the money to buy it legitimately. Thus, property is not theft.

It is important to note that property is a very contentious issue among anarchists (which is why so many who call themselves anarchists do not agree with the NAP). For instance, how could it be right—how could it not be aggression—to evict squatters from one's land? How could it be right to prevent thirsty people from drinking from a river to which someone claims ownership? Some anarchists have written scathingly about the assumption, implicit in the term "property", that Tom has absolute freedom to do what he wants with or on his own property. Think of all that could mean. Nowadays, state law, for better or worse, overrides what one chooses to do at home or with one's possessions. But a stateless society would need to ensure warlords or unscrupulous natural resource firms with large tracts of land and militias did not emerge. The alternative, according to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, is _possession_ , with the idea that something is ours only if we are using it. Otherwise, it should belong to everyone.

Others say the state is necessary to secure property, and property is the initiation of force. However, as we will see in chapter 40, this is not necessarily the case. A voluntaryist would probably say property, far from being theft, is freedom. If Tom has the right to defend his property, the fruit of his labour, from all aggression, he also has the right to do as he wishes on it, and no one can legitimately stop him unless he is using violence against others. Moreover, belief in property does not make voluntaryists minarchists, as many allege. The state necessarily rules over people. Property has nothing to do with ruling others. When a man expands his property to take the land of others around him, he is guilty of theft. If he forces people to work on his land, he is a slaver. If he does not initiate force, he has done nothing wrong.

Mutualists reject property disconnected from occupancy and usage and collecting rent on capital standing idle. If you built the house but are now an absentee landlord, you do not actually own it. They also identify the possibility a "capitalist" closes off a large amount of land and posts guards to shoot trespassers. I do not necessarily disagree with these beliefs, and might enjoy living in a community of people who believe this way. I do not want to debate it in this book because the debate, as evinced on innumerable forum discussions online, takes too long. Suffice to say, in my opinion, the differences in moral principles among anarchists are small, and they must learn to unite if they care about the future. I agree with many anarchists who say, whatever form of property future societies agree on, justice requires the abolition of the current form system of property.

Government versus the NAP

What does it mean to be governed? Proudhon said it is

# to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, controlled, checked, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, taxed, stamped, measured, assessed, licensed, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

If people want to live under the gun, they should be allowed to. However, what if even one person is both peaceful and unwilling? What if he is unwilling to give his property to support a system he disagrees with? What if one person wants to opt out of a system under which he does not want to live? Is it right to disregard this person? Is it right to let the collective decide for the individual against his will? Not if the NAP holds.

It is often claimed the people delegate their power to their representatives. But do they? Are people allowed to do those things themselves? Are they allowed to inspect, indoctrinate, command, control and pass laws over their fellow citizens? If not, how can they delegate a power or a right they do not have?

Politicians like to appeal to "the public good", "the greater good" or other nebulous ideas. But the public is merely a collection of individuals. If the public good overrides the individual good, it can only mean the interests of some individuals take precedence over those of others. We are often told whom a policy will benefit, while those who will lose—those who pay for the policy—are not mentioned at all.

But because of our natural abilities to find order, organise, lead and cooperate, which occur in spontaneous order (see chapter 5), we do not need to work in the particular systems and hierarchies forced on us. When people organise, they may want to make all their decisions on a local level, whatever size that might be. They may want to make those decisions themselves, and find the smaller the locale, the more control they have over decisions and outcomes. People who outsource their problems to government might find they can deal with them more efficiently and effectively in other groups than the nation, or using different methods than those imposed on them.

An individual, or any other minority, is equally deserving of universal rules of morality. Morality must be universal, because all humans are equally deserving of the basic rights to live according to what they see as right, provided they do not harm others. In fact, a principle can scarcely be said to be moral if it applies double standards, affording some people certain rights over others. If a system privileges the majority, giving them rights to deprive the minority of its life, freedom or anything it acquired through voluntary means, it is immoral. As Gandhi (himself an anarchist—see chapter 44) once said, "In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place." Thus, if a man does not permit others to rule him, no matter how many they are, they should not.

Communists and syndicalists say bosses are masters (therefore, employees are slaves). If one has the ability to leave the job and not worry about being subject to violence as a result, the boss is not a master. Moreover, when people are free to choose their employment, grow their own food and use their chosen currency, bosses are unnecessary.

The myth of the social contract

For the past three hundred years, man has heard the suggestions of a wide variety of philosophers. One influential idea was the social contract. The social contract states the people in a given territory submit to the will of the state; and in return, the state provides protection to the people.

But what is a contract? A contract is an agreement consciously and willingly entered into by two or more parties. No one signed a contract agreeing to submit to all laws passed by politicians. It is irrelevant whether the politicians were elected or not, or by how many votes. Democracy or dictatorship, if an individual is not willing to submit to this so-called contract, there is nothing moral about forcing him into it.

The book _No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority_ by Lysander Spooner spells out with expert logic the irrelevance of the social contract as a contract. "The Constitution [of the United States] has no inherent obligation or authority", he begins. And he is right. After all, I have never even been asked if I would like to follow any law, nor have I ever seen this contract apparently signed on my behalf. For this contract to be moral according to the NAP, every single citizen of every country would have to consent to living under the country's legal system. It is null for everyone who does not sign it.

And yet, because a small group of men wrote a document over 200 years ago, 300m people are subject to the violence of every single law passed by a small clique of decision makers. The notion of the social contract suits the state, because there is no chance to opt out of and end the contract. But it does not suit the dissenting individual or persecuted minority. And it is clearly not a contract.

Taxation is the initiation of force. If any person being taxed is unwilling to pay taxes or is unwilling to pay as much as he or she is paying, taxes are force. Though certain forms of small governments have been funded by voluntary contributions, any other way a government acquires its funding necessitates the threat of violence.

To say everyone should be forced to pay taxes, or else they should not be allowed to use the services government provides, has things backwards. The people who initiate force are the ones committing the immoral act. If Matt is willing to submit to all the laws of his government, no one should stop him. If Tom is not willing, however, to submit to some or all of the laws or monopoly powers of government, he should be free to opt out. If not, he is subject to force and is not free. Why should he not have that option? Does statism imply original sin? If not, the onus is on those forcing others, and those supporting the forcing of others, to persuade the people they should be willing to submit to compulsion under threat of violence, and to ask them if they consent.

Likewise, it does not follow that someone who does not like the system should just move, or that taxes are analogous to rent. Neither the government nor the population own the country and citizens are not tenants. If a man built or bought his house, he has already paid and has no further rent to pay. Telling someone he should move if he does not like it is akin to saying he should be charged rent at or else abandon a house he already owns.

Some voluntaryists consider voting the initiation of force. If I vote, I attempt to force my preferred electoral candidate, along with his or her policies, on the population at large. People who follow the NAP would not want to force policies on any peaceful person.

As such, the option of secession should be unlimited. I might choose to bind myself to a certain system of rules that others have started, but if I do not like where it is going, I should be allowed to leave without penalty. There is no need to move, as not everyone has to follow the same set of rules, aside from non-aggression. (I elaborate in chapter 40.)

Anarchy means no rulers, no overarching force that can initiate violence against entire populations. It means people are free to engage in any actions that do not initiate force against others. Voluntaryists thus oppose any person or organisation that attempts to impose its will on others by force, be they a controlling husband, a gang, a fanatical religious group or a government.

A right is something that morality says is reasonable to uphold with violence. Some people believe we have a right to health care paid for and provided by someone else. A libertarian might say we have a right to health, but not to someone else's money to pay for it. The same libertarian might also say that while it is important to educate children, we do not have the right to make people without children pay for us to educate our own.

Do we have a right to property? If Tom works hard to build something, he has more claim to it than anyone else. If he works hard to build himself a house and Derek sits around watching, how could Derek have any claim to that house? He would be either a slavemaster or a parasite. If he did not help because he was handicapped, that is a very different question. Voluntaryists would say the means for providing for the disabled or those otherwise incapable of contributing as much as others should be provided voluntarily, meaning through charity, or including them in mutual-aid networks.

Self defense is legitimate. A world such as we live in requires vigilance to defend one's life, liberty and property against those who would attack, steal, kill and enslave. It is also right to defend other innocent people against the same forms of aggression, provided they have not given and would not give their consent to the aggressors, and have in turn given and would give their consent to the defenders.

A society based on the NAP would consider it legitimate for someone to enter a community in which people held slaves or burned witches and put a stop to the practice. Likewise, believers in the NAP should have no qualms about using violence to free people in prison for victimless pursuits such as marijuana. (Of course, until voluntaryists and other libertarians are of sufficient numbers and organisation to do such a thing, freeing all the prisoners of bad laws remains a distant hope.)

Naturally, there are difficult questions, to be answered case by case, as to when violence is aggressive and when it is defensive. The history of Israel is a tale of tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of people who thought they were only defending innocents. Is it right to steal from a thief? Is it right to kill a murderer? Revenge is understandable, and even rational (to prevent further attacks), though as a moral question, it depends.

Anarchy is about freedom. Am I free? Free from what? People who believe in the NAP would say the ideal is when peaceful people are free from the initiation of force. If a man could do whatever he wanted without consequences that harmed him physically, he would be free from violence. If he was the one controlling others through the threat of violence, he would be exercising power over them, which means taking away their freedom.

So, am I free? Well, if I am able to do what I want with this book and not get threatened with violence by someone, I am free to the extent that is true. At any minute someone could sweep through my window and point a gun at my head for saying these things. The chances of that happening are one way to measure how free I am. What if I smoked drugs in the street? If the locals force me to stop or go away, I am not free due to social pressures. If civilians do not care what I smoke but law enforcement does, I am not free because of the state.

I might also be free to hurl racist slurs, or even incite violence, without anyone restraining me. Is that good? It depends on how the culture perceives the morality of the actions and the severity of their consequences. It also depends on how strong the state's hold on the population is. These are hard questions, and I do not have the answers. People left to themselves will come up with rules, as they always do.

It has been said that libertarianism (within which anarchists might count themselves) is the radical notion that other people are not your property. What is meant by that? It means no one can decide what is right for a peaceful person of sound mind except the individual him or herself. Not violating the life, liberty and property of innocents is a moral duty. Obedience to laws and orders is not.

To end this discussion, please bear in mind the NAP is my suggestion. In a voluntary society, there will inevitably be considerable diversity among the different sets of rules people will adopt. Nonetheless, many of them will likely approach the idea of non-aggression as the norm of behaviour, as many unruled societies do.

The rule of law and the social contract are, do whatever the political class tells you to do or risk violence. The rule of freedom is, initiating violence against unwilling and peaceful people is immoral. Some communities, such as Grafton and Yubia (which we will learn more about in part 5) are built around strict adherence to the NAP. As a voluntaryist, I believe society should put non-aggression at the center of its philosophy.

04 The problem with democracy

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. – Edward Abbey

###### And now that the legislators and do gooders have futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems. And try liberty. – Frederic Bastiat

###### It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellow men. – George E. MacDonald

Sometimes when I advocate the abolition of government, or even hint I disagree with the idea of government, democrats will say, "if you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Or sometimes I get "go live in the woods!" Why they think people with different ideas should live somewhere else implies they feel threatened. What they are admitting with their comments, besides a closed mind and an ignorance of the philosophy they are condemning with such conviction, is the only way you can be free of the violence of the state is hide from it. We'll talk about Somalia in chapter 9. For now, let's talk about democracy.

This book focuses on democracy as a form of government because democracy is held as the ideal. Democratic states grant more freedom than dictatorships. Most of what I write in this book pertains doubly to dictatorships.

Democracy does not have to be about government. Anthropologist David Graeber says "Anarchism is democracy without the government. Most people love democracy, but most people don't like the government very much. Keep one, take away the other–that's anarchism. Anarchism is direct democracy." He elaborates. "Anarchism is the commitment to the idea that it is possible to have a society based on principles of self-organization, voluntary association and mutual aid." We do not need a state to have democracy. This chapter is for people who believe we do. Democracy can exist in civil society, but civil society is the antithesis of the state, because it is based on voluntary association, rather than violence. Civil society is that part of life that does not need to be forced but arises spontaneously. Statist democracy, on the other hand, has not lived up to its promises.

The worst form of government except for all the others

Because democracies have more freedom than dictatorships, people's ideas stop there, and democracy is good enough. But democrats tend to believe we need government, because without it we would have chaos, we would be killing each other, we would be dominated by Nazis or something like that. I don't think so. If the people agree there should be no government, it will be because they realise they do not want to be forced to comply with the whims of a small group of self-interested powermongers. They will defend themselves against tyranny, closing the power vacuum and living contentedly with real freedom and responsibility.

From my point of view, anarchy can only become widespread when voluntary institutions take the place of government ones, which will take time. A sudden implosion of government would not be a good thing. Think of all the people who depend on government, from those on welfare to the police and the military. What would they do if they suddenly lost their jobs and all their power? But a gradual replacement of government would obviate this eventuality, as detailed in parts 4 and 5.

Some people believe a democratic government is the collective will of the people, and congress or parliament is the talking shop for organising society and getting things done collectively. Is it true? If so, then government would be where we make suggestions of what we should do as a society and try to find the best information and use it to help each other. Parliamentarians would actively elicit opinions from the people, rather than from special interest groups. If it were true, there would be no compulsion. But there is. Government forces you to do everything it says. Every time a law is passed, you have a new order to follow.

Political science students like me are told democracy means consent, or government relies on both consent and coercion. And yet, as Spooner made clear, none of us have ever given our consent to be ruled by this clique of decision makers and their campaign contributors. They impose their will on society, which usually benefits an elite minority at the expense of the majority, or else (far less often than one might think) benefits the majority despite a minority. Either way, we signed no contracts stipulating we would follow their orders. Take the compulsion to do whatever the police tell us, whether or not it benefits us or society. In a world of contracts, just because we are offered protection from an organisation, it does not follow that we have to accept or pay for it. There are cheap, peaceful and voluntary alternatives to police, armies and federal drug administrations that would make the world better. But the state is jealous and does not like rivals.

Consent cannot be given in the presence of force. No one consents to monopoly. If we accept it, it is only because we have no choice. We are forced to pay taxes. If we are already being forced, it is too late to ask if we give our permission. When did we agree to this system? When were we ever asked? But, we are told, this a democracy. We _chose_ our "leaders". We can petition them if we want a change. We do not actually need to give consent, because the democratic process forces accountability. People thus accept and rationalise the taking of taxes and the obedience to law as good, important and necessary, even when they disagree with what the money is being spent on or what the laws say. If they could avoid being forced, how many people would withdraw consent? We do not know. We do not have that freedom. Government is compulsion; your consent is not required.

If you think you know what is right for others, for society and the world, fine: let's talk about it. If I think you are right, I will help you put your ideas in practice. But why do you think you would need to use violence to impose what is right on others? Unless everyone agrees with you, why would it be right to force them? If you try to influence politics and laws, you are making an extraordinary claim about how wise you are--you know so well what is right for others it is right to impose your opinion by force.

When we stop forcing others, everyone's ideas about the right way to associate and cooperate and organise can be tried, change is consensual and easier, and everyone can live the way they think is right. The extent to which that is the case in any society demonstrates the numerous benefits of diversity—diversity in nearly everything: ideas, knowledge, media, culture and economy—inasmuch as diversity is permitted within the legal or social environment.

But the democracy-means-consent fallacy persists. We are further told a cornerstone of democracy is majority rule. I would be against the forcing of minorities to do what the majority told them if I believed it existed. But there is no such thing as "majority rule". Democracy, in its modern form, necessitates a government, and a government is a ruling minority. Voting every few years and hoping one's vote has an effect does not mean one is in charge. All government is minority rule. As Will Durant said, "the political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority." Oligarchy is the norm.

Force changes everything. Force is the reason government does not have to do what you want, in other words why it is not accountable. Force is why government is not and does not have to be efficient, because if you do not like it, you cannot change it. Sure, you could vote for a different party, but when was the last time voting made government efficient, or stop lying, or stop promising things it had no intention of delivering? Force is the reason no one can control government spending: government has the power to take as much of your money as it wants, short of inciting revolution. That is why government spending grows gradually but inexorably. And force is the reason we cannot opt out of anything the government does: if you live in this country (and that is every country), you pay and you obey. It is not we as a society who have decided, but they as a small group who have, and elections will not change that. The sad thing is most of us do not see the gun pointed at us, and even respect the people holding it.

Not all governments and politicians are bad, of course, just like not every policeman is a bully. Some do actually provide leadership. Some have done things that have benefited their societies. The examples of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Botswana come to mind as states that may (though it is impossible to know for sure without changing the past) have done great things for the economies of their countries (though the victims of the overt violence might be ambivalent). However, these are the exceptions, not the rule. Moreover, in economies that are competitive, with decent education systems and private-sector and grassroots leadership, there is no more need for governments. They have served their purpose, and can write themselves out of existence.

I recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's _Democracy: the God that Failed_ for a rigorous indictment of democracy. Hoppe poses a variety of interesting hypotheses based on praxeology (the method of Austrian economics) and demonstrates their validity with historical data. He demonstrates the shift from monarchy to democracy over the past century has meant higher taxes, higher debt, more inflation, higher interest rates, more bureaucracy and the regulation of literally everything.

It is a pity the government is so desperate to squeeze every last drop of tax milk it can from us cattle, and so afraid independence from its cold hands will expose the naked emperor whose rule we are not allowed to opt out of. It is even sadder democrats think that is a good thing. Through their support of government, democrats promote violence against me and you and everyone. Call me crazy, but I think a more moral, free and peaceful society would be one where we could choose where our money goes, what services we pay for and receive, and where the natural laws of reciprocity, cooperation and competition replace violently forcing us to do whatever the elites tell us to.

The consent of the governed

Democracy or no democracy, to say that people get the government they deserve is wrong. It would be true if the government were made up of all the people deliberating and coming to a consensus on the best way forward. If that were what modern democracy was, I would agree with the notion. But it does not follow. The ruling class shapes public opinion. The state finds ways to legitimise the use of force against people and people go along with it because they do not know any better.

If it were the other way round, and the people were truly in charge, they would have the government they deserved. But how is it fair to expect people to know about and obey every law passed over them? How is it reasonable to expect everyone to educate themselves to the point they can question everything the government does? What if they have better things to do? And how could they be expected to fight back against every policy they disagree with? They are not; they are expected to obey. They are forced into the system. They are told how to think. They are given the option between Guy A who will make his own decisions and Guy B who will make his own decisions. And democracy was supposed to be about choices. To say we have the government we deserve is like a woman saying she deserves to have been beaten by her husband because she has misbehaved. A woman might believe that, but if she were free, she would probably think otherwise.

Since she is not free, however, she might hate you for suggesting she leave her abusive relationship. Democrats often do the same. They tend not to listen to the reasons anarchy is worth considering. Democrats are people who believe initiating force against innocent people is okay, as long as the use of force has widespread public support, or the results of that force are perceived to go toward some kind of "greater good". Most people think they know what is best for society. Democrats and other statists believe their version of the truth, whatever it is, should be forced on everyone else, however much of other people's money it costs. That is why they vote and participate in politics. They want their guy to gain power and so they can push their beliefs on everyone else. If we did away with government and the popularity contests of elections, no one would force you to follow their favourite policies, and you would not be so angry whenever your party loses.

But even if somehow you believe initiating force is legitimate, in which case we disagree on what constitutes morality, it does not seem very wise to me to fall for the illusion your "representatives" actually represent you, politicians are who they say they are and who the media say they are. Have you ever noticed whenever the person you elect gets into office, they do a couple of things you like and a whole bunch of things you don't like? Do you think you just picked the wrong guy? Do these people truly represent you in any meaningful way?

One reason they do not might be that your guy writes and votes on bills that cover the whole spectrum, from regulating plumbing to the military budget. As you are an individual, you are likely to have a wide variety of opinions and values that differ from your representative's, in which case he cannot logically claim to represent you. No one else knows everything this man does in his day. Whom is he meeting with? Whom is he making deals with? What kind of laws does he promise to pass? When you vote, you vote for a person who does not know your values, and does not really care, partly because he already has his own ideas and values, and partly because when people get into office they rarely do what they said they would do while campaigning.

Securing the vote

It does not matter what they say. People will say anything to get elected. Whatever voter polling recommends, the politicians will say; and whatever the electorate bites down hardest on carries the election. The people who get elected are the people who have the best scripts and look best in a tie: good actors. Barack Obama might be the most disappointing example, but voters handed him another four years. Mitt Romney could not find a convincing excuse for Barack's killing of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al Awlaki and the other terrorist masterminds the CIA obliterated with a missile from an unmanned aircraft right before the election. The things most voters remember from campaigns are trivia. The electorate has already forgotten everything Barack said on the campaign trail, and now he is free to roam the halls of power and collect as much of it as he can.

Many believed Barack would save the day, but why? What did he have to offer but charisma and promises? "The election of Obama was one more triumph of illusion over substance," writes Chris Hedges. "It was skillful manipulation and betrayal of the public by a corporate power elite. We mistook style and ethnicity—an advertising tactic pioneered by Calvin Klein and Benetton—for progressive politics and genuine change."

How disappointing. The one guy we thought would save the day turned out to be yet another stooge controlled by lobby groups. We thought politics and government would get better this time, even though it never does.

Politicians do not have to do what their voters want, and are there to enrich themselves. See if you agree. Stephen Walt asks you to consider the following questions.

[H]ow many contemporary political leaders do you genuinely admire? How many of them would rate a paragraph, let alone a whole chapter, in a revised edition of Profiles in Courage? How many of them seem capable of giving you a straight answer to a hard question, as opposed to offering you a lot of happy double-talk? How many of them are better at making a powerful speech than they are at taking a principled stand and sticking to it? How many of them have really got your back, as opposed to pandering to the endless parade of well-heeled lobbyists and special interest groups? Is there a political leader in your country who is not for sale?

There may be one or two. Not all politicians are bad people, whatever that means. That is a stereotype. But that is no reason to support the system. Humans have the tendency to rationalise things according to what they already believe. Statists look at the actions of the small percentage of politicians or dictators who they believe are good overall, and consider it evidence the system can work for the people. However, when has there ever been a large enough number of such people in the system to make a difference? Why wait around for enough such people to materialise? Why do we need politicians to do what the people want when the people could do it themselves? Why submit to the will of people we know cannot be trusted?

And yet, even though unaccountability to constituents is pretty much an iron law of democratic politics, people often stick by their guy. I can see two reasons for that. First, a lot of the things politicians do that we don't like, we don't find about. How much time has your local representative spent meeting with lobby groups? How did he vote on the last five bills? How could you know? You have better things to do than track his every step. Politics is so complicated, and yet we are expected to follow and participate in it.

Second, humans—yes, me too—tend to believe most things we do are right, and we become more and more convinced those things were right over time. That is how we can stand up for people we voted for in the face of any kind of miscreant behaviour. But that behaviour continues, and it will continue, because any time you give someone that much power, they no longer need to listen to the people who gave it to them.

Democracy as religion

Democracy does not mean things get better, either. Take the development of law over time, as laws pile up over the years and they are interpreted whichever way a corruptible person can. Some laws are written so vaguely they grant the state very broad powers. That said, the writing of a law is less important than its future interpretation, which cannot be predicted. David Friedman points out "[i]t took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress."

But most people do not understand democracy in this way. The rhetoric of democracy has convinced people the rights or freedoms they want are what the elites say they want, such as the right to vote and protection from terrorism. But if people want more than that, such as the freedom not to follow laws, democracy affords them no protection. Democracy is like a forced marriage. Your father tells you you can marry either this man or that man. What if you wanted to marry another man? What if you did not want to get married?

It has also made its adherents so keen on their ideology they want to export and even impose it on others. As soon as there is a crisis in an authoritarian state, some democrats rush in and push for a new government. This place needs to become a democracy, so that we, who possess the revealed truth, can remake this society in our own image. However, when a new government is encouraged, it is frequently no better than the last. What is needed (and may already exist) in these situations is a grassroots culture of self-reliance, so that government is redundant. Afghanistan is an obvious case of people who reject central government, and do just fine without it, but are having to fight against its imposition on them. Do not expect the bloodshed there to end while statists are promoting their inappropriate model of coercive, centralised institutions on Afghanis. (Find more on Afghanistan in chapter 28.)

The culture war in the US is of particular interest. The so-called liberal, so-called conservative divide is over how to use government power to coerce people into morality. Conservatives believe government cannot eliminate poverty, discrimination, guns, smoking and drinking. However, when it is time to fight crime, abortion, drugs, foreign dictators, or anything else Christ would be against, we need more money and we can save the world. When the government fails to deliver, it is because not enough money was allocated for it, or because of too much liberal opposition. Liberals, on the other hand, think it is silly to try to eliminate crime, drugs and dictators with the government, but they are more than happy to use the government to fight poverty, discrimination, gun ownership, etc.

Democracy is outsourcing problems like education, health care and security to an institution with such a long record of corruption, inefficiency and incompetence which, if it were a business competing in a free market, would never win another contract. The roads are one of those issues some people who live where the state has built the roads for the past few generations believe people would rather outsource to the state. But why? Among other issues at hand are large amounts of people's money getting squandered. We probably want at least a measure of control over the building of roads in our own neighbourhoods, rather than leaving it to a planning committee over which we have no influence. In a free society, we can still delegate the building of the roads to someone, which would be a company or other group who will gain something from it. Competing companies, or people volunteering, would be accountable, cheaper and able to innovate in ways the state has no incentive to do. But the government does not compete in a free market, and does not let us have control. It is a monopoly kept in place by force.

Monopolies promote abuse. It is dangerous when there are seats of power waiting to be filled and no peaceful route to power. Rival governments mean bloodshed. But that is not an argument for a peaceful route to power, but for the elimination of those seats and the decentralisation of power, so that no one dominates anyone else.

And because government is so powerful, the struggle for the reins of government leads to conflict. It may only be conflict between friends, as they can't agree on the right parties and policies; or it might mean violent power struggles such as the ones created in the vacuum of power created in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. That kind of situation is not anarchic because there is still a government, but the seats are empty. If there is a government structure people can take control of, they will fight over it. Unaware that none of the candidates will do what they want, people actually spend time and money to bring them to power. Democracy divides the masses in favour of the elites, when they should be uniting against them, or else just ignoring them.

Someone represent me

Being on a national level makes things far less representative. The lower the level, the easier it is to represent others and hold representatives to account. The only reason so many people do not care so much about local politics is the issues are less important. Health care, education, foreign policy and billions or trillions of dollars are often national or federal jurisdictions. But why? Can they only be decided on by elites with minimal ties to their constituencies? Can such important policies only be carried out by sprawling, faceless bureaucracies? The larger the government, the less accountable and efficient it is. Of course, the elites like the national nature of government because one can amass power and resources from such a wide space. That is why they promote nationalism, and why they lead everyone to assume important issues can only be done by a national government. But it does not help the people, and is not based on consent.

How could an election or a national government decision possibly represent the will of the people when it leaves them so divided? Consensus is impossible at this level, hence the use of force. People tend to say there are certain decisions that can only be taken on a national level. But why do we need a nation at all? History shows nations themselves are creations of elites to consolidate their power over the widest possible territory, and are kept in place by feelings of nationalism spread by contemporary elites.

It might be for nationalist pride that democracies, though they rarely attack each other, tend to be more aggressive toward other states than undemocratic regimes. Democracies often adopt a crusading spirit they feel gives them the right or even duty to kill all terrorists, overthrow undemocratic regimes, and promote democracy, however many people have to die; and pressure from the people sometimes necessitates war in order to stay in power.

Many groups have demonstrated that the unrepresentative, divisive and coercive nature of politics is not necessary to get things done. Most recently, Occupy Wall Street came together through self organisation; it based its decisions on consensus; it conducted decision-making with complete transparency; and it carried out those decisions without force. This is the ideal form of democracy, long forgotten in the modern state. Many societies around the world do the same, as could we if we were not born into relationships of forced hierarchy where we do what we are told wherever we live. If we could vote for no one, and decide to do things for ourselves, we could be free and independent. But we cannot. We must do as our masters tell us.

Perhaps we could let local communities and neighbourhoods decide things. Then, at least it would be easier to change the laws through dialogue with the decision makers, and more reasonable to ask people to move if they do not like them. It would also mean those who plunder the public coffers would be shunned by their neighbours, a major disincentive to anti-social behaviour. But the ideal is probably to let people decide as individuals. There is no "popular will" because everyone wants different things. Only individuals can decide what is right for themselves, and since each individual represents him or herself, the sum total of their decisions is the collective will of the people.

Democracy in our age means political figures control the making of a variety of decisions on behalf of everyone else, and the bureaucracy and security apparatus carry out all those decisions by force. The state still exists and the point of the state is to concentrate power. Elections and political parties cost a lot of money, they are divisive, they do not bring you freedom, and they rarely make things better. It is rather unusual to see democrats happy with the outcome of an election, and satisfied with the government for more than a few months. I guess they accept it with the hope that one day, some time, the right party will win, and then things will get better. When you grow tired of waiting, please consider the alternative.

05 We need to be forced: human nature and the Leviathan

One of the most influential philosophers of the Anglo-Saxon world was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argued from his perspective of human nature that without an all-powerful force, which he called the Leviathan, to rule over us, we would live in a state of nature, which he viewed as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hobbes provided a pretty frightening view of human nature, but unfortunately for him it has been largely disproven by science in the past few generations. Unfortunately for us, the legacy of the Leviathan is with us to this day.

Here are some facts on which scholars of human nature are pretty sure. First, we are endowed with a sense of reciprocity. In other words, if you do something for me, I feel indebted to you and will do something for you. That is why we have been trading for so many years. Pre-state traders did not need governments to secure contracts because they understood the principle of reciprocity, the fact that everyone would look down on you if you broke a deal, and that you could make lots of money if you kept your word. As Richard Dawkins puts it in Nice Guys Finish First,

Of course there is a great deal of cooperation in human society. A city...could never have been built or maintained without huge amounts of cooperation between its inhabitants over centuries. And we do it naturally, of our free will, without having to be forced into it. But is our cooperation to do with our ability to think deeply, rationally and philosophically, or have our brains evolved as advanced social organs, designed to police tit for tat reciprocity, to calculate past favours, balance debts; an organ of social calculation designed to make us feel angry when we feel we've been cheated and guilty when we know we are the cheat?

Cooperation beats cheating over time. eBay is modern proof of this fact: if you keep your word, your reputation is secured; if you cheat someone, don't expect to make any more deals. We have evolved to trade with each other, and trade is all about sharing benefits. And since most people do keep their word, eBay works out pretty well.

Second, to address another major argument of statists, it is believed that without force, many of the great things we have would never get done. For instance, taking care of people in the hospital. If people were not forced to pay for each other, they would be dying. We are all selfish, therefore we need the state (either run by good, unselfish people or forced by good, unselfish citizens), to embody our collective goodwill. I do not really understand where these arguments come from. People believe in schools and hospitals. They donate to charities all the time. No taxation would mean we would have that much more to donate.

You see, another feature of our nature is sympathy. Sympathy is natural, not only in humans but in most mammals and birds, in fact. It stems from the parental instinct to take care of people who are weaker and needier. And the further our awareness of others extends, from our children to our family to our community to our nation and, for more and more people nowadays, to all humans, the more strongly we believe we should give. That is why every culture and religion considers helping and sacrificing for others a virtue. It is why you probably give up your seat to old, crippled or pregnant people on the bus. Taking care of others is known to lead to happiness, calmness and even the alleviation of physical pain. Right now, governments are organised along national lines, which means the people we are forced to pay for are part of our exclusive national group. But charitable giving, the virtuous side of income redistribution, crosses borders, to anyone we feel is deserving. Why? Because of our ability to sympathise.

What if we do not want to pay for the War on Drugs, the War on Cancer, the War on Afghanistan or any of the other big-government policies that are working out so well? Well, we could petition the government; we could protest; we could ask really nicely; we could go into politics. But all those things a lot of time, and it is an uphill battle against insider special interests. And what if there is more than one program or law we dislike? We eliminate one after a huge national campaign, and then we need to run another to eliminate the next. Besides, what often happens is even if a government caves and repeals a law you spend a million dollars and a million days trying to have repealed, they can still introduce some other bill that, on the surface is different but whose substance is the same. And that happens a lot more than I would like to think. Isn't there a simpler way?

How about I just pay for the things I want to pay for? I'll give to sick people; at least, to sick people who can't afford insurance. I'll give to children who need an education; at least, to those who can't afford it. Or I will teach them myself. And I bet you will too. Giving feels good. That's universal. It's virtuous. Being forced does not make you virtuous, and neither does voting for someone who will force others.

Government cannot force virtue. If it could, then surely all the good things would have been done already. Surely poverty would have been eliminated, cancer would have been cured and everyone would be happy. But that is not the case. Government has not done any of those things. So not only are we being forced to take care of the poor, the poor aren't even being taken care of! That is the illusion of government.

But there are some jerks out there, right? So if everyone pays "their fair share", whatever the government decides that is, no one can cheat, right? No one would just get a free ride on roads someone else paid for. In fact, we have people like that already. Anyone who does not pay much tax (including, say, a government employee who pays less in taxes than he makes in taxpayer dollars) is a free rider that way.

Again, we cannot force virtue. Giving makes you virtuous, and when you do, not only do you feel good but you look better in the eyes of others. Saving the life of a child playing by the railroad tracks does not benefit you personally but doing so would earn you the respect and admiration of your community. You have an interest in doing it. Selfish people who would let that child die would be turned away by their community as heartless or cruel. Those people lose out big time in life.

Back to the free riders. We do not need everyone to give to cancer research to eliminate cancer, or for everyone to pay for a school to have a school. Only enough people who really believe in it need to give. Everyone else can contribute to their causes, and we can solve society's problems without force.

What does it even mean to all be selfish? Does it mean we are all anti-social? Murray Rothbard makes the point that

_no_ social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are 'good' in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully _any_ social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the 'nature of man', given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that needs to be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.

Because it is assumed "we are all selfish", it is inferred we will all free ride, and nothing would ever get done. Not only do I not know why you would think we simply cannot organise ourselves long enough to agree to build a road, I would like to give an example of when I think that point has been disproven.

I live in Egypt, a country that has just gone through a revolution. During the revolution, the police were off the streets and the government sent thugs around to terrorise the people into accepting the police back into their lives. However, the people organised and defended their neighbourhoods, museums and other buildings, and each other in the face of violence. Not only did they defend themselves well, they provided each other with food and water, gaining a feeling of community and comradeship in the process, and as my friend told me, the streets had never been cleaner. Hundreds of local committees sprang up in response to the violence, making it obvious that even after literally millennia of repression, the people can put together a civil society in less than 48 hours.

Families of over 70 people who died in the revolution from the Cairo neighbourhood of al-Zawya al-Hamra said they did not want the police back on their streets. They had had enough of systematic abuses by the organisation that, more than any other, is supposed to be governed by the rule of law. As I walk around post-revolutionary Egypt today, I wonder what the government would be useful for. Entire neighbourhoods are bereft of police (whose roles have been reduced to those of traffic cops) and yet crime is minimal. I wonder why others would want to deny people their freedom and force them to pay for state boondoggles, like the third subway line that has been under construction for the past generation. I think it is wrong of people to try to push their ideology on people who so obviously do not need it.

The example of Egypt should not be surprising, however, to anyone who took part in the abortive uprisings against communism in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and during the Cuban Revolution. While historians busy themselves with the proclamations and deliberations of the politicians, they do not see the people in the streets taking care of each other and of the property around them. Workers in Prague worked for free, and food was distributed. The people in Hungary were without coercive authority for weeks, and no one stole or got drunk. The only violence was against the hated security police. Otherwise, the state was nowhere to be found.

Now consider your community. Consider the hospitals. Imagine all public funding for and government control over hospitals ended. Would the hospitals close immediately? If the patients or the patients' relatives could not pay for all the services they need, would no one else? Would no one volunteer? Compassionate people—most people—already believe those people should have some care, however they believe is the best way to provide it. They would contribute something.

Self organisation, or spontaneous order, is a fact of nature, and not just human nature. It characterises everything from the development of the universe and the evolution of life on Earth to herd behaviour to language, the internet, the market economy, the flow of traffic and the Egyptian revolution. Social order will happen with or without a government, as it always has. People make and accept new rules all the time. For instance, children in schools for the deaf who do not yet know sign language create their own in staggeringly short spaces of time. Most people who say we need a political or social hierarchy do not understand this aspect of life. And spontaneous order allocates resources far more efficiently than any kind of hierarchy, planning and centralised national leadership could. Some democrats seem to believe a few smart, disinterested people should guide the economy and guide our choices. But no one possesses the vast amount of knowledge required to do so. Even the manufacture of a pencil has no one mastermind at the top directing every move. The only way to have freedom and benefit from it is to let things happen. The "invisible hand" (see chapter 30) takes care of the rest.

Spontaneous order and other natural laws are why we do not need to be ruled by others. Jeffrey Tucker says, "Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owed to it.... [W]e need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place."

Rules already exist in every society, regardless of the presence of a government to enforce them its own way, and new rules would arise in the absence of government. People who disagree tend to think the end of the Leviathan would mean everyone would start killing each other. But why would we break from the rules we have already agreed upon? Would you? Do you know anyone you think would? So who would? With a few exceptions, the same people who are doing it now. And they can kill people because police do not _prevent_ crime but _punish_ it. The threat of punishment is a deterrent, of course, but we have crime nonetheless. The roots of violence are complex, but the reason most of us do not commit violent crimes probably has much to do with rules. The argument sometimes then goes back to the opportunist psychopath who will build a militia to take power...and the voluntaryist wonders about the difference between that and a government. At least if the people had their freedom, they could and would defend it.

Not only do we follow rules when others are around, most of us have internalised most rules of our culture to the extent we follow them when no one is looking, and feel guilty when we transgress them. Many of us are opposed to lying, and most avoid weaving a web of deception. We risk gossip and shaming, and even fear an omnipresent celestial ruler who doles out punishment for crimes no matter how many humans know about them. Furthermore, reputation is important to most humans, because the worse our reputation, the more trouble we have getting what we want in business and other relationships. Trying to fake generosity, sincerity and rule-obedience is problematic, because people notice inconsistencies and facial giveaways. Those 96% to 99% of us who are not psychopathic have consciences, which influence our behaviour in all kinds of pro-social ways.

We are also able to take responsibility for ourselves. Anarchy means both liberty and responsibility. "With power comes responsibility" is paradoxical: power necessarily takes away responsibility. Statists who say they believe in liberty with responsibility seem to believe the government is our collective conscience. Only individuals have consciences. Denying them their liberty, in any form, means denying them the opportunity to take responsibility, and asking someone else (someone who will use violence) to be responsible for us. Give them the right to act on their consciences and they will, in general, act responsibly.

Unfortunately, our conscience is in combat with our sense of obedience to authority. Stanley Milgram demonstrated that about 6 out of 10 people will follow, to the bitter end, the commands of an authority figure. They might torture and kill, but if they can devolve responsibility to a higher authority and claim to have been obeying orders, people are capable of anything. That is why anarchists want to smash coercive hierarchies, eliminate institutionalised violence where any psychopath can get his or her hands on it and have everyone question authority.

The propensity to establish and obey authority must be resisted. It is not necessary to dominate others. The drive to dominate is partly a result of fear. As the actor playing Thabo Mbeki in Endgame puts it, "We know that you Afrikaners have paid in blood for your country, as we have. We know, too, that it was from your suffering that the system of apartheid was incubated. The need to dominate is often a consequence of survival." Later, in private, an Afrikaner professor says that the fear was that white people would be punished for all the injustice they had created. Dominance is part of our nature as well. Creating institutions of peacekeeping is still important.

It is worth considering one of the main reasons Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined gives for the thesis of his book is the Leviathan. Violence has declined, he says, because of the existence of a state with a legal monopoly on violence that has disarmed or perhaps just pacified its citizens. I do not disagree with his assessment. It is impossible to say, of course, what the world would have been like if 100 or 200 or 1000 or 5000 years ago people had decided to abolish states, kingdoms and empires. I still think people would have organised to protect themselves and do everything else they wanted. Nonetheless, if we are dealing with the world as it is, there is still no reason to believe we need government for the future. Things are different now.

Some small-scale tribes engage in warfare on far deadlier scales than the industrialised world experiences. As Dr Pinker's book propounds, we have become more "civilised". We have complex and diverse societies with rules and leaders and individuals who want to do things for themselves and others and not hurt people. We cooperate with people we do not meet and make friends with people from countries we have never heard of. Trade and cultural exchange have made us far less warlike. Peace, freedom, justice and equality have become selfless aspirations for the whole world. As such, I wonder if Dr Pinker misdiagnoses the problem, believing it is lack of central authority keeping everyone at bay, rather than lack of exposure to complex societies. If the power of the state went away over time, taking its wars, its police states, its expensive health care and poor education systems with it, we would still engage in commerce, give to the needy and organise. In fact, we would do so more than today, as most trade and movement are only hindered by the state.

Here is one more fact about human nature. Humans have an unconscious bias in favour of decisions we have already made and beliefs we already hold, because we believe we are right and we want to be certain of it. As a result, when we vote, we are far more likely to believe we voted for the right person than not, even in the face of evidence the guy is a crook. It is much easier to continue to believe something than to change one's mind. That applies to religions and democracy as ideas. Anyone who has learned and discussed with people why democracy is best, anyone who has participated in democracy, will have a hard time accepting a new idea. Just the idea of no longer being forced will take time to understand. But it is worth understanding.

06 The difference between government and leadership

Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners. – Edward Abbey

Government is often called leadership, as in the phrase "this country needs new leadership". I believe this thinking conflates two ideas that might, in fact, be opposites.

Leaders inspire others into action by showing their capabilities. They expound their visions and say "let's move toward it together". Those who believe in them will follow, and those who do not are free to stay behind. Governments, by contrast, tell people what to do and force them to act. They force them to pay for everything the government does and force them to follow every rule they make. When a leader makes a rule, you follow it or you are off the team; or perhaps you could discuss it with the leader; or you could prove yourself a better leader and encourage people to follow you. If a politician makes a rule, either you follow it, or you go to jail. A leader rarely forces anyone, or else he or she loses followers and the work does not get done. Leaders treat people as a team working together; governments treat people like cattle who are producing to feed the government's choice of projects. Leaders make hard decisions and take responsibility for them. Governments avoid hard decisions until they are politically necessary, by which time it may be too late to salvage anything, and they avoid all responsibility by blaming predecessors, foreigners, minorities or the free market. To think of politicians as leaders seems rather ironic.

Leadership and organisation may be required from time to time, but the state is a permanent institution, "an organisation of one class dominating over the other classes. Such a class organization can come about in one way only, namely, through conquest and the subjection of ethnic groups by the dominating group."

People can be easily manipulated by charismatic people. But how does charisma make one a better leader? By tricking others into following them? If one is in a voluntary relationship with someone, taken in by charisma, yet able to notice they are dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, unintelligent or lacking judgment, one can break off that relationship, or at least talk to the other about it. If one is unfortunate enough to be subject to the coercion of someone with any of these traits, one is in trouble.

Egyptians and other victims of public schools in dictatorships believe "we need a strong leader" to tell us what to do. But another trait of a good leader is that there is sufficient mutual trust that team members can be trusted to make their own decisions based on their own judgment. When there is a conflict of visions or methods, they discuss it. They might come to a consensus and generate new ideas. When there is a conflict with the vision of government, which may well bring no benefit to the people, the police show up.

We are sometimes told "society needs to be organised." This idea raises a number of questions. Does society not organise itself? Why must it be organised by force? Do rules not arise naturally in all societies? Why do we need a central authority, rather than leaders competing for followers in the marketplace of ideas? How can we trust this single authority? Why does organisation have to take place on a national level? And why is the criminalisation of hemp and lemonade stands, for instance, part of this organisation? The burden of proof for all these matters is on the statist. People self organise when organisation is not forced on them. In Tunisia and Egypt, the people rose up spontaneously against their governments and were successful. But they weren't organised and led by a coercive authority. They were, basically, angry mobs that disprove the hypothesis that we need to be directed or forced from above to get anything done.

Organisation with real leaders can mean real progress toward whatever goals we as groups, however we choose to affiliate, have. Organisation by force is merely the attempt to control us. Force is inimical to society, because society is about voluntary transactions, movement, interaction and association. Governments limit all those things.

Officials are often called incompetent or foolish for something they have done. They may indeed be too incompetent to handle billions of dollars, or create and administer nation-spanning projects, but who isn't? However, with every programme or policy that goes awry, we should entertain the possibility the result was intended. These officials often have the incentive to opt for something other than the general good. It may mean the programme can be amplified and extended. It may benefit the few who are connected to those who made the policy. Real leaders, on the other hand, want success for everyone involved.

Do we really need these so-called leaders? Thomas E. Woods wonders as well.

The problem is the idea that we are helpless boobs who can accomplish nothing without the wise 'leadership' of some guy with the power to expropriate our property and employ violence. To the contrary, the spontaneous order of the marketplace, in which you and I interact peacefully without anyone 'leading' us or issuing commands, has made possible miracles no one could have dreamed of 200 years ago. Why are we still so brainwashed into thinking we need someone to 'lead' in this picture? Live your life and contribute to society in what you do. You do not need to be ordered around to have a fulfilling life.

The great thing about leadership is people can and do create voluntary institutions, organisations and projects to solve the problems government and God do not. Take the issue of poverty. Government has not eliminated it; in fact, it has entrenched it. Not only does the state not care for the poor, the private sector is making up for its shortcomings. Real leadership is producing houses that cost only a few hundred dollars, cheap water filters, cheap medical equipment, cheap solar power generators, and is making a profit. Good thing they do, too. Decades of leaving these things up to government "leadership" is one reason the poor are still poor.

So why do we confuse government with leadership? My guess is, for the same reason we believe the government protects us from immorality, foreign threats, repression, chaos and ignorance: because it says it does. From the school system to government communications, we are led to believe in the inherent necessity and goodness of government, and to call its initiatives leadership. It is a typical case of saying one thing and meaning the opposite, just like when we call dependence "welfare", war "liberation" and dumbing down "education".

I have followed many good leaders and bosses, and have been a leader myself. I follow leaders of competence and integrity. Leaders do not issue orders. They do not need the power of force; the influence of their character is what leads. Some people do not want to follow any leaders, of course, and they should not have to. A leader does not force one's hand. Conflating government with leadership is an insult to true leaders.

07 Propaganda

###### If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. – Malcolm X

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. – Dresden James

If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion. – Noam Chomsky

Many people live in a world of comforting illusion. They harbour the impression they are in charge of their democracy; they think the police protect their rights from bad guys; they think the military defends their freedom from foreigners; they do not want to challenge their own ideas; and they are convinced they are thinking for themselves. They are offered these illusions on a silver plate from every corner: governments, corporations, religious leaders and mainstream media. The collective term for the lies we choose to wrap ourselves in—or get caught up in—is propaganda. For the purpose of this chapter, propaganda refers to all lies and misleading images the state, corporations and the media tell you in order to control you. As you can imagine, there is plenty of it out there.

Among people who read non-mainstream newspapers, much has been made of a recent bill working its way through Congress, which Barack will probably threaten to veto again and sign anyway, making psychological operations, meaning secretive propaganda, legal for use by the government within the US. It should frighten everyone, of course, that what was once used for war on third-world populations is soon going to be the norm for US citizens. But I wonder how much this bill will change what has been the norm for so long.

"Propaganda" was not a bad word until World War Two. In 1928, Edward Bernays wrote a book on the subject, revealing the extent to which the masses were manipulated by a small group of puppeteers, "an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." When one has the tools to see beyond the pretty pictures, to see the puppets' strings, one can understand the power of propaganda.

Because governments take as much of our money as we are willing to put up with, they can afford large "communications" teams. They use them to shape our views on their policies, to make us support their policies for all of their reasons.

But most people realise the government lies. The government has a strong hold over our perceptions, through our history text books, secrecy for national security purposes, and how the media parrot the state's messages. It crafts its message to appeal to us, telling us our brave boys are going to battle it out with terrorists for freedom. Nonetheless, to an extent, people know they are being lied to. The more subtle key to understanding how the ideology of statism is disseminated is to listen to intellectuals. Public intellectuals are the ones who come up with the ideas the people end up taking for granted. Originally, it was the clergy that rationalised the state, and got its share of public revenues in return. Now, the state enlists experts to sell its ideas in the media, and those experts debate what kind of sanctions or bombs to use against Iran while none of them suggest leaving Iran alone. It pays for public education, giving public-school teachers a stake in the status quo. It subsidises professors to sell its ideas to the best and brightest, which is why few ever teach anarchist philosophy or Austrian economics in school. The apologists for the state are rewarded with jobs, prestige and high positions in the planning of the state. It co-opts the people with the intellectual power in society to spread propaganda.

Propaganda, in its broadest conception, creates what Antonio Gramsci called hegemony. The various elements of society influence our consciousness, but the ruling class has the most influence. Since government requires not simply coercion but also some degree of consent (as opposed to revolt), the ruling class projects an image of what the world is, turning what it wants us to believe into "common sense". It is common sense that we need to be governed, for instance, and that democracy means the people are in charge. I studied government for years before I realised it was based on the threat of violence, rather than consent and collective decision making. Hegemony is the pervasive belief in this common-sense conception of the world that enables the ruling class to acquire the consent of the governed. The masses accept the morality, customs and rules handed down to them. Only by learning to think beyond the supposed universal truths imposed on their consciousness can the people shatter the illusions and break free of the ruling class.

Consider the national-security narrative we are exposed to over our lifetimes. We are all Americans/British/Chinese/Turkish. When one of us is under attack by foreigners, all of us are under attack. When foreigners attack or threaten to attack us, it is justified to attack them. When attacking them, whatever needs to happen to subdue them is justified. If innocents get killed, that's the price of it. It is right to take huge amounts of money to build up militaries to enable these things. We are entirely moral in doing all these things, and if you disagree, you hate our country. This and other accepted wisdom is part of the hegemony.

Think of the images associated with this paradigm. Take the photo opportunity. Politicians love going to Afghanistan to get a photo with the troops. It makes their poll numbers rise. Do you think they add that to their calculations when they decide whether or not to prolong the war? People have been told they are citizens, these are their representatives and their representatives' visiting soldiers they sent to Afghanistan for a few minutes on their world tour helps those soldiers. As long as they believe all that, the politicians have their mandate for war. Let me ask you this: How often do the mainstream media show pictures of dead Afghani or Iraqi civilians and present evidence they were killed by the occupiers? Would such pictures aid or hamper the war effort? A magician will tell you his job is about what the eye sees: illusion, not truth. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Take David Cameron's posing with protesters in Tahrir Square in February 2011. All people who yearn for freedom were there in spirit with the protesters. What the shiny smiles hid was the fact that David had just come from touring other restive Arab states with a delegation of British arms dealers. But people do not see beyond the photo op, and are led to believe their government supports freedom.

"The terrorists"

We are programmed to be afraid. How does the use of the word "terrorism" affect us? When we are told the people killed were terrorists, we are given the opportunity to presume the good guys, the soldiers, are killing the bad guys. Our consciences are assuaged, and the killing can continue. Or the word "militant", for instance, not substantially different from "terrorist", really means anyone who was killed by the US military, such as 16-year-old Abdelrahman al Awlaki. Did more than a handful of people speak out against this killing? Would they have denounced it if the media had said a missile had torn apart an innocent teenager with family, friends, hopes and dreams?

Could they use another word that would give it a different meaning? Why don't they use that word? Why do we undergo "liberation" or "intervention" instead of invasion? Why do we kill "militants" instead of people? Does it change how we think about the thing? When detention and torture without trial are labeled "extraordinary rendition", most people turn away in boredom. The most despicable acts are cloaked in jargon and made mundane. Don't worry: we don't torture men, women or children; only insurgents, terrorists and the Taliban.

Like most subjects related to government, there is a double standard at work with propaganda. Surely a society that believed in basic freedoms would not criminalise speech. It grants us the freedom to be wrong and to lie, as long as we do not initiate violence. The government is wrong (as when it said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction). The government lies (as when...well, all the time). It suffers no consequences when caught. Citizens, however, do. Muslims, the new enemy, are targeted in the US all the time for spreading "terrorist propaganda" by speaking out in favour of anti-US-empire terrorism. The US Department of Justice arrested Jubair Ahmad for uploading a video to Youtube the DOJ considered "material support" for terrorists. He might be locked up indefinitely. The FBI called what he posted propaganda. One wonders how much of what the FBI says is not.

But who is the real terrorist? Anarchists frequently point out the hypocrisy of the state in its justification of everything it does as criminal (and immoral) for everyone else. Terrorism could mean spreading terror through whatever means. Instead, it is an empty word used to fool ignorant people and give them a tool to beat over the head of dissenters. That way, the state has its mandate to engage in a range of destructive activities.

Thus, words matter. We are flooded with words like "national security". Those two words have been used to justify everything from aggressive (sorry, "preventive") war to secret meetings between politicians and lobby groups. The UK government told the world Afghanistan's Helmand province was vital to British national security, presumably for the same reasons Guam is to that of the US. The term is ambiguous, because it is used for every priority of the ruling class. It is used so often as to be meaningless. But in the wake of 9/11, everything is justified if it is national security.

It is used to glorify military service, along with words like "sacrifice", "duty" and "honour". Militaries market themselves to the populaces that support them by various channels. The US military has been in bed with Hollywood for decades. The Pentagon provides moviemakers with real aircraft, tanks and soldiers for all manner of movies, in return for a favourable image. It has created an exciting, video game-like perception of what it does, instead of the reality of raining fire on villages in distant parts of the world to kill one person deemed a "high-value target".

It is not only in security matters that the state lies. It misinforms and distorts the truth at every turn. Take, for instance, how it has skewed employment figures (in this, an election year) by quietly removing 1.2m unemployed people from the list and celebrating it as a win. Too many media report official numbers without really questioning them. People can believe the economy is picking up, even though they see no evidence of it, and will vote for the incumbent, even though Barack has made things worse.

The mainstream media

But the state is not the only source of propaganda. Any medium that produces disinformation, lies, coverups, or deliberately misleading images and words is propaganda. The media have been lying to us about war for a hundred years. Look at the way some of the most popular media soften up the language of the war for Afghanistan. While Afghans protested the repeated killing and desecration of the bodies of their friends and family, media like the New York Times said they were protesting the burning of Qurans only. "Armed with rocks, bricks, pistols and wooden sticks, protesters angry over the burning of Qurans at the largest American base in Afghanistan this week took to the streets in demonstrations in a half-dozen provinces on Wednesday that **left at least seven dead** and many more injured." Not only were the protesters "armed"; as As'ad AbuKhalil observed, "notice that there is no killer in the phrasing." People reading do not have to blame the killers—perhaps protesting killed the people. They portrayed the protests as irrational acts of outrage, just anger over a book. Glenn Greenwald gives an apt analogy:

[J]ust imagine what would happen if a Muslim army invaded the US, violently occupied the country for more than a decade, in the process continuously killing American children and innocent adults, and then, outside of a prison camp it maintained where thousands of Americans were detained for years without charges and tortured, that Muslim army burned American flags—or a stack of bibles—in a garbage dump. Might we see some extremely angry protests breaking out from Americans against them? Would American pundits be denouncing those protesters as blinkered, primitive fanatics?

There is no reason to trust the New York Times or the Washington Post. Their kowtowing to power in the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom should have put them out of business and led their heads to hang in shame. Both papers issued apologies—over a year too late—and no one in the newsrooms suffered any consequences. Why would we pay attention to them at all anymore?

Various estimates of the real death toll of that war have come out in the hundreds of thousands; the number may have reached a million. But mainstream media outlets do not report a million. They report low-end estimates of tens of thousands, sometimes adding the words "at least". Regardless, people are more affected emotionally when shown a human face and story. Which Iraqi humans did the media choose to profile? The insurgents. All the more reason to dig in one's heels and keep fighting.

But whom can we trust? The US government censors nearly every media outlet in the country, and there are numerous marriage ties between news organisations and the White House. If the state does not want Americans to know something, they will probably not find out. Censorship makes it easier to produce conformity of thought and opinion, reducing the number of issues discussed and the scope of the discussion. People who think differently are easily marginalised as crackpot conspiracy theorists.

The mainstream media benefit from the status quo and often end up the lapdogs of the powerful. Even when one TV station appears relatively right wing or left wing, that simply means they will defend a different party when it takes power. However, the task before the media is to give us the information we need in order to understand and question power, not to serve it. All corporations receive legal protection and indirect subsidy; in addition, the media that pander best to the powerful get access to top officials for interviews and sources. Media types socialise with government types. Instead of holding them to account through investigative journalism, many of them accept what the government says without question. They also need to fill in blanks due to deadlines, and may embellish or simply quote an official to complete their stories. Those poor people who cannot turn off their televisions are exposed to news that makes them think crime, terrorism and diseases are everywhere. They see one police drama after another, drinking in the image of the heroic cops catching gang leaders and stopping terrorists.

When all these things are taken together, they become our narrative, what we believe without questioning. It does not benefit us to leave this situation unquestioned; it only benefits the ruling class. As Stephen Jay Gould once said, "[w]hen people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."

A fixation on the news is not conducive to understanding. Most news media focus on what is happening now. What is happening is a consequence of what has happened before. However, it is easy to forget or not know about what happened before. How many Americans understand the causes of any of the wars their rulers start? Or of 9/11? How many understand why Iran might want to build a nuclear weapon? We do not ask "why?" enough.

I have heard both Al Jazeera and Russia Today called propaganda. Perhaps that is because the angles from which they view the news and the people they interview are less commonly found in the more mainstream news outlets. To close one's mind by calling something propaganda without having considered it is not wise. The reason we can safely call government communications propaganda is they are consistently proved to be so. Critical thinkers consider various viewpoints. And in contrast to the records of the mainstream US media, the foreigners have more credibility.

Then there is Fox News. Wait. It's too easy. (You may want to watch _Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism_ for a look at how Fox has erased the line between journalism and propaganda.) Suffice to say, studies indicate Fox News viewers are less well informed than anyone else who watches television. Whatever Fox News says, I object to attacks on Fox from people who believe what they hear on CNN, MSNBC or other corporate news stations. Do you really believe any one of these channels consistently tells the truth? That they do not try to influence your point of view and subtly manipulate you? Why should we trust this source? Do they know what they are talking about? Why would they tell us what they are telling us? Might they have an ulterior motive? Can we speculate what that might be? Why do we only have the choices we are presented with? Why is it only either intervene militarily in Syria or let genocide take place? Why, why, why? We need to consider why they show what they show and what we are missing that they do not show.

When I am asked which news source I think is most reliable, I reply "none". Take a look at the sources for this blog: they are from a variety of people and media. (However, I sometimes repeat some I perceive to be informed or wise. I must admit, I am more likely to believe Democracy Now than Fox.) To truly understand a phenomenon is to know it from various perspectives. To understand a news story, it helps to read various accounts and ask ourselves questions about what we read.

Without having witnessed an event ourselves, we do not know what happened. Every source has its own reasons to manipulate the facts, though probably not all do all the time. The best we can do is listen to varying accounts, consider carefully each one's possible motives and assume we cannot be sure about any of them. The worst we can do is listen to accounts that do not vary significantly, pretend each source confirms the other and accept the information as given.

At a more fundamental level, we need to question the entire hegemony and move away from thinking the world is as we are told it is.

08 The fine line between democracy and dictatorship

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting. – Charles Bukowski

Come on, Charles. There are fundamental differences between democracy and dictatorship. Democracy has a non-violent mechanism for change that dictatorship does not—voting. It may not work very well (see chapter 14), but sometimes there are opportunities for politicians to gain from doing the right thing. And in a democracy, one is usually less under threat of overt violence, and thus freer, than in a dictatorship.

Most citizens of democracies consider themselves free, presumably because they are told they are free (or even that they are freer than anyone has ever been) and they have not gone to jail. But nearly everything they do is regulated by the state. The elites have made laws, usually self serving if not merely misguided, for every aspect of life. For those victimless pursuits that have not been criminalised, they require permission, in the form of licenses and permits and fees. If we do not ask permission and fill out forms and pay, we can get thrown in a cage. How free can we be when we are subject to someone else's laws, someone else's enforcement of those laws and someone else's justice for violating any one of those laws? Democracy's main difference from dictatorship is not freedom or rights but privileges. Unfortunately, as we can see all over the world at the moment, those privileges can be taken away whenever we are not looking.

Thus, there are a couple of fundamental differences. Other than those, there are numerous similarities, too.

No right to protest

Dictatorships crack down on public expression. And we live in a free country, right? So it could not happen here. Well, has there ever been a G8 summit in your country? Let me guess: a few people out of tens of thousands of protesters broke some windows, and row upon row of riot police in full armour came in spraying, beating and arresting. 600 people were arrested at the Seattle WTO protest; 859 at Prague in 2000; 1115 at Goteborg in 2001; 600 at Washington, DC, in 2002; 700 at Gleneagles in 2005; 1140 at Heiligendamm in 2007; nearly 2000 at Copenhagen in 2009; and 1000 at Toronto in 2010, all for nothing more than expressing dissent from the unassailable decisions of the elite.

In order to continue these pointless, billion-dollar summits unimpeded, governments use a variety of tactics. The arrests, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and, to a lesser extent, new sound cannons, are fairly well known (though not well enough), but the control of public space is less well understood. The police set up cordons and protest pits that push legal demonstrations far away from where they will have any effect. They even corral or "kettle" protesters in an act of detention without charge, denying them food, bathrooms, insulin and whatever else they ask for. Anyone wanting a real, non-violent demonstration will be breaking the law, and thus subject to police violence and a criminal record. They tell protesters it is all for their protection. But perhaps it no longer matters, as the US government has passed a law restricting basically any and all protest. Germany has done the same. Free speech is a thing of the past. Dissenters are pests and criminals.

For the first time in history, you now need police permission to demonstrate within 1100 yards of the British parliament. Naturally, if the police say no, you stay at home. Not getting permission becomes a problem when wants to exercise what used to be the right to free assembly. But peaceful protests are broken up all the time. And ten years after 9/11, Congress renewed the USA Patriot Act for a second time. That will come in handy to prosecute the Muslims in the US who are been targeted for disagreeing with the War on Terror. They are being spied on and arrested for nothing in this manufactured climate of fear. Peter Hitchens says, "this is more than a change in the law. It is part of a wide and deep change in the way we are governed, supposedly justified by the need to combat crime and disorder. While wrongdoers seem largely unaffected by all this, innocent citizens find they are ruled by an increasingly officious and heavy hand." Freedom slips quietly away, and the line between democracy and dictatorship slowly but surely fades.

Though it is illegal to film police (see chapter 18), they will film demonstrators because they want to identify these non-violent criminals. They are singled out as troublemakers to be spied on. An array of state agencies are tracking those who have participated in Occupy protests. British citizens are being secretly tracked by the police, and though the government denies it tracks law abiders, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Inflammatory rhetoric, association with the wrong people, unconventional political activity or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time renders one subject to surveillance and arrest. In the eyes of the police and their paymasters, the distinction between peaceful protest and terrorism has been erased. According to the documentary Taking Liberties, British police have used the Terrorism Act and its spinoffs to stop and search over 100,000 people, none of whom were terrorists.

In acts of civil disobedience over the past two years to protest the imperial wars in which the US is engaged, some 1400 Americans have gone to jail. And when Occupy movements tried to cover the globe, we saw police brutality everywhere. The photos of tear gas sprayed casually into the faces of the young and old; the arrests of thousands of people for nothing. How could they be so heavyhanded in "free" countries? Because, dictatorship or democracy alike, the police are there to serve the elites, not to protect the people. Critical thinkers need to seriously reconsider the idea that we need police to keep us safe, and begin searching for alternatives.

Dictatorships have a habit of jailing huge numbers of people. When democratic governments are under pressure from companies that run prisons, or prison guard unions, they have an incentive to do the same. And locking people up is as easy as passing a law. Laws have historically been useful in all statist regimes to remove undesirables from public view. If it is illegal to smoke pot, you can go to jail for it. Look at the millions of people in the US who have. The US locks up more people than any of the world's dictatorships. And people in jail are not free. Just ask Bradley Manning, or the many still in Guantanamo who, despite centuries of legal tradition, have no right to habeas corpus. If rights were the difference between democracy and dictatorship, does that mean democracy is dead?

Guilty until proven not worth arresting

Dictatorships run secret agencies that find and neutralise internal enemies of the state. But it could not happen here, right? Well, think about it. Have there been any new anti-terrorism laws introduced in the past 10 years? Have you taken a good look at those laws? Most people will not become targets of them, true, but the same could be said in authoritarian regimes. Most people who keep their heads down will be spared. But what do the laws say? Could they be reading your emails and text messages, tracking you on your cellphone, tracking your online activity and putting it all into databases? Are they seizing websites and servers? Could they be listening to and taping your phone calls? (Incidences of wiretapping went up 34% between 2010 and 2011.) Could they be forcing Google to take down embarrassing videos and give them your information?  Could they be placing cameras outside your home or listening to you on the bus? The answer is yes.

Unsurprisingly, the firm that has created Trapwire, the US domestic spying network, is an example of the revolving door (see chapter 15). "The employee roster at Arbaxas reads like a who's who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented." We were not supposed to know about it, but thanks to Wikileaks, we can find yet another example of crony capitalism that makes nearly everyone worse off.

But the surveillance state does not just reduce our privacy. It treats us all as guilty until proven innocent, meaning law enforcement agencies can find out our intimate details and use them to charge us with crimes like using the word "bomb" in an email. (Not to mention waste our money doing so.) The millions of pages of laws make sure we can be arrested for anything. Combine all this with new police methods of arresting anyone they simply suspect of planning to commit a crime and you have some terrifying possibilities for innocent people. The cliché that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear is clearly untrue.

Glenn Greenwald explains further implications of being spied on so much.

[T]he government now operates with complete secrecy, and we have none. The reason this is so disturbing is—you can just look at the famous aphorism, typically attributed to Francis Bacon that "knowledge is power." If I'm able to know everything about you, what you do, what you think, what you fear, where you go, what your aspirations are, the bad things that you do, the bad things you think about, and you know nothing about me? I have immense leverage over you in all kinds of ways. I can think about how to control you, I can blackmail you, I can figure out what your weaknesses are, I can manipulate you in all sorts of ways. That is the state of affairs that this Surveillance State, combined with the wall of secrecy, has brought about.

Indeed, according to a National Security Agency whistleblower, mapping out your life in secret is precisely what is taking place.

We are all terrorists now

If you believe that the US soldiers have ever defended freedom, then cite the cases where they have prevented the president from signing any law, or where they stopped the legislature from passing any law, or where they have stood up to the courts. These are the only threats to our freedom as history has proved. – Storm T. Agorist

It is an immutable law of the universe that if you give government power, it uses it. – Bob Barr

Even worse things are happening that we should know about. The US military can be used to lock you up anywhere in the world. A provision cunningly woven into the 2012 annual defense appropriations bill and passed overwhelmingly enables the US military to apprehend you anywhere in the world and detain you indefinitely. This law gives the strongest military the world has ever seen total power over you. You may want to reread that last sentence. It is true. The provisions target US citizens, giving every one of them the rights of a suspected terrorist with no recourse. As Guantanamo Bay prison has demonstrated, citizens of other countries had no rights to begin with. Therefore, due to its habit of picking up citizens of other countries, the US government can now wield its power over anyone in the world. That means you. They can detain you indefinitely without charge if they say you are a suspect. And no one will be punished if you are innocent (except you). No one will be held accountable, no matter what happens. This law is perhaps the most frightening in a long line of legal takeovers of your freedom.

The fact that they can take these liberties away is a sign Americans are not free. It is not when people are imprisoned that they lose their freedom. It is before that, when another person declares the people may be subject to the loss of all their freedoms should that person decide.

How did our liberties slip away? Anthony Gregory explains.

Ten years of the War on Terror, decades of the War on Drugs, and a century of growing government power in general, particularly in the presidency and various police authorities, have perhaps desensitized Americans to what is at stake here. As the proverbial frogs in the pot of water, we are accustomed to rising temperatures and so do not notice when our flesh begins to boil. Yet when the Senate overwhelmingly accepts the principle that the military should displace civilian courts even for citizens captured on American soil, it has adopted a standard of justice remarkably tyrannical even compared to America's very rocky history.

A hundred years of encroaching control over our minds and bodies plus one spectacular terrorist attack and freedom somehow seems like a luxury to Americans who do not realise they are frogs.

Needless to say, these laws are unconstitutional, like so many other laws people who swore to uphold the Constitution have put forward. The Bill of Rights, a wonderful idea in its time, lies in tatters. Now the government has such power and employs it every day, there is no reason to believe it will hold back. Even if this bill had not passed, the US government (though of course not just the US) can already spy on you from anywhere in the world; can lock you up and torture you in one of its many prisons (and not just ones you have heard of), as it already has with Bradley Manning and foreign journalists (Barack may be even worse than Bush with regard to torture); and can assassinate you without due process and reveal nothing to the public. As any informed libertarian already knew, these despicable practices have been going on for some time. The powerful are merely trying to make them easier.

Chris Hedges says journalists are at risk from this law. After all, the bill implies associating with anyone the US government deems as a terrorist can get you locked up. What if a journalist wants to interview a terrorist? You know, instead of taking the administration's word for who the terrorists are and what they want.

I spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent, and when we went through that list, there were 17 groups, including al Qaeda, that I have had, as a reporter, direct contact with. There is no provision in there to protect journalists at all, or anyone. Anybody can be swept up under this. You don't want to hand these kinds of powers to the state, because history has shown that, eventually, they will use it.

How will we ever even get a glimpse of the truth when the journalists are in jail?

The bill says suspects will be held only until the end of hostilities. So, as Jon Stewart says, when terror surrenders, you'll be free to go. For those who do not understand statist war, you must know war is the health of the state (see chapter 25), and the state exists to take your freedom. The more war, the more power the state has; the more power the state has, the less freedom you have. That is a consistent pattern in history. The War on Terror is not so much a war as a series of military operations designed to expand US government power everywhere it can, but the effect is the same. To stir up instability in Central Asia, secure supplies of natural resources and keep restive people down are among its goals. This law will help the powerful wage that war.

One difference between democracies and dictatorships is, because democracies tend to have more vibrant economies, they have more wealth. That wealth can be appropriated to fund militaries and war campaigns. Democracies are statistically more likely than dictatorships to invade and occupy foreign countries. It is, of course, staggeringly ironic that people who enjoy freedom would sanction the repression and killing of foreigners. But that irony is lost on most democrats who favour a strong military.

War creates terrorists (see chapter 20), as occupied people facing brutality from foreign powers have peaceful modes of resistance taken away from them. If terrorism is on the rise, blame the dictators and warmongers. Attempted terrorism is likely to increase in the US, as peaceful protesters no longer have peaceful channels for protest, or fair trials to achieve justice. Now the surveillance blanket has quietly descended on everyone, and everyone is a suspect, we can expect more people to get locked up indefinitely as terrorists. Of course, they may be completely innocent, arrested on trumped-up charges; but because of the opacity and lies of the state, we can never know how many innocent victims there are. If you are paying attention, you will have noticed, again, the irony of a state terrorising its populace to prevent non-state terrorism.

Likewise, if crime is indeed rising in the US, it could be because of the fallout from the financial crash (which was, I think, clearly the fault of the political and business elite (see chapter 30)), because falling standards of living (especially combined with economic and social inequality) can shake people up and make them desperate. It could be because the criminalisation of and atrocious crackdown on drugs despite all logic incentivises the formation of gangs (chapter 21). Wars, whether on terrorism, drugs or the poor, create the conditions politicians can use to justify accumulating ever more power. Let us hear no more of the myth that the government exists to keep us safe.

But it is not just the Department of Defense that has been amassing power. The police and the courts have always been the tools of the elite, but are now conducting a war on liberty in the US. If you think I am exaggerating, please read about what police are doing in chapter 18. Here is a preview. A man was recently sentenced to 75 years in jail for filming police. The law, the police, the courts all tear society apart and destroy lives by criminalising victimless acts and subjecting innocent people to endless captivity. With its multiple layers of security apparatus, from the police to the FBI to the CIA to the DEA and ATF to Homeland Security to the military, not to mention the help of friendly governments around the world, the US federal government has enormous resources for violence at its disposal. It recently raided homes in the Northwest in search of "anti-government or anarchist literature"; who will be next?

Now the battlefield has been widened to the entire world, "domestic terrorism", meaning anyone questioning the state, has become the new scary thing. Barack has signed a variety of executive orders giving him control over just about everything in whatever he decides is an emergency. For instance, because the government needs to communicate, the executive can "legally" seize all private communications. (Google it—see what other EOs he has issued.)

But more insidiously, the definition of terrorism is being expanded, with the resulting loss of freedom for everyone. The DHS has classified just about anyone who is unhappy as a potential terrorist. Those who believe their way of life is threatened, believers in conspiracy theories, anti-abortion, anti-religious, anti-global or anti-nuclear types, nationalists, separatists, Marxists and anarchists are all specifically-mentioned targets. The FBI considers "suspicious" people who are concerned about their privacy, seem nervous, travel too far to get to an internet café, want to remain anonymous online, purchase fertilisers and electronics and gather information about public places. It encourages people to spy on anyone fitting these descriptions. The DHS monitors forums, blogs and message boards for suspicious activity. It is searching social media for terrorist watchwords, which include the names of law enforcement agencies, security words like "attack", "drill", "cops" and "response", health words like "flu", "salmonella" and "vaccine", and the words "social media". Those who do not keep their head down and remain quiet are a threat to the state, and the state now has the authority to neutralise them all.

Some people, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg among them, took the indefinite detention (NDAA) bill to a US district court, saying it violated the first and fifth amendments. In May 2012, the court ruled that yes, a provision of the law was unconstitutional. In fact, there are many unconstitutional laws on the books that would not exist if the Constitution were worth the paper it was printed on. The Authorisation for Use of Military Force and the USA Patriot Act, both passed in the wake of 9/11, leap to mind. The NDAA provisions merely reaffirmed the executive's authority to ignore the Constitution and do whatever he wanted with human beings. (The president is challenging the ruling anyway.) The entire NDAA could be struck down and the state's power would not shrink. It would continue to do what it did before. Members of every branch of government doublethink their oath to uphold the Constitution every day. A legal approach to ending the state's free hand is a losing battle for the American people.

Blurring the line

There is a danger democracies will take the final steps and slide into dictatorship or some kind of fascist state. This trend is frighteningly obvious in the US and UK to anyone paying attention. But subtler steps are being taken elsewhere.

Take Canada. First, consider Canada is experiencing its lowest crime rate since 1973. Crimes that are down include homicide, attempted murder, assault, break-ins, auto theft and drunk driving. Crimes whose numbers are up include drug and firearm offences, which in themselves are victimless. The ruling Conservative Party, which, because it has a majority government, can do practically anything it wants, has passed a tough-on-crime bill (Bill C-10) that mandates more jail time to potgrowers than to people who sexually assault children. In fact, it includes mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, meaning the judge is no longer a judge but merely a sentencer, and the courts are a waystation on the road to prison. It means more of the War on Drugs, with its concomitant rise in organised crime and violence. The "justice" system will uphold these laws, of course, because it is not about justice but the law. The bill to incarcerate harmless criminals will cost $19b.

The Canadian government is cracking down harder on internet freedom. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews warned Canadians to support a new law to enable the government to spy on its citizens online with the Bushesque "either stand with us or with the child pornographers." According to journalist Terry Milewski, "his bill would, in fact, dramatically change the law to allow the government much, much more access to our online lives and identities." All Canadians' basic information can be handed over to the government if it so demands, without a warrant, and thus without suspicion of wrongdoing. Bill C-30 allows "inspectors" to look at any private information on the internet now. Why do they want this information? What are they going to do with it? Now the Inspector General's office, one of the two organisations which oversaw CSIS, Canada's spy agency, has been abolished, it will be harder to answer those questions.

It is now illegal to demonstrate in the streets without a permit, which is why over 250 people were arrested in the student demonstrations in March 2013 and 447 were arrested in May. More were beaten and arrested when Canada hosted the G20. That means there is no more free speech. It also obstructed journalists during the same demonstrations, meaning there is no more freedom of the press.

In this time of financial belt tightening, the police are getting raises. They already make far more than the average Canadian, but then they are a section of the bureaucracy. But most Canadian bureaucrats are not getting raises. Why do the cops need more money? Is evicting protesters getting more perilous? But perhaps they need it. The inevitable rise in violent crime due to the increased suppression of the drug trade will indeed make their jobs harder. But is it all necessary? Is there nothing better we can spend that money on? Is there no way freedom, as opposed to more government, could be an answer to our problems?

Canada's further stepping into the military-industrial complex should be frightening to Canadians and anyone the government considers its enemies.

Finally, you know those tar sands in Alberta? They are in effect a huge oil field, the second largest deposit of oil on Earth, and an environmental disaster. Oil spills are frequent. The Stephen Harper government has spent $100m on advertising designed to convince Canadians exporting oil is "responsible resource development". It is going to other countries to tell the large oil firms where the oil is. I think they knew already. By promoting the tar sands abroad, the prime minister is using taxpayer money to subsidise the oil interests that will be profiting so much from them. He even had the hypocrisy to invoke foreign interests funding the protests that have already taken place. The Natural Resource Minister played the nationalism card by saying "We think decisions about these Canadian projects should be made by Canadians". His statement seemed to imply Canadians would be having some kind of referendum on the issue, or the government of Canada cares more about Canada than Americans do. With the inevitable peak oil and rise in oil prices, it is no wonder SinoCanada Petroleum Corp, BP, Exxon Mobil, Total and Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd, along with the Canadian firms, have all bought their way to the party.

It is too late for any government to reverse any of these deals. And why would they? Every government that gets elected would benefit enormously from the tar sands, both financially and through favours from the governments of the home countries of all those oil firms. The government will protect these firms from any number of environmentalist protesters, whom it now monitors and treats as criminals. It will easily silence the aboriginals on whose land the oil will be spilled and to whom it presumably should belong in the first place. No one will be able to come within miles of the land being exploited. Go to jail for protesting if you like, guys; these tar sands will be developed. You can bet your life.

Many Canadians will claim to oppose these policies while maintaining the Canadian government should continue to tax and spend at roughly the same levels. But where do you think it gets the power to cause so much damage? The more money a government takes, the bigger it is; the bigger it is, the less accountable it is; and the less accountable it is, the more the people running it will try to take away your freedom to do anything about it. But Canadians would rather tell themselves the only reason bad things happen in Canadian politics is because their guy is not in power. THEN you'd see change.

Canada is just one example of a society accepting the endless accumulation of power under the state. Whether Canadians or others come to detest or accept this new state of affairs, it will be impossible to reverse without a revolution. It has expanded the power of the state, so no government will willingly give it up. It has strengthened pressure groups like the police, who will fight any attempts to reduce their privileges. Some of the outraged will hit the streets, where they will be treated as criminals. Others will retain their faith in the ballot box, like passengers on the Titanic, hugging their knees and repeating "the strongest ship ever built". Or they could take the lifeboats and leave the sinking ship behind.

Blame the state

The reason democracy and dictatorship are so similar is that state structure is basically the same everywhere. You have the powerful clique among the politicians, top bureaucrats, rich people and pressure groups, and then you have the security forces there to enforce the will of the clique. Their job is to protect the people at the top, which sometimes means providing security to people lower down the pyramid. It finds one way or another to take from the people as much as it calculates it can without being overthrown. Anywhere this structure exists for corrupt people to get their hands on, it leaves the populace open to the same abuses.

There are less corrupt democracies, it is true; all of Scandinavia comes to mind. I believe the main reason for that is political culture. Political culture is just like social culture in that it refers to the beliefs, assumptions and consequent actions of people; it simply refers to how politics is done within the area in question. Studies have noted the political culture itself in places like Norway and Finland, and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia, have political cultures that tend less to corruption. That may be partly related to the size of the economy and how much its employees make. Whatever the reason, the beliefs that underlie the political culture feed the actions of politicians and bureaucrats. But the existence of the state, the legitimised means of violence, is too dangerous not to fix.

The main reason the government wants all this power (inasmuch as power is not an end in itself for many of the people involved, and aside from the large amounts of money politicians make from prisons and related lobbies) is that dissent against government and the elites is growing. The protests that have gone global since Tunisia's Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest corruption and repression have threatened the elites' position and they are not happy. Protests in democracies and dictatorships alike are being met with head-splitting punishment. The elites are sending a message: do not question authority or you will be punished. The only cure for this disease I know of is to disobey their command. I would like to see more people to join in occupations until this unjust, parasitic institution crumbles to dust.

The lion's share of the blame for this state of affairs goes to the people who run the US and other governments. The US federal government has trillions of dollars it forced out of the pockets of millions of people. Think how many wars, how many full-body scanners, how many drones, soldiers, police, jails, surveillance systems, tons of tear gas and pepper spray it can buy with that money. The money it takes from people is used to oppress them.

But Americans and other citizens have let their governments get away with it all. Those who do not understand government, war, terrorism and crime continue to believe the government looks out for their best interest. Most of them have not demanded change, content to amble slowly along their paths with their heads down and their fingers in their ears. Others are so scared of crime, terrorism and illness they gladly give the government as much power as it wants. Sure, we are subject to humiliation whenever we get on an airplane; sure, the US has the biggest prison population in the world; sure, the upper 1% owns a third of the nation's wealth; and sure, my neighbours are losing their homes; but at least we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not anymore, you don't.

Eliminating freedom can never provide security, because freedom is security. If the individual is free, it means he or she is free from the arbitrary violence of the state and other groups. There is no such thing as a benign police state. Those who trade freedom for security will end up with neither. The most dangerous thing is to believe we are free when we are not. It is impossible to escape from a jail we do not realise we are in.

With the possible collapse of currencies and governments in debt (or even rebellion), what could happen is that many people, realising the government is mostly to blame for their misfortune, will rise up against their masters. At the same time, there will be a group of people scared into submission, afraid to lose what they think is worth keeping. That means not just the elites who benefit from the status quo but people on the bottom who think things could be worse. They are the people afraid of an imaginary enemy (al-Qaeda or "homegrown terrorism") and one growing due to bad laws (gangs). Those people would lend their support to stronger government, under the banner of "stability" and promises to "get the economy back on track". The military has been trained to deal harshly with civic unrest if and when it occurs, and we do not have much chance against the military. With enough popular support, stronger government could take away more and more freedoms, put more and more people in jail, and pacify the masses. To guard against that possibility, we need to warn people of it and carefully explain the alternatives.

09 Somalia

The ultimate straw man for a statist to use against an anarchist is Somalia. "If you don't like the government, go to Somalia! You can be a pirate!" And then they laugh, as if that were a clever trump card. I don't think so. First, no anti-state advocate worth listening to promotes an immediate or violent implosion of government, like what happened to Siad Barre's government in 1991. They want to see voluntary institutions arise over time to replace the coercive ones of government. Life was not good, or voluntary, under Siad Barre.

Second, the violence in Somalia is committed by groups fighting each other in order to form the government and control the levers of power. This violence has been exacerbated by well-meaning Westerners who think they know which group should rule the country. Voluntaryists believe the initiation of force is wrong, which is why government is wrong, and no one should be allowed to form the government. A variety of warlords fighting for control of the people is hardly a voluntary society. Ethiopia's 2006 invasion of Somalia to shore up its proxy army there did not help much either.

Besides, many countries with governments are worse off than Somalia, so government is obviously not the answer. To say the reason places like Canada and Australia and Germany are peaceful is purely because of the existence of government is simplistic because it is divorced from history. Among other reasons, one could point to the political culture. A lot of our rules come from people's simply deciding certain things are right and wrong. Some rules are in place because government put them there, though many of those rules are based on natural laws like no killing or enforcing contracts. If those rules, along with the government superstructure, went away over time, would we stop following all rules? Of course not. We already believe certain rules are right.

For example, one day when I was living in Canada, the traffic lights near my house broke down. What do you think happened? Do you think everyone started racing through the intersection, and there were dozens of fatal accidents? Actually, there were no accidents. Everyone simply behaved as if there were a stop sign there instead. The stop sign rule was one they were all already familiar with and agreed with. It was a custom, and we adhere to customs unthinkingly. They didn't need a traffic light there, just like they didn't need a policeman handing out tickets to enforce compliance.

But back to the Horn of Africa. Under Siad Barre, Somalia did not have rules accepted by the people; it had rule by one man (so kind of like a majority government in Canada). Siad Barre killed and tortured thousands of people. There was little room for civil society because so much was forced from the top down. How could they have expected the collapse of his government to have led to a voluntary society?

At any rate, Somalia outside Mogadishu is not as bad as people seem to think. After 1991, things began to grow more peaceful, and by the late 1990s, most of Somalia was at peace. There is sporadic fighting among rival gangs, but there is not so much violence against civilians. (Sounds a bit like Los Angeles.) There is no question a humanitarian crisis afflicts Somalia (given that some of the refugees I teach in Cairo come from Somalia, I would have to be blind not to know that), though violence is not the only factor. The militant group al-Shabab, styling itself as government, has decided to prevent food aid to millions of Somalis. Calling a country where famine is imposed at gunpoint anarchy is tantamount to calling North Korea a democracy.

Nevertheless, the people are more healthy and prosperous, and obviously far more free, than they were under Siad Barre. (That is partly due to the existence of humanitarian aid groups, who were not allowed during Siad Barre's time.) Telecommunications have improved as well. A variety of companies are operating with no government regulation, and as a result, Somalia has more phone lines and internet access than most of the rest of Africa. Water and electricity are provided by the private sector, and social insurance comes from remittances and the expansive clan-based family structure. Somalis have access to private health care at low costs. Somalia now has universities no ruler decided to build. Somalia has made decent economic progress since Siad Barre, and some major multinationals like Coca-Cola, DHL and affiliates of General Motors and British Airways have investments in the country. Somalia's financial sector is doing well, and Somalis lend and borrow a lot of money. Because there is no central bank, inflation is low. Somalis have access to the latest electronic gadgets, too, thanks in large part to the Somali diaspora. In fact, even in Mogadishu things are a lot better. Hotel, restaurant and light manufacturing industries are developing. If you think things are as bad as they were during the disastrous US "Black Hawk Down" intervention, you might find there is more to Somalia than meets the news. Of course, if you are going to compare Somalia to Canada and Australia and Germany, fine, it is far worse; but that can hardly be a fair comparison, can it?

Civil society crept back after Siad Barre, and with it returned Xeer [ħeːr], the traditional Somali legal system. Xeer is a functioning legal system that nonetheless has no single authority. Rather than a body that endlessly makes laws to regulate every aspect of life like we have and change with the whims of the powerful, elders mediate disputes based largely on natural human rights. Dispute resolution is a lot faster and cheaper than the average national justice system. Waddaya know? There can still be law and order, even when there is no national government. Thus, to the extent the country is anarchic, from its traditional, non-state system of justice to its lack of cumbersome business regulations, Somalia is doing pretty well.

Then people talk about piracy as some kind of inevitable consequence of Somalia's lawless society. However, anyone who reads beyond the headlines knows the real reason some Somalis have turned to piracy is that rich-country fishermen, with no respect for Somali property rights, went there, poached all the fish they could, dumped their waste and destroyed the fishing industry. Piracy is not only understandable but also, in effect, payback.

Unfortunately, attempts by outsiders (Barack, I'm looking at you) to battle the small al-Qaeda presence in Somalia are likely to lead to the deterioration of a society doggedly building itself up from the bottom. It certainly did not help the first time. Perhaps they should just leave Somalis alone to figure things out for themselves, which seems in fact to have been working so far, and stop trying to impose their statist dreams on everyone.

Part 2: The state

\- 10 What is the state?

\- 11 Power

\- 12 Law

\- 13 Taxation and debt

\- 14 Elections

\- 15 Interest groups

\- 16 Bureaucracy

\- 17 Let's reform the system!

10 What is the state?

The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine. It can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. – M.K. Gandhi

When looking at the US government today, one can barely fathom the tiny government it started with. The US became such a powerful and destructive government by constantly enlarging the scope of its action. Since the beginning of the federation it has expanded, from the westward march of federal government jurisdiction to the cause of the Civil War: the president's war on secession. All told, 50 states were incorporated into the union. Now the government controlled resources on an entire continent, like China and Russia. Once the land was conquered, the US government expanded its ability to capture the wealth and challenge the sovereignty of other countries. Sometimes it used trade agreements; sometimes it used guns. There were many civil liberties, and a productive free market, but as the economy grew, the state grew. That is the state's purpose: to expand the power of those who control it. Liberty quietly slipped away.

Max Weber defined the state as that organisation that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given (national) territory. "Legitimate" here merely means legal, as actual legitimacy is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. That is why Albert Jay Nock countered Weber by saying the state "claims and exercises a monopoly of crime" over its territory. Statism is the belief that this monopoly of crime is good or necessary. David S. D'Amato explains its effect: "the state's principal manner of acting is to make peaceful interactions crimes while protecting the institutional crime of ruling class elites."

After all, what does the state do? It steals, but it calls its theft taxation. It kidnaps, but calls kidnapping arrest. It counterfeits, but refers to state counterfeiting as monetary policy. It commits murder on a wide scale, but prefers terms such as war and execution. The state claims to act to protect person and property, but paradoxically aggresses against person and property. It claims to protect freedom while taking it away. It claims to aid the less fortunate when in fact it benefits the powerful at the expense of everyone else. If I go to another country to kill people I do not know, I am a murderer. When the military does it, it is fighting terrorism and promoting democracy. This sleight of hand and clouding of truth is how the state manufactures legitimacy.

The state pursues petty criminals partly because they threaten the stability of the system the state has erected and the security of the wealthy, but also because it claims a monopoly of crime. Mafia organisations are even more dangerous, as they pose a more fundamental threat to the state as competitors for plunder and dominance.

I think it is fair to include any state-protected monopoly as part of the state. Monopolies are the problem. Monopolies tend to lead to abuse. A monopoly is always held together by force, except in the rare case of companies like Standard Oil, which was so popular because it lowered the price of heating oil to a fraction of what it had been (and competitors—not customers—used the state to break it up). (Read more on Standard Oil in chapter 30.) In a free market, a monopoly, at least an abusive one, would not exist, because anyone who is free to create a cheaper or friendlier alternative will do so.

Anarchy is, in fact, the destruction of monopoly. Nearly all monopolies are created by the state. Monopolies and oligopolies, whether on patented medicine, oil supplies or national security, are protected by law, and would not exist in a free market. The state thus gains a measure of control over the distorted market and large corporations have some control over the government. The relationship is symbiotic. The Federal Reserve system is not technically part of the government but a cartel institutionalised by the state. By my definition, it is part of the state.

I also consider the people behind the scenes who pull the strings part of the state. For example, what might be called the US foreign-policy establishment is not merely members of the State and Defense Departments. It includes high-ranking businesspeople. Executives, directors and shareholders in large oil companies probably have far greater influence over the use of the US military than, say, a couple of senators taking stands against war. It includes the Council on Foreign Relations and other influential think tanks, academics and "consultants" (often retired officers) affiliated with those who craft US foreign policy. Intelligence agencies—and not only those in the US government—influence the process as well. "'Military-industrial complex' no longer suffices to describe the congeries of interests profiting from and committed to preserving the national-security status quo."

This is the world behind the curtain, detailed in the work of Andrew J. Bacevich, among others, that can be described as the permanent foreign-policy establishment. The faces of the state change, but the clear continuity of US foreign policy reflects the interests of those truly in power. The same is true, to one extent or another, for all areas the state attempts to control.

The state's raison d'être has had different pretexts as times have changed. It was originally a tool for conquering and controlling territory around a kingdom. Social scientists studying the emergence of states note the state began with the divine right of kings: the sovereign, or totalitarian king, kept his subjects in awe of the wrath of gods. Franz Oppenheimer, in his sociological survey of the state, describes its origins.

The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors. No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner.

As European states grew in technological power, they spread outside Europe as overseas empires. The ambition of conquering and subjugating the weak had not ended. To demarcate their possessions, states drew lines on maps. Countries are only countries today because of the movements of empires. States are products of conquest. Borders are the geographic limits to the power of individual states. States owe their existence and their growth to war. That is why Randolph Bourne called war "the health of the state". (Find more on this subject in part 3.)

An empire is simply the growth of a state beyond its previous borders. A look at the pre- and post-imperial world gives us no reason to believe that uninterrupted rule by indigenous elites would have been any better than by empires. The liberation of most of the world from the colonial yoke was heralded as a new era of freedom, but in most cases results were very disappointing. Government by locals and foreigners alike leaves the governed wide open to abuse.

Today, states are still about a monopoly of crime over a given territory, but the humanist direction of the moral evolution of society has demanded new functions of the state. It is now expected that, since society is rich enough to afford education, housing, health care and so on for everyone, those things will be provided by the state, the organisation with the most resources. The only reason people believe the state is necessary for social programmes, scientific research, relations with other states and so on, is because it has taken on those functions. The state does not exist to provide social programmes; it provides social programmes so it can continue to exist. Those programmes are, in fact, a very recent addition to the state's repertoire; and the fact that the timing of its new powers has corresponded with an enormous increase in wealth is in spite of, not because of, the existence of the state.

The state is not about social programmes and emergency rescue. It is about domination, power over others. People who believe otherwise do not know how to think like the state.

Thinking like the state

What does the state want? In a word: power. Power could be defined simply as the ability to enforce one's will on another. A further definition is the ability to carry out violence on another if necessary to get one's way. Being opposed to the initiation of force is not merely about the state. An abusive husband and father is violence on a family level. The state threatens violence on a local, national and global level.

Its power to carry out violence everywhere exists in the form of local, national and international police; armies, navies, air forces, spy drones, national guards and special branches; intelligence services, surveillance cameras, wiretapping, reading mail, reading email, reading instant messages and collecting data on everyone; and spy satellites in case you try to escape Earth without authorisation. The state has evolved from the small confines of localities to go global. It has a measure of power over us everywhere we go. Such power over so many concentrated in the hands of a few is dangerous.

The state is a monopoly on force, but the constant expansion of the state has led it to take on other monopolies over time. Modern states came to control land, the money supply, infrastructure and the security of the streets. As it has grown, the state has created new monopolies and oligopolies. Having a monopoly on the provision of law, it has created corporations, which relieve their owners and operators of responsibility; granted patents, enabling some of the biggest corporations, from Disney to the pharmaceutical giants, to attain their current size; and used complicated and unnecessary regulations, tax codes and barriers to foreign trade to prevent competition for the big players in the market. The state creates monopolies. Monopolies promote abuse, because they grant power and power corrupts.

Thinking like the state means understanding it expands its power in every direction by every means. If it can close a loophole enabling a citizen's freedom, it does; if it can write a new one for its friends, it does. But instead of thinking like the state, most of us think the way we are told.

Thinking like the state wants us to

The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. – Edward Bernays

They don't want a population capable of critical thinking. They want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their condition. – George Carlin

An even subtler power is the state's ability to shape our thinking. Through its control of primary and secondary education, its influence over tertiary education and the media, the state sets the agenda for what we are to think and believe. The prevailing norms of any statist society are those that benefit the ruling class, until that brief interval of revolution which, so far, has inevitably led back to statism. What kind of person does the state want to create?

The ideal citizen is one who believes he or she thinks for him or herself but does not. Our socialisation comes, to a great extent, from the state. The ruling class has certain ideas it benefits from: statism, nationalism, militarism, consumerism, fear, and to a lesser extent in today's world, religion. We are surrounded by these ideas and bombarded with "evidence" they are correct. As such, we take so many things as given that we have considerable trouble thinking independently. But those who are told they are free believe it, while they fall in line with the orthodoxy of the ruling class without question. They come to love the symbols of the state: the flags, the uniforms, the songs, the slogans, the language of family, honour, duty and sacrifice. They come to think of them as representing the family of the nation, rather than the institutions of the state. They chastise those who go against the truth they have been given. How dare you question democracy? You are unpatriotic! As George Orwell said in _1984_ , "Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

On the other hand, people who do not follow conventions are bad citizens. H.L. Mencken describes these people.

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

We need more bad citizens, and less state.

11 Power

A politician divides mankind into two classes: tools and enemies. – Friedrich Nietzsche

The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves. – William Hazlitt

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. – Mao Zedong

Do you want power? Do you want to control other people? What if you had the opportunity to force people to do what you wanted? Would you take it? Do you think you know better than others about how to spend their money? If so, what if you could take other people's money? What would you do with it? Would you risk becoming corrupted by it? If you think these things are wrong, why are they right when governments do them? This is the problem of power.

Power and freedom are two sides of the same coin. Power is the extent to which one can control others. Freedom is the extent to which one is able to resist control by someone else.

What are the effects of the concentration of power? Not only does power corrupt, as Lord Acton put it. R.J. Rummel, in his book on democide, goes further.

Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.... The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.

Mass murder, such as war and genocide, are made possible when power is concentrated.

After roughly sketching the atrocities committed by states or state-like actors of the 19th century and earlier, Rummel goes into detail about the incredible slaughters of the 20th. Some things seem different at the beginning of the 21st century. We may have a more compassionate and less violent world, as many suggest. What has not changed, however, is that states have retained the power to kill people en masse. Neither has the average person's attitude toward the inevitability of the state and war.

Like Steven Pinker, Rummel's conclusions are that democracy is ideal because of the checks on government power it instates. The less power is concentrated, the better, which is why I believe the decentralisation of power, right to the individual level, is in fact the ideal. Whichever of us is right, as governments grow in budget and scope, we should not sit idly by.

What happens to us when we have power?

Through war and genocide, governments killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century. Why? Because they stood in the way of the accumulation of power. They may have been urban workers or uppity peasants. They may have been nothing more than scapegoats.

As I mention above, mainstream political science does not consider much libertarian thought, and rarely considers the abolition of the state. Many political scientists depend on the state for funding, and have no taste for serious criticism of it. Political science also rarely takes what is believed or known about the psychology of power in account.

Who wants power most? Psychologists estimate roughly 1% of the human population is psychopathic. (Others say it is as high as 4%.) In other words, for every hundred people you know, one of them has no conscience, no empathy, no concern for other people, no sense of guilt, no compunction about lying, will use others to gain money and power and will use violence against enemies. And they do not take responsibility for the endless trouble they cause.

Psychopaths could be the people who continually lash out, like serial killers. These people are sometimes easy to identify and should be locked up or killed. But psychopaths might also be very smart, crafty people who do not commit violence themselves. A reasonable fear related to anarchy is, in a free society, these people will form violent or at least smooth-talking groups that attempt to impose their will on others. However, if the people believe no one should impose their will on others, they will unify to resist and perhaps lock up or kill these psychopaths. Statist societies have far more to fear.

At present, there are legal ways to gain power, which means any of these smart psychopaths who want power can attain it, and the people have to do whatever they want. It might seem unlikely that could happen in our society—after all, we live in a democracy, where elections are supposed to weed out the people who are not fit to lead. But elections do not do that. They reward charismatic people, people who look good on television, people who flatter their subjects, people who make all the right promises, and people who know how to use others to get what they want. I often wonder if more people would be anarchists or voluntaryists if they realised how many psychopaths there are, and how much power they have access to.

What professions do you think psychopaths, people who want power over others, are likely to go into? We might hypothesise they would be disproportionately represented in politics, big corporations, the military and the police. Indeed, there is some evidence that is the case. If these institutions had some kind of psycho-detectors, they might be more trustworthy. They do not. Psychopaths rise to the top of powerful organisations, where their influence far outstrips their numbers, and the dangers of their recklessness multiplies. As Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, explains, the characteristics of psychopaths, again, charm, lying, no empathy or guilt and so on, are shared by politicians.

[T]hese same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.... [S]ome of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena. While not exhibiting physical violence, many political leaders display varying degrees of anger, feigned outrage and other behaviors. They also lack what most consider a 'shame' mechanism. Quite simply, most serial killers and many professional politicians must mimic what they believe are appropriate responses to situations they face such as sadness, empathy, sympathy, and other human responses to outside stimuli.

Psychopaths adopt the attitude that the rules do not apply to them. However, they are likely to set up all manner of very strict rules for everyone else, in order to control others. They may not even set up rules but simply punish people they do not like or anyone as an example to others. They want to set up a climate of dread, the pervasive feeling that we are not safe from them wherever we are.

Often when people say "human nature being what it is" they mean "psychopathy being what it is". People who say they have a grim view of human nature might ask themselves why they trust a small group to monopolise the means of violence. We might benefit from a system that deals vigilantly with psychopaths; at present we have one that rewards them, handing them the power of the law and paying them handsomely for it. If you are still not convinced the inner circle of the powerful is made up of psychopaths, bear in mind these are the people who sign or initiate orders to imprison, torture and rain fire on any number of innocent people and then sleep soundly in their beds at night—happy, even, that they gain so much from it.

Thus, when we talk about politicians and other powermongers, we are not talking about normal people. They are not like us. Most people in the world care about family and friends, love and happiness. They spend their time working for their families, going out with friends or pursuing harmless interests. But a few very smart people with psychopathic tendencies spend all their time thinking about how to maintain and increase their power. That is why they can so successfully divide and manipulate people. Why would we be so willing to give them this power? Plato's aphorism, widely accepted among the politically active, that the price of apathy toward politics is to be ruled by evil men, misses the point. The price of _government_ is to be ruled by evil men.

The desire for power is closely related to the urge to survive. Power is, at least to he or she who wields it, partly or entirely about protecting from the many dangers of the world. The more limited is one's power, the less protection one has. And when one believes one's power is not absolute, one is still at risk of losing it. Thus, accumulating power nearly always leads to an attempt to gain more. Many of us already know these things if we realise bullies are, deep down, cowards.

The grip of the situation

Psychopathy is partly genetic but also comes from upbringing. But the right situation can bring out the heart of darkness. There are varying degrees of psychopathy; and of course not everyone who wants power is a psychopath. He might just be some well-meaning person who does not realise the initiation of force is an immoral and counterproductive way to make the world a better place. But power tends to corrupt, as not only Lord Acton's maxim but research indicates. To be successful politicians, people need to adopt the smooth talk, the lying, the denial of responsibility, the control of their consciences necessary for success in politics. And these things get worse the longer they remain in politics and defend their actions. People in power become more impulsive, more convinced of their greatness and less sympathetic. They also lose certain inhibitions. Power leads to overconfidence. It leads to more risk taking. When an individual without political clout takes risks and fails, they affect him and his family. When a corporate executive takes risks and fails, wealth and jobs are destroyed. When the politically powerful take risks and fail, we get war and economic crisis. They take the biggest risks, cause the biggest avoidable catastrophes and still deny responsibility, pass the blame and avoid punishment. Voluntaryists believe we should not enable and reward psychopaths.

People may have the best of intentions when they make the choice to go into politics. The ideal among statists is to use the state to benefit everyone. But how can anyone use the state for good when it is designed and presided over by psychopaths, when one must mix with and act like such people to rise in influence and when one takes on the traits of psychopaths when one spends enough time at the top?

As Philip Zimbardo demonstrates in _The Lucifer Effect_ , it is not necessarily about the people and how evil they may or may not be. It is about the situation in which they find themselves. The reason politicians lie and break the law, police use unnecessary violence, and militaries go to war in the absence of a credible threat is they can. They are given enormous amounts of power to do so, along with the incentives that enable them to benefit from lying or using violence, and the state relieves them of responsibility. In modern states, where the amount of power one can acquire is larger than ever, the chance it will turn people bad is great. To say "I am not like that" ignores the fact that, in the right circumstances, I might be.

Saint Bonaventura, a 13th century theologian, once said "the higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of its behind." In other words, the more power a man amasses, the further he is from social constraints. People want power because it creates, or seems to create, freedom of action, and control of others. But if often brings vanity, worry about how long power will be enjoyed, fantasy about how benign its holder is, and the desire to use that power to gain more. (These are all traits psychopaths possess in abundance.) As Frans de Waal says, "Few people have the discipline to handle this drug." And winning an election or otherwise forming the government is how to get high.

Obedience

A natural human weakness and symptom of the abuse of power is obedience. Like with gaining power, obedience has much to do with situational factors. Stanley Milgram's experiments in obedience found a majority of subjects, men and women, were willing to torture strangers—sometimes to death—if they were given the OK by an official-looking man. His experiments were with US citizens, though they were inspired by the fact that something similar had happened on a nationwide scale in Nazi Germany, Japanese-controlled Asia and Maoist China. Some of the best-intentioned people can be easily manipulated—I'm pretty sure I would be a pawn to a government official. If I joined the bureaucracy, or started working for a politician, or enlisted in the army, or worked in any rigid hierarchy it is hard to disobey, I would likely become an accomplice in acts I disagreed with. I would only want to work somewhere I could follow my conscience all the time.

In order to keep people obeying, authority figures might offer an ideology, such as national security or liberating others. They might tell people they agreed to it, and thus cannot back out. They might allow them some verbal dissent, but tell them to continue following orders. They start the people on a small step that becomes a slippery slope. Psychologists have shown one way to lead people to blind obedience is to show their peers following blindly. Conversely, if we want them to disobey, we show them examples of others disobeying authority.

Accounting for the effects of power

I find it ironic that all democrats I have ever met complain about their governments sometimes or all the time but most believe we just need to reform it. We just need new elections. We just need more people voting, or taking an interest in politics. We need more accountability and the right people in power. They have dreams of incorruptible supermen doing exactly what the people want. Sorry friends, that system and those people do not exist. Almost everyone who gains power could be corrupted by it. And whatever your fantasy of strong, accountable government is, the term is an oxymoron. The stronger government gets, the less accountable it is.

As such, it is also ironic the same people accuse voluntaryists of having a rosy, unrealistic estimation of human nature. After all, they believe, how would we deal with evil men without a central authority? Voluntaryists are people who look at the damage done by the state and realise the concentration of power has terrible consequences. They have workable solutions to the problem of violence and ask "why not?" Big government killed and enslaved hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone. If anyone has an unrealistically favourable view of human nature, it is someone who proposes giving people power and thinks elections and the press will force them to do whatever the people want.

The argument that a government is just made up of people in the society, and is no better or worse than the people in that society, does not follow. Because power corrupts, people who acquire and need to hold on to and want to expand their power over others can be dangerous, however they may have acted otherwise. More accurately, a government is no worse, and probably not much better, than the restrictions to its power.

Politicians spend virtually all their time trying to accumulate power. In the you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours world of politics, when powerful groups a politician can reward by doling out public money to or protecting with laws come along with their hands out, they usually get what they want. You, by the way, as a voter, a taxpayer and a civilian, are not powerful. If you are not a member of a well-connected pressure group, you have no voice. In the words of Gordon Gekko, "if you're not inside, you're outside." Insiders have hold of the reins of state, which means they can force you to follow their directives, dictated by their whims, and outsiders have to beg to have them changed.

Power should be widely and evenly distributed, so that no one can force his or her will on others and be corrupted by the ability to do so. No one should be given power over others—not me, not you and especially not someone who wants it.

12 Law

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. – Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for what is morally right. – Henry David Thoreau

I just think Rosa Parks was overrated. Last time I checked, she got famous for breaking the law. – Stephen Colbert

Many people who believe we need rulers confuse "government" with "governance". Society needs governance, which means rules and rule enforcement, or else it will break down in chaos. As I demonstrate in chapters 35 and 40, governance, creating and enforcing rules, is best accomplished at the levels of the community and the individual, as power is decentralised so it is difficult for anyone to have power over another. Before discussing governance in the stateless society, however, let us discuss what passes for governance in our society: the state's monopoly on the production and enforcement of law.

Governments initiate force through law. Law is a directive you must follow or you are fined or sent to jail. If you resist the fine, you go to jail. If you resist jail, you are attacked. They can be as severe as the government's decisions make them. Laws are what give the government is veneer of legitimacy. If something is legal, it must be moral, right?

Why must so many things be done by force? That is the question I pose to statists for every issue they think only government can handle, from converting a country to a democracy to criminalising medicine through regulation. Why does it have to be done by force? Why can people not be allowed to think about it and decide for themselves? Is government morality superior to that of the individual? Is freedom less important than conformity?

If you think you know what is right for others, for society and the world, fine: let's talk about it. If I think you are right, I will help you put your ideas in practice. But why do you think you would need to use violence to impose what is right on others? Unless everyone agrees with you, why would it be right to force them? If you try to influence politics and laws, you are making an extraordinary claim about how wise you are--you know so well what is right for others it is right to impose your opinion by force.

When we stop forcing others, everyone's ideas about the right way to associate and cooperate and organise can be tried, change is consensual and easier, and everyone can live the way they think is right. The extent to which that is the case in any society demonstrates the numerous benefits of diversity--diversity in everything: ideas, knowledge, media, culture and economy--inasmuch as diversity is permitted within the legal or social environment. Zhuangzi made this principle clear more than 2000 years ago: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

And yet, many democrats think their system is best precisely because it affords the most freedom. Wanting to pass restrictive laws against something other than aggression and then claiming to love freedom is hypocrisy. It seems to be the natural impulse of most people living under a government to advocate passing a law to solve any problem that arises. But again, laws are not the same as morality. Do you think the reason we are not killing each other is because it is illegal? Well, would you kill anyone? Do you know anyone who would? Do we have any evidence people without superiors would not put social sanctions on violence against innocent people and stop it when they could?

Law creates a double standard as it gives the state a monopoly on crime. The powerful do what they want and the powerless do what they are told. Lysander Spooner put it best: "Whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

Law fundamentally opposes freedom. Law would benefit just about everyone if it were only used to uphold basic principles. Instead, it is used to take away freedom. The freedoms libertarians wish the law defended, rather than took away, include (borrowing liberally from Laurence M. Vance)

\--The freedom to fly without being sexually violated.

\--The freedom to purchase a gun without a waiting period.

\--The freedom to grow, sell, and smoke marijuana.

\--The freedom to sell goods and services for whatever amount a buyer is willing to pay.

\--The freedom to make more than six withdrawals from one's savings account each month.

\--The freedom to drink alcohol as a legal, voting adult under twenty-one years of age.

\--The freedom to purchase Sudafed over the counter.

\--The freedom to gamble without government approval.

\--The freedom to deposit more than $10,000 in a bank account without government scrutiny.

\--The freedom to not be stopped at a checkpoint and have one's car searched without a warrant.

\--The freedom to sell any good or offer any service on Craigslist.

\--The freedom to fill in a 'wetland' on one's own property.

\--The freedom to cut someone's hair for money without a license.

\--The freedom to homebrew over 100 gallons of beer per year.

\--The freedom to advertise tobacco products on television.

\--The freedom to smoke Cuban cigars.

\--The freedom to not wear a seatbelt.

\--The freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

\--The freedom to keep the fruits of one's labor.

\--The freedom of an employer and an employee to negotiate for any wage.

\--The freedom to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

\--The freedom to videotape the police in public.

\--The freedom of businesses to hire and fire whomever they choose.

\--The freedom to not be brutalized by the police.

\--The freedom to not be arrested for victimless crimes.

\--The freedom to sell raw milk.

\--The freedom to not have one's child subject to unnecessary vaccinations.

\--The freedom to not have one's child unjustly taken by Child Protective Services.

\--The freedom to not be subject to the Patriot Act.

\--The freedom for kids to set up neighborhood lemonade stands.

\--The freedom to not have every facet of business and society regulated.

\--The freedom to stay in one's home during a hurricane.

\--The freedom to not have our email and phone conversations monitored.

\--The freedom to travel to and trade with any country.

\--The freedom to be left alone.

People want these things. Law is thus separate from culture. If something is truly culture or religion, there is no reason to legislate it. Legislation would only entrench a custom or practice lawmakers or interested parties deem desirable rather than letting it evolve, as cultures and religions do. If you saw anything on the list you thought most people in your community agreed should be banned, they can enforce it by social means of punishment.

Do you believe one purpose of law is to defend people against the arbitrary exercise of state power? Because that is demonstrably false. Who makes these laws? Self-interested politicians. They do nothing to curb their own power unless forced to.

The rule of law is held up as the standard all nations should aspire to. But we have natural laws that govern us, without the need for so much force. Why is it necessary or ideal to have a standing body for creating new laws? When Winston Churchill heard about the Amritsar Massacre of 1919 and the equally bloody crackdown in Iraq in 1920, he was appalled by what he saw as abuses. And yet, because he was an ethnocentric like most people, he continued to believe in the superiority of British civilisation because it was characterised by the rule of law. The rule of law did not do the Indians and the Iraqis much good, did it? Why would we want the rule of law? How about the rule of freedom?

Law versus morality

It is a moral duty for us not to violate the life, safety, liberty or property of peaceful people. It is not a moral duty to follow laws or obey orders. In fact, if they harm innocents (such as laws that imprison people who buy and use drugs, or orders to bomb a village), it is a moral duty to _disobey._ That is why I have no problem with people on juries who vote to acquit people of crimes they do not believe should be crimes, like drug possession or beating up Donald Rumsfeld, even in the face of overwhelming evidence they are "guilty". When there is no victim (or if the only one is Donald Rumsfeld), there is no guilt.

But following the law is seen as a moral duty. The main reason is probably that, like the perceived necessity of government, we have been told at every stage, by politicians, bureaucrats, the state-run schools, the state-sanctioned intellectuals, the state-supported corporations and everyone who is moderately suggestible that the rule of law is the embodiment of justice. But how can it be? It is inherently political. We criticise politicians for their self-serving practices; we care about the ideology of those who sit on the courts; yet, the law is right, and we must obey. John Hasnas of Georgetown University refers to "the myth of the rule of law", the widespread belief of "a society in which all are governed by neutral rules objectively applied by judges", as "powerful and dangerous".

Elsewhere, Hasnas explains the evolution of the law from a common agreement among free men to the state's codification of those laws. "[T]he fact that politicians recognised the wisdom of the common law by enacting it into statutes hardly proves that government is necessary to create rules of law. Indeed, it proves precisely the opposite."

Neither is law an agreement of all the people. When friends tell me the reason we have the laws and social programmes we do is that we as a society have agreed on them, I have trouble believing their naivety. If that were true, there would be no need for force or monopoly. Laws are created by parliamentarians, whom, if you are in the majority, you did not vote for. As such, they cannot claim to represent you and the diverse district or country you live in, which is why they never contact voters to beg their permission to vote on a bill. And you can try to change the law, if you really want. But I do not know how you expect to win.

Two reasons more people do not work harder to repeal all the ridiculous laws out there are the enormous time and effort it would take, and the low odds of success. Neither does it help that governments often enact a new law down the road, which while different in appearance, their spirit mimics that of the law that was abrogated. If lobbyists truly want something, it would take an enormous tide of popular opposition to prevent its becoming law.

There are thousands of criminal statutes and hundreds of thousands of regulations that can be used to fine or imprison anyone. If the law were a contract, it would be thousands upon thousands of pages no person had ever read. Why would anyone agree to such a thing? When you find out you can be fined $1000 for throwing a football or a frisbee on a beach, you come to realise this fact: There are too many laws. You have probably broken three just today. We could not possibly know all the literally hundreds of thousands of pages of laws, nor is there any moral case for forcing us to follow them. As such, if you believe that, because you have not done anything, there cannot be targeted by the authorities, you are mistaken. Everyone has done something. Anyone the state finds it advantageous to target is a target.

As such, anything a determined interest group does not like or would benefit from the criminalisation of can be illegal. But instead of making their world better, they create victims of the inferior point of view. Anything that makes people squirm can be illegal. Anything that loses someone money can be illegal. Since laws are mostly nothing more than opinions backed up by a gun, crime is whatever social conventions people do not want to follow. The banning of the _hijab_ , or headscarf, in public seems unnecessary and incompatible with a free society. An assimilationist majority can come up with all kinds of reasons why a ban is justified. But the real reason for this law is we do not want others to have freedom; we want conformity.

But why would we want to force our laws on others? If they agree with the law as a rule, they will follow it; if not, why do we have the right to coerce them? In places like Egypt and Tunisia, wearing the _hijab_ is a choice. Some women wear it; some do not. Perhaps Egypt is freer than France. Why would breaking arbitrary social conventions need to be punished by law? Have you ever in your life seen naked people walking around a town or city? Why not? It is because there are certain rules everyone can agree on (even if grudgingly), and only the mentally infirm would break. We internalise those rules and rarely consider breaking them.

Law is not good for society. Thanks to a legal system designed and shaped by lawyers, judges and politicians, one can now sue anyone for anything. Civil lawsuits cost the US economy $233b a year—over $800 per citizen—because lawyers now specialise in suing people for just about anything. Endless pages of law are tools for making money by destroying someone else's life.

On one of my rare trips to the mainstream media, I heard Ann Coulter say liberals want to force you to do what they think is right. I wish I had been there to say "Yeah, liberals suck that way. By the way Ann, what's your stance on gay marriage?" Statists of all points on the spectrum want to gain power in order to use government to force their opinions of what is right and wrong on others. Milton Friedman explained one effect this has.

Calling on the government to solve problems strains that social fabric of agreement on basic values that is necessary to maintain a stable society. In order to have any kind of a stable society, you have to have people agree with one another. You have to have a certain minimum common set of values and beliefs. And you want to avoid straining that set of beliefs. Now, the great virtue of the market is that people who hate one another in other respects can cooperate with each other on the market without any difficulty.... Political mechanisms have the opposite arrangement. You have to enforce conformity on people.

And everyone who wants to force conformity, and thus take away the freedom of the individual, will use the law.

The state of Arizona is considering a bill to impose jail time (up to 25 years) for "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." Or you could just block the guy. Collecting rain water is illegal in some states; a man in Oregon went to jail for 30 days for doing so. American kids cannot sell lemonade on the sidewalk anymore (or Girl Guide cookies). A couple more almost got fined $500 for a lemonade stand, the funds from which they say would have gone to charity. Speaking of charity, feeding the homeless is now illegal in cities all around the US. Orlando police locked up a group of people for illegal compassion. I guess they deserved it. If you want to use public space to help people, you'd better ask permission!

Laws are great for distorting markets to protect the profits of large corporations. Raw milk is illegal in the US; and laws and regulations, pushed by big farms to destroy little ones, are punishing Americans farmers like crazy. You can go to jail for 10 years for downloading music. People have been arrested for using (leeching) someone else's wifi. If you get away with that, do not use a fake name online or you could face another charge. A California man faces 13 years in jail for writing slogans such as "stop big banks" on the sidewalk with chalk. Gambling in any form (say, in your basement with your friends) without a license is illegal in the US, so severely in fact you could go to prison for 10 years. Finally, thanks to intellectual property laws, it is illegal to sing "Happy Birthday" in public. (I'll bet you are a criminal.)

But the endless pages of laws are not only gifts for lobby groups. Police and state apparatchiks want to accumulate power, whether because they believe they have the answers to society's problems, or they simply want to control people. The more power the state concentrates in its hands, the less freedom we have. Consider section five of Britain's Public Order Act of 1986. Its language is so broad, it can be used to punish all kinds of non-crimes. Emdadur Choudhury was fined £50 for burning a poppy. (Perhaps forcing someone to give £50 to the state is not the ideal way to deal with getting offended.) A 16-year-old was fined £50 for saying "woof" to a dog in front of police officers. An old man was forced to pay £695 for inciting a fight by holding a sign. In fact, section five was used 18,249 times in 2009. The Guardian's Mike Harris puts it this way. "Finding the correct balance between public order and legitimate protest isn't always easy. But asking the police to patrol offence has undermined public trust in them. Rightly so, for it is not the job of local bobbies or magistrates to protect citizens from insult. Christian preachers or mouthy anarchists may irritate, but in an open, free society, robust opinion will insult you: perhaps we all just need to get used to it." Perhaps; but if we have a tool as powerful as the law at our hands, what is to stop us from using it for anything?

The state cracks down on "extremist" websites that are sources of "radicalisation". Meanwhile, expansive laws, supposedly to deal with copyright infringement, have been passed all over the rich world with names like SOPA, ACTA, CISPA and IPAA. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA, for example, can force any business around the world to hand over information about its clients' online activity to the US government. It has already used this power to attempt to look into the bank records of a member of Iceland's parliament. The UK is doing something similar. Naturally, the new pressure groups, the hundreds of US, UK, German and Israeli companies that make the technology to grant more power to the government to control your online activity could not be happier. The entire internet structure, the last bastion of freedom, has come under attack by people who cannot bear to let people do what they want. Is privacy a crime now?

But I guess privacy is a luxury we, in this age of really scary things, just can't afford anymore. Sad, really, because not only do we have to follow whatever laws the government decides on, whether we agree with them or not, but because the government appropriates the tools created in the private sector for its own purposes, now we can be tracked electronically in case we break one of them.

I wonder if politicians ever read the legislation they vote on or the reports written for them by bureaucrats, or if they just consult interest groups they are courting to make laws. How could they read all that, anyway? They would need a hundred hours a day of reading to make informed decisions on everything they vote on. Commenting on the renewal of the appalling USA Patriot Act, Julian Sanchez says, "at most they might get a ten- or fifteen-minute briefing, with no notes and no staff. The idea that they meaningfully understand what is being done much better than the rest of us is actually wishful thinking."

Courts

Power, by definition, is unaccountable. The police are slightly accountable, as one can follow them into the vast jungle of the justice system; but they also have power, which means to an extent they are unaccountable. The courts are much the same. The purpose of the courts was always said to be dispensing justice, but when one juxtaposes headlines that say "Ex-Mortgage CEO Sentenced to Prison [for 40 months] for $3B Fraud" and "Homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100", one is led to question this premise. Either the courts are staggeringly inconsistent, or the system is rigged toward the powerful. So why do we plead with them for justice?

You have to be pretty patient and rich to take your grievances to court. But private mediators exist who will spare you the hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of "justice" you will find in the dispute-resolution mechanism of the state. Private mediators solve business disputes, union grievances and divorce proceedings very well. It is also not necessary to take most debt claims to court. If people or businesses do not pay off their debts, they get bad credit ratings from private companies, and cannot take out loans.

Prisons

There should only be two parties in criminal punishment: the aggressor, and the victim of that aggression. If the victim wants to forgive the aggressor, it should be done. If the victim orders the aggressor to pay the victim proportionally, it is fair. Try mercy over revenge some time. Not everyone has to go to jail. For those who do go, mercy is the last thing they receive.

Prisons have an enormous amount of power. Once someone is deemed unfit for society, whether because they killed 10 children or stole and returned $100, their lives come under the complete control of the state. But while in prisons one can see the greatest concentration of government power, prisons are riddled with violence and drugs. The state claims to protect against crime but turns the other way when crimes are committed against criminals. It is not surprising to read about a man arrested for motorist offences being locked into the torture of solitary confinement for two years. Prisons are also notorious hotbeds of rape.

Strip searching everyone who goes to prison is now legal. As Naomi Wolf points out, such sexual humiliation is a very effective tool for controlling minds.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American South, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the South, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

As a result of the endless number of laws and the zealous jailing of anyone the state dislikes, the rate of incarceration in the US is 743 per 100,000 people. That is the highest rate in the world. One in every hundred Americans is imprisoned during his or her lifetime, many of them for victimless crimes like drug possession. One study found that, in 2009, 50% of the US federal prison population is there for drugs, while 8% were there for violent crime. And federal prisoners do not even have the chance for parole: the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished it; and according to Julie Stewart of Families against Mandatory Minimums, most politicians do not know that.

We tend to look at prisons as inherently good, an unquestioned net benefit for society, but we should pay attention to their costs. If there were no government, we could still have prisons, as there will still be people who are unrelentingly violent, but we would do more careful cost-benefit analyses of how our money was spent on them. And what happens when someone has been wrongfully convicted? The taxpayers cover that too

We should not be surprised when we hear of rising incarceration rates, rape, torture and all manner of abuses in prisons. It is not just in the US; prisons are hell all over the world. This is the state. Imprisoning people who have not hurt anyone and subjecting them to various forms of torture goes back to the origin of the state. It can pass any laws it wants, or curtail existing laws, and destroy people's lives. It can blame everything on bad people. Why is it preferable to give an organisation the legal monopoly on these things, along with the incentive to do more of them?

If prisons are meant to reform prisoners or compensate victims, they do not seem to work very well. As the court system has evolved, it has gradually separated the victim and the perpetrator. Now, criminals are expected to "repay their debt to society" instead of repaying it to the only person they have wronged, by going through a court and prison system that costs the victim and all other taxpayers billions of dollars a year; and the victim may not even get compensation. It is not up to him. Prisons seem to be the only solution we can think of to crime: someone kills? Throw him in jail. Someone steals a candy bar? Throw him in jail too, at huge cost to society regardless of the magnitude of the crime. The idea someone has to pay his debt to society is nonsense, because "society" has not been harmed by the criminal, only by the backwardness of the justice system. Under the current system, society, meaning the taxpayers, must pay to house and feed the criminal. That means the victim must pay as well. In 2009, it cost $47,102 a year for each inmate in prison in California.

Putting all these people in jail brings social costs, as families are broken up. It brings economic costs. Policing victimless crimes not only sucks billions of dollars a year out of the economy; it sucks workers out of the labour force. Instead of having people who contribute, millions of prisoners are forced to leech off the state. What a waste.

And why? Crime rates have fallen. The homicide rate in the US is half what it was in 1991. Violent crime and property destruction are way down. Juvenile delinquency is down. More prisons is not a way to reduce crime: it is a way to benefit the prison lobby, which, by the way, is doing just fine.

Prisons are contracted out as for-profit businesses paid by the state in the US, the UK and Australia. The operators of private prisons make more money the more prisoners there are. Since they are also a lobby group, they will see to it the drug laws and public order laws and immigration laws remain in place, and, if they can help it, get tougher. This lobby is known as the prison-industrial complex. The Corrections Corporation of America wrote the following in its 2005 annual report.

Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities.... The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.

Crime no longer means doing bad things. It means giving an excuse for people to take from the taxpayers and give to a lobby.

What about crime?

"Crime" in the legal sense would not exist in a free society, because people would be constrained by their consciences and external pressures and not men and women in uniform. But of course there would still be the initiation of violence against innocent people; it just would not carry any legitimacy. As such, it might be easier to reduce. Chapters 40 and 43 cover preventing and dealing with crime in the sense of aggression against person and property. The state, as it is now, encourages crime.

First, when something for which there is still demand is made illegal, the market goes underground and it becomes more valuable—so valuable, in fact, people will kill for it. People kill each other on the streets because of drugs every day, and the police sometimes kill innocent people they suspect of selling drugs as well. Sex slavery is enabled by the criminalisation of prostitution, and as a result, women from all over the world are bought and sold, and violence against them is routine. But prostitutes who did not wait around for the state to help them organised and fought against police abuse, while working as safe-sex peer counselors. Are these women illegal? Human trafficking, similar in effect to sex trafficking, is partly the result of closed borders (though it is also a form of slavery that should be combated by free people). Any law prohibiting something is a potentially lucrative black market, with the accompanying violence.

Second, to the extent one is not allowed to defend oneself and must wait for the police to show up, criminals can take advantage of their weakness. The 2011 riots in the UK and Vancouver are an excellent example of a disarmed populace, waiting to be victimised, which would have been punished by the state for defending itself, held for ransom by the state, its protector. The more dependent we are on people who do not care about us, the weaker we are in the face of aggression.

There are always solutions to crime besides police, courts and jails. As I have said, we will need some prisons for the truly violent people we cannot restrain otherwise. But what about petty criminals? What about shoplifters? Here is an idea. Let us start a retail shoppers association, which consumers need to join to be allowed entrance to a retail outlet. The association could issue consumer members with a card that a machine at the front of each store reads. If you get caught shoplifting, the association can take your card away, or simply make a note that it is void. Thus, you cannot enter an outlet in the association. If you get caught shoplifting at Walmart, you cannot enter Costco, or JC Penny, or anywhere else in the loop. For the sake of mercy, perhaps they would only ban you for 6 months, or allow you to come back after paying a price. Repeat offenders could be banned for life. This free-market solution does not require jail and yet provides a strong disincentive to potential thieves.

Another possibility is to have jails that inmates attend as a punishment when they are exiled for breaking the NAP. It is a kind of hotel to which people move for a certain amount of time until others will accept them again. Brad Spangler recommends we have some kind of "law rating", like our credit rating, which measures the extent to which we have hurt others. Libertarian thinkers are at work coming up with solutions to every problem we have without violence.

Didn't the law end racism?

Many people believe institutionalised racism in the US ended because of laws. But this belief confuses cause and effect. Like many laws that are generally popular, the government caught up to and made official the beliefs of society. Child labour was abolished _after_ the poorest people were no longer so poor they needed to put their children to work. It makes little sense to say the reason American or European children do not work in mines and sweatshops anymore is because of the law. The reason is because no child needs to work there.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a reaction to the civil disobedience campaign that had been protesting the laws and practices that took away the rights of black people. So government eventually came along to give people back rights government took from them in the first place.

In 1868, the US Constitution was amended to declare blacks were citizens, and everyone had equal protection under the law. In 1870, the US government amended the Constitution again to say denying a citizen the right to vote based on race or history of slavery was illegal. Creating a new law to reaffirm something that, in word, is at the core of the entire system says little for the system itself. Nonetheless, people rejoiced.

But the government did not enforce those laws, because even the Constitution of the United States of America is meaningless when powerful people have an agenda. Instead, it let the Southern states deny people the vote based on their skin colour.

Black people demanded their rights in riots and civil disobedience. In the 1950s and 60s, things began to change in the American mindset. More and more people came to realise blacks were of equal (or perhaps almost equal) worth to whites. But the states continued to impose laws of segregation.

Civil disobedience continued, and white people got in on it. Together, they protested the segregated lunch counters and buses. When they had changed enough minds, and when state-sanctioned violence against peaceful people got worse, Eisenhower sent in the National Guard. A few years after that, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts were passed.

Why did those two laws get passed? Because they would be popular. It is easy to score points with an electorate that has already made its mind up about what is right and wrong by passing a law institutionalising it. Just like after the vast majority of people realise gay marriage is fine and drug laws hurt more than they help, the government will eventually catch up and change those laws.

Fast forward. Right now, in a number of Southern states, you can still lose your vote if you have a criminal record. I am not really into voting but that seems like a great way to disenfranchise a whole group of people. The War on Drugs has always been an excuse to crack down on people the state doesn't like. It began when Nixon wanted to declare war on hippies and divert attention from his campaign of bombing Cambodia. (Find more on the War on Drugs in chapter 21.) Since the 1980s, if not before, it has been an excuse to crack down on the crime of being black. It is the main reason black people are disproportionately represented in the enormous US prison population. Racism is policy. As legal scholar Michelle Alexander says, "If mass incarceration is considered as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success."

But there is another reason drugs are illegal. The private prison system lobbies politicians to keep the prisoners coming. Getting rid of thousands of laws would be great for most people; but then how would they keep the prison-industrial complex happy? And racist white voters are happy to have laws that legally deny blacks the vote, so that nothing will change.

Finally, the prisons use inmates as labourers they make even more money from. They advertise explicitly as cheap-labour solutions for outsourcing. Slavery has returned. And it is all legal; encouraged, in fact, by law.

Simple law

The point is not that some laws are good and some laws are bad, by whatever criteria. That is true of rules in general. The problem is the ability for a small group of people with a monopoly on making rules that are enforced by a group with a monopoly on violence. An episode of Family Guy portrayed chaos resulting from the disbanding of the local government. While people are looting and fighting, Peter stands up in front of everyone and gives a speech. "The first thing we need is a system of rules." Check. "And since we can't spend all our time making rules"—check—"I think that we should elect some people to represent us, and they should make rules and choices on our behalf." Wait, what? Why? Why would we want a standing body to make new rules every day and force everyone to follow them?

A good legal system is a simple one. How about I do not aggress against you and you do not aggress against me? A system of polycentric law, as described in chapter 40, would provide that. What else would we need? And which type of system do you think someone who could not afford a million-dollar-an-hour lawyer would prefer?

I used to believe firmly in rights, human rights, and my right to do this and that. I have come to see, however, that rights can be violated by anyone stronger, from the school bully to the DEA. How can rights be anything other than words if they can be violated so easily? I believe we only have rights to the extent we take them and secure them ourselves. People who live outside the state are (politically and economically) the freest people because they are not subject to arbitrary state violence. Of course, not everyone wants to live outside the reach of the state; but surely, if we have rights, should that not be one of them?

The only real laws, or rights, we need are the natural laws of ownership of property, which includes our bodies, that which we create, and that which we acquire in voluntary transactions. The sanctity of ownership is embodied in the non-aggression principle: no initiating violence, no stealing, no threats. Think how much freer we would be if those were the only laws enforced.

In sum, the way it is in state societies, I have no respect for the law. Fortunately, I have some powerful company. Governments have no respect for the law, either. The US, UK, Spanish, Polish and other governments engaged in an act that was clearly aggression under international law in 2003 when they invaded Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom was not approved by the UN Security Council and was thus a wholly illegal war. It was an act of aggression, which is _ius cogens_ , universally accepted as law and permitting no derogation. Locking people up without charge is illegal, which means Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and the numerous other secret (but very real) prisons around the world. The disgusting tortures that have gone on in those prisons (and a thousand other prisons run by other governments), such as waterboarding and electric shocks, are also _ius cogens_. Extraordinary rendition, in which the British and Canadian governments have also participated, and which seems like the kind of legal term or political euphemism that makes the average person turn the page, is abducting and transferring someone without trial to somewhere they might be tortured. The practice may still be going on. Government secrecy has made it almost impossible for us to know the truth. But even if law were a way to make people virtuous, it is clear governments are not bound by it. Only the powerless majority is.

13 Taxation and debt

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. – Frederic Bastiat

###### If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. – Lysander Spooner

Giving a politician access to your wallet is like giving a dog access to your refrigerator. – Tim Barber

Taxation is theft. Public debt is slavery. Well, that is what voluntaryists say, anyway. Is it hyperbole? Let's see. Taxation means forcing you to pay for whatever the government says you must. There is no offer, no negotiation, no acceptance, no contract. What if you disagree with spending money on something the government wants? What if you have something better to buy with it, like a house? What if you wanted to invest in your own business? What if you would rather give your money to the poor? What if you take the option of not paying taxes? Men with guns come to your home and take you to jail. If you refuse, they might shoot you. Sounds like theft to me.

If we define taxation more broadly, there are more forms of it. Not only is it the money taken from paycheques. For those who believe the poor or people who do not pay income tax do not pay tax, think again. Everyone pays sales taxes. Everyone pays for corporate taxes, because that money has to come from someone, so it comes from employees' pay, or in the form of higher prices. Everyone pays when the value of a currency is inflated away through printing money. Everyone who buys anything imported pays when free trade is restricted. Everyone pays higher prices due to regulatory barriers to competition in every industry. Everyone pays administrative fees to bureaucrats when they want something the other millions of dollars they have paid in tax should presumably already have paid for. And in the US, there is a tax for renouncing one's citizenship, and a tax on all capital gains made by those who do. Government policies steal from us at every step.

Of course, not all government revenue is acquired through taxation. A lot comes from debt. Debt is like free money...until the collectors come to call, by which time you owe more than you did before. Politicians do not pay the debts; you do.

Most Americans, depending how much they pay in taxes, spend three, four, maybe six months working so that they can pay their taxes. That means they work to pay the salaries and generous retirement packages of politicians, bureaucrats, soldiers, police, lobbyists, lobbyists' clients, the executives of firms bailed out by the government...did I miss anyone? If you don't pay...well, you know. Taxes and debt are therefore a kind of forced labour. If a man is a slave, he forfeits 100% of the product of his labour. If a man unwillingly forfeits a quarter of what he produces, by working three out of twelve months to pay taxes, he is one quarter a slave.

The US government debt right now stands at around $17t, and has been growing at about 10% a year. (Actually, total unfunded liabilities may come closer to $211 trillion. Can you even imagine a number that big? It is at least three times the GDP of the entire world!) According to the US Treasury, the government took $414b of Americans' money to service that debt in 2010, and we should probably take that as a minimum since it is the government's own projection. After defense, social security and Medicare, interest payments are the largest government disbursement priority, and they are growing. About half of the interest paid on "your" debt goes outside the country. And as the US's credit rating deteriorates, holders of US public debt will demand better interest rates. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office estimates over the next decade, you will pay nearly $5t just on debt. Five trillion dollars. And that is barring any wars on Iran, or Syria, or wherever the next target is. You don't think people on the ground could find something better to spend that money on? Say, food, housing, clothing, that kind of thing? If you are in the majority, you do not think that, because democrats tend not to be willing to forego the programs that fuel the debt.

Let us not be confused as to why the government is in debt. It is not because it does not raise enough taxes. Government is in debt because it spends like a teenager with his dad's credit card. After all, if I can get a group of people to vote for me by spending a billion dollars of someone else's money, why wouldn't I? The billion-dollar handout occurs over and over again between elections. (See chapter 15.) The people do not notice small-yet-never-ending increases in their tax burdens, just like they do not notice the small reductions in their freedom that happen with every law passed, like the frogs in the pot on the stove. We now see why spending hardly ever decreases, unless it dips slightly due to campaign promises and public pressure, and then goes back up again later. If you cut spending, a group turns against you, stops voting for you and smears you in the press. So why stop spending? That kind of thing is known in politics as "bravery" and "leadership" and it barely ever happens.

Even the self-styled fiscal conservative governments increase spending. George W. Bush might be the most obvious example, but the same goes for Ronald Reagan, whose government fed the debt every year he was in the White House, and whose spending (or as politicians like to say, "investment") on the War on Drugs, nuclear weapons and military interventions around the world sent deficits soaring; same with Brian Mulroney, who introduced Canada's Goods and Services Tax, which 80% of Canadians opposed at the time but which exists to this day; same with Margaret Thatcher, under whom expenditures rose every year she was in power because the Iron Lady just couldn't keep her hand out of the public cookie jar.

In 2011, Republicans and Democrats valiantly came together to reduce federal spending by $38b. That was over one year, of course. The IRS costs $12b a year to run. Spending for the war on Afghanistan is about $66b a month. The deficit is still growing—by some four trillion unpayable dollars this year—which means the debt is still growing, which means you and your children will need to pay more and more over time. That is, unless the US government defaults on its debt, in which case I am sure everything will be fine.

What are the consequences of debt? Well, let's ask the Eurozone, where foreign debt surpasses GDP for most countries. What is going on there?

Banks are getting endlessly bailed out, governments are bailing each other out, but instead of the people who caused the crashes and spent their way into debt paying for it, the taxpayers are footing the bill. That means less money in their hands to invest, to buy things that support the economy, to save for retirement, and so on, and less still in the future. "We have insolvent banks lending to insolvent governments and we are calling it success. Not only is this a scam, but it is an enormous scam; because by the end of February [2012], the ECB [European Central Bank] will lend one trillion euros to European banks."

Nigel Farage points out bailing out Spanish banks is making things worse. "A hundred billion [euros] is put up for the Spanish banking system, and 20 percent of that money has to come from Italy. And under the deal the Italians have to lend to the Spanish banks at 3 per cent but to get that money they have to borrow on the markets at 7 per cent. It's genius, isn't it?" No wonder credit ratings of European banks and governments are dropping fast. When the collapse comes, it will have disastrous effects, and they will not be confined to Europe.

Eventually, politicians are forced to end the system of bribery from the public purse and adopt austerity. Again, of course, this means pain for the people who produce for the economy. But it does not necessarily make it easier for the unwilling debtors, the taxpayers, to pay off their debts. Ireland and Greece have had austerity policies in place for several years, and things are getting worse. The decision makers are repeating the same actions and expecting different results. The more austerity, the less growth; the less growth, the less tax revenue; you cannot pay off the debt. The balance sheet is getting worse because they are adding more debt to it, instead of reducing the debt. The inevitable Greek default will set off a domino effect, as governments decide, if Greece can do it, so can we. Professor Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard said "A Greek exit would underscore that there's no realistic long-term plan for Europe, and it would lead to a chaotic endgame for the rest of the Eurozone."

Unemployment is climbing ever higher. Stock markets have fallen by more than 50% in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus over the past five years. Government bond yields are rising, meaning investors have less confidence they will repay their loans. Observers are not optimistic.

Unelected technocrats, many harvested from large financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, have taken over in Spain, Greece and Italy. They straddle the troubled economies in the hopes a few decision makers of questionable integrity can somehow coordinate international political economy and save the day. The likely result is the financial giants will not take the fall for the financial crisis—the taxpayers will.

Major protests have ensued against austerity, or indeed any meaningful cuts to government spending, demonstrating that the people are not willing to accept the inevitable: no more free stuff from the state. Instead of protesting, they could be spending their time providing those services for each other, setting up institutions outside the state, and indeed some already have. But if they believe they can go back to the way things were, they are deluded. This borrowing-fueled mayhem to bribe citizens into re-electing incumbents will have to end.

Do the people protesting understand quite what is happening? If they understand taxation is theft, they will be able to see European governments are stealing trillions of dollars from them, forcing the unborn into debt slavery, destroying their economies and giving huge amounts of their money to bankers. As long as they know that, they can learn the coercive nature of the state is at the root of the problem.

Many of them have been led to believe government spending boosts the economy, at least when done strategically. However, as Henry Hazlitt explains in Economics in One Lesson, or as anyone who understands the broken window fallacy knows, this is not the case. If Peter has $100 he will spend buying a jacket, he will put that money back into the economy and two people—Peter and the jacket seller—will be happy. If the state takes $100 from Peter, neither Peter nor the jacket seller is happy. The state has destroyed the wealth that would have been created in a mutually-beneficial transaction created in the free market. When the state gives the money to an unproductive enterprise like a failed bank, an act of destruction like a war, or a bureaucrat with a job that does not produce useful public goods, the state has taken all the wealth that would otherwise have been created and thrown it down a hole. (Find more on this subject in part 4.)

There is nothing moral about the taking of taxes. The argument that taxes go to pay for social programmes and are thus indispensible is an ex post facto justification for them. Taxes existed long before those programmes (as did charitable giving and mutual aid), and the programmes have arisen to legitimise the continued expansion of taxes and laws into every aspect of life. In short, the state does not tax so it can fund social programmes; it funds social programmes so it can tax.

The argument that we get things in return for taxation in no way diminishes its being theft. If one does not consent to the taking of every penny, and the penalty for non payment is violence, it is theft. Moreover, what if a thief took from us to pay for food or education for himself and his family? Not only is that nothing more than the forced redistribution of wealth, it is far more benign than many of the things the state uses that money for.

Some voluntaryists would say paying taxes is immoral. Look at what your taxes pay for. If you are an American citizen who is opposed to Operation Plunder Afghanistan, why are you funding it? If you are against the War on Drugs, how can you pay your taxes and look yourself in the mirror? And if you think Social Security and Medicaid are worthwhile, you are free to give money to old folks' homes and hospitals in poor neighbourhoods. For following your conscience and evading taxes, you could be the victim of state violence. But I believe we should evade taxes nonetheless. (See chapter 41 on how.) Funding war and the police state is difficult to escape but immoral, not to mention a big waste of your time.

Do you know how many hours it takes Americans to fill out their byzantine tax forms? 7.6b hours a year. Never mind the $12b in direct costs for the IRS; the costs of compliance with the tax code are $338b, a loss of more than $1000 for every man, woman and child.

By the way, a lot of the biggest corporations do not pay taxes. That's because the people who make you pay taxes don't make their friends pay. They don't have to. They have the power, not you. The smaller businesses still pay, though. Louisiana recently made it illegal to buy and sell second-hand goods with cash. Presumably, the government wanted to skim money off the top of every single transaction, and it has found a way to close an accounting loophole. (It also forces dealers to maintain a customer database and turn it over to the police when they demand it.) Of course, second-hand antique dealers will lose considerable business, but the state was not making money off those transactions and was not wined and dined by any antique dealers who might have wanted to write the law. If there is a way to make money off others, the state is willing to cripple their businesses to do so. Tax evaders also include Barack Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, some of Barack's already-well-paid aides, and Annette Nazareth, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, the last three all Barack nominees who resigned when probed regarding taxes.

But corporations should not pay taxes, for the same moral and practical reasons anyone else should not. Imagine there were no corporate or payroll taxes in the US. Businesses from all over the world would flock to the country most competitive for business. Ten percent unemployment would be a worry of the past. And people would have enough money to build all the roads, schools and hospitals they wanted.

Do you know why governments are drowning in debt right now? Because democracy is basically a system of bribery. The people in power get their hands on the public purse—an essentially enormous amount—and dole out money and favourable laws to all the most powerful special-interest groups. Once the bribery has started, no future politician can afford to revoke it (unless for some reason the people who want it would not vote for the politician, as was the case when George Bush gutted the Environmental Protection Agency) or he or she risks angering a powerful group. They will tax as much as they can and then borrow as much as they can to keep well-connected people happy and keep gaining power for themselves until one day, the bill comes. That is what Greece is facing right now. The country you inhabit may be racing toward the same day of reckoning.

Should we lower taxes? The accompanying question is, will the government reduce its spending commensurately? If not, where will it get the extra money from? The "Bush tax cuts" were not cuts at all. Borrowing and printing increased in order to drug the elderly and flatten the Middle East.

So let's try raising taxes. Let's take more of your money away. It's not like you earned it. What happens when they raise taxes? Here is an analogy. What happens when someone who cannot control their spending wins the lottery? At first they are flush with cash, so they buy a new house and a couple of classic cars, a cellar full of wine from a country they've never heard of and a big pile of cocaine. When the money dries up, sooner than they expected, they are actually deeper in debt than ever and now have a drug habit that is nearly impossible to kick. If every penny of the tax increase went to paying off the debt, or even education or something, then it might be worth it. But when a government finds itself flush with cash, it does what the lottery winners do and flushes it down the toilet. Gather round, special interests: this one's on the public!

Maybe we should just tax the rich, right? Those rich bastards, take their money and then they'll just spend less on caviar, right? Is that how it works? First, some of those people got rich by providing goods and services people willingly paid for, which means they earned their wealth.

Second, when we tax the rich, including entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, investors of all stripes, we reduce the amount of money they have to invest in new businesses. These are the people who create the jobs and the wealth the people on the bottom take for granted. Do we want to punish them? We will punish everyone with our ingratitude and jealousy.

Third, I do not know why people think the state should ever have more money. The bigger its budget, the more powerful it gets, which means more resources to jail, spy and make war on people. Taxing the rich has never had anything to do with social justice, because the rich, whether the shareholders of Lockheed Martin or Exxon, the makers of TSA body scanners or the owners of factory farms, are the ones who get the lion's share of the spoils of the state. People who want to tax the rich to give to the poor are people who believe we can take an institution based on violence that has always existed for the purpose of control and exploitation and use it to create a just society.

Fourth, taxation is theft, no matter who is subjected to it. Forcing other people to pay for us and our favourite programmes is still force, however much we like our subsidised medications.

14 Elections

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory government. Voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state because the participation of the voters makes it appear that they approve of their government. There are ways of opposing the state, other than by voting 'against' the incumbents. (And remember, even if the opposition politicians are the lesser of two evils, they are still evil.) Such non-political methods as civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, home schooling, bettering one's self, and improving one's own understanding of voluntaryism all go far in robbing the government of its much sought after legitimacy. – Carl Watner

Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician's ear: 'You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you.' – Wendy McElroy

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. – Charles de Gaulle

Allow me one more quote: an editorial in the Globe and Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, from April 27, 2011.

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system. [Oh, and the war on Afghanistan.]

The real question is, how could we have expected more? History was repeating itself, and had done every election for decades. If you are disappointed, you have not been paying attention.

Citizens of democracies like to feel they are in charge. After all, every so often they decide who gets to sit in government, and government is in charge of everything. There is little reason to be so cocky.

Most people do not understand politics and government very well. How could they? They have other things to do besides study politics, economics, law, philosophy, congressional voting records, campaign contributors, and everything else they would need to make an informed decision. They form strong opinions on things they do not understand. And then they go vote. These are the same people who believe 10% of the US government budget is spent on foreign aid, when in reality it is closer to 1% (and it's not helping the poor). Reading the newspapers and listening to candidates speak do NOT make someone an informed voter.

Here is something else voters might not know: you as an individual are more likely to die in a car accident _on the way to the polling station_ than you are to make a difference in a federal election. Perhaps the solution is, as many a disappointed democrat stresses, to get more people out to vote. But they would vote for the same people and the same system. Doing so would not address the problems with elections.

To win an election or nomination to the head of a political party, you need to be competitive, ruthless, and know how to play voter ignorance like a violin. If politicians were wise and benevolent, there would be no need for elections. We could trust them to do what is right. But since they consistently do not do what they say they will do, turning out to be corrupt and incompetent, we need elections to vote them out. So we vote out Guy A and vote in Guy B, because Guy B promises change. But then Guy B ends up being just as corrupt and incompetent as Guy A! Am I the only one who considers this an exercise in futility, to say the least? Choosing candidates and parties based on what little we know about them is an attempt to predict they will be the same people we hope they are now as when they get into power.

But people don't get it. They say things like, "democracy is good because we have choices." Yes, you have a tiny percentage of a say in which of a few people you do not know very well will impose his or her policies and taxes on you, in which person's salary and retirement benefits you are forced to pay for, but you do not have much choice in anything else. The only real choice you have is obey or go to jail.

Then they say, "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain." You think? I do not accept the legitimacy or the need for government. If I do not like Greek food, I do not go to Greek restaurants. Greek-restaurant owners do not force me to buy their food, so I have no complaint about them. But the government does intrude in my affairs, and voting has no effect on that. Voters, on the other hand, are lending support to the intrusive institution. They are saying, with their actions, it is good that I am being forced. They vote to force rulers on me. And I have no right to complain.

Elections seem to legitimise democracy because people get a say in politics once in a few years. I argue elections reveal how meaningless democracy is. Millions get together to vote and nothing changes. The politicians who demand action do nothing. All the same pointless policies get shuffled around. And voters have the same complaints about every government in every election: they don't listen to us, they don't do what we want them to do, they don't solve our problems. It is the same thing every single time. Do you really think the next election will make anything better?

Democrats believe being able to "choose" our rulers—if that is really what an election allows—is what makes them accountable. But they have yet to demonstrate the causal link between elections and politicians' doing what the people want them to do. Here is what tends to happen instead. Let's say there is a broad consensus in the US to end the war in Afghanistan. 75% of Americans from both parties (as if there is much difference between the two) believe it is time to end the war. It does not matter which party they vote for—either one will make their priority the ending of the war in Afghanistan. This is where democracy's being better than dictatorship as a way to get things done ends. Because if there is no consensus on the other issues, the government, whichever party forms it, will revert to its natural form and spend the rest of its time in office rewarding campaign contributors, enriching friends and finding new ways to make people dependent on the state.

Do representatives really represent you? How could they? They do not even know you. Two of the most dangerous illusions held in statist societies are that we need representatives, and that representatives actually represent us. Every time one opens the newspaper, one can read of politicians doing things we would never want them to do; and yet, they persist. But consider what it means to have representatives. Either we have someone in office who is trying to represent a heterogeneous group by vying for power over others, or no one actually represents our group or us as individuals and others have power over us. Admittedly, if we are going to have the system, we should have someone looking out for our interests so that we do not get the short end of the stick. But a more relevant question is, why would we want this law-of-the-jungle system in the first place?

Look at the damage the short-term incentives of regular elections causes. Politicians are not willing to tackle any of the hard problems, like the deficit and the debt, or the environment, or the slow deterioration of social programmes, because doing so would be controversial. Instead, they pass the problem on to the next guy, who passes the problem on as well, until something has to change. We are nearing this point now, all over the world. If people did not depend on the government to make such important decisions, the problems might not have got so out of hand in the first place. And if I am wrong and people cannot get together to solve the big problems, well, there is no saving humanity.

Anybody 2012

Your vote for whichever politician or platform was wasted. Whatever politicians say while campaigning does not matter, because they are going to change their minds when they gain power anyway; at least, so history teaches. One reason is it was never about the electoral platform. The platform is a PR document, not a contract. Politicians are constrained by a host of factors, which remain the same regardless of who is in the seats. They are wined and dined by the same special interest groups, including innumerable business lobbies, lawyers, public and private sector unions, the bureaucracy, the Israel lobby, the Saudi princes, etc.

People who say "the government is just people", or something to that effect, do not know the structure of the state is why it does not matter that much who makes up the government. The structure of the state does not vary significantly from country to country, partly because the interstate system demands conformity. States are expected to cooperate across boundaries on all issues, from health and education to the United Nations. They all have seats of power, with some conferring greater powers than others. Through taxation and law, they all have the power to grow, becoming larger and more powerful. The desire for power is self reinforcing and corrupting. And most powerful people are not even elected. They merely pull the strings, irrespective of who sits in office. What matters is what powers the seats of government grant individuals, not which individuals sit in them. Government is not just people; it is people with their hands on the institutional means of violence.

Have you ever passed by some wragged-looking wretch in the street with his hand out? That's a voter. Elections are like begging. Please, government, end this war, please change this law, please give me a tax cut. The only difference between voters and beggars is voters have already given their money, and through voting they are begging for some of it back.

Nobody 2012

But even if voting accomplished what the voter intended, we need to consider the morality of it. Voters cast their ballots in the hope someone will impose certain policies on other people. Why should we be trying to impose our will on each other at all?

I suggest not voting at all. When you vote, you are encouraging a system of aggression and theft. You are voting to impose your opinions on others. You are voting to perpetuate the system of violence you live under and have no power over. And no candidate will end that system.

The great illusions of democracy are that democracy means freedom, elections mean progress, candidates differ significantly, governments have to and do take care of you, the law protects people rather than the state, and change comes through the system.

Living in Cairo during Egypt's first supposedly-democratic elections ever has been somewhat frustrating and disheartening. After the burst of optimism following the initial revolt, the disastrous rule of the junta, and the unsuccessful resistance to it, people gave their hopes up to their political elites. They spent hours a day arguing about which of the four, then two, presidential candidates was less evil. But which one would actually do _good_ things? Many boycotted the presidential election because they did not trust either man to do a good job, and because they did not trust the military government running the election. But those who voted asked, "what options do we have?" You always have options. But they do not lie with government.

In today's world, we should look beyond traditional electoral politics as the key to solving problems and start looking at how we can organise ourselves and others to change the things we can. Many people, of course, already realise this, which is why there are so many NGOs and mutual aid networks (see chapter 42). Here we have initiated people who did not wait patiently for politicians to get round to ending poverty.

A meaningful vote you have is your money. Every dollar you spend goes to someone else. Is that person going to spend your money in a way you approve of? Could your money be better spent if given to another party? These are the choices we make every day that affect others. If we buy jewelry, we might be perpetuating war in the Congo. If we give money to the food bank, we might be helping people get back on their feet.

We have the opportunity to educate ourselves and others as to the nature of this system, so that people realise it does not work and decide to change it from the bottom up. If you want good things to happen, make them happen. If you want the garbage picked up or the road fixed, you pay someone or do it in cooperation with your neighbours. You take responsibility. You do not give it away by electing someone. The people you elect are not your representatives. They are your rulers.

15 Interest groups and lobbies

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

Special-interest groups are a major part of where our money goes and where our laws come from. If you think government is the collective will of the people, and the reason we have all these laws and government programmes is because they are what the people as a whole have decided on, or that they are for the good of the people, this chapter is for you.

A politician's incentives are for votes and money. Politicians have the ability to hand out taxpayer money and laws that benefit the few at the expense of the many. If a group has enough voters or enough money, it has what politicians want. That means it can get what it wants from politicians. Special interests and government form a symbiotic relationship—you help me get reelected or give a bunch of money when I leave office, and I will give you various benefits at the taxpayers', or consumers', or small business owners', or the people of another country's, expense. (Oh, and when it comes to insider trading, Congresspeople and their staffers are above the law.)

If I take a dollar from you, and then I take a dollar each from a million more people, and I give that million dollars to one guy, what will happen? The one guy is really happy, and he is more powerful now, so he has more influence over me. You, on the other hand, will barely notice your missing dollar. Repeat this process a million times and you will have some idea where your "tax contribution" goes.

These subsidies, or favourable laws, or whatever lobbyists demand in return for guaranteeing the stagnant status quo, do not just hurt your paycheque. The fishing industry, for instance, gets an estimated $20b in handouts every year. Because the politically powerful (as opposed to the friendly fisherman on the fish sticks package) get the money, they fish longer, in larger quantities and farther away than ever before. These subsidies distort market prices for fish, as the reduced fish stocks should mean higher prices, which would reduce demand and probably let fish stocks return to sustainable levels. But the subsidies encourage overfishing, and as a result, fish stocks are collapsing worldwide. This result illustrates how modern democracy works.

We all agree special interest groups have too much power. But why do our democratically-elected-and-thus-accountable-to-us politicians never do anything that puts a meaningful dent in that problem? Let's ask the money what it wants.

Official lobbying spending in the US increased from $1.44b in 1998 to $3.5b in 2010. The number of lobbyists (again, officially) employed tops 14,000. As Ron Paul said, "Lobbyists get paid more than Congressmen because they write more laws than we do." Lobbying members of Congress on behalf of the financial sector has sped up since the 2008 crash. Religious lobbies have more than 1000 lobbyists and spend more than $390m a year to influence laws regarding abortion, gay rights and a variety of others.

Business lobbies are even bigger. People tend to blame corporations for a large number of the problems in the world, and to an extent they are right. However, most of those problems would either not exist or be far easier to deal with if business did not have access to the means of violence they have when they control the state. Of course business influences some of the worst decisions made by the state. How could it be otherwise? The problem is not business or profit or money but power. They have power because they influence the government.

Do you think the lobbyists want protection for the existing players in their industry? Do you think that kind of protection will benefit the consumers? Crony capitalism means handouts to well-connected players, and "stimulus" is just another word for "handout". The Troubled Asset Relief Programme, TARP, which dealt with trillions of dollars, was negotiated behind closed doors, as was the Obamacare bill. Big business would never lobby for a free market but subsidies and regulations, which are the opposite of the free market.

After GM received a $50b government bailout, it redoubled its lobbying efforts. According to the Wall Street Journal, GM "joined other auto makers in urging the White House to back off a proposal that could require auto makers' vehicle fleets to get an average 62 miles a gallon by 2025, and to instead adopt less ambitious standards." A month or two later, the WSJ said the US government is likely to lose billions on the sale of GM stock it purchased when GM was having trouble. Total losses are now estimated at $23.6b. But then the White House was never very good at market timing. Whenever you want to know why a massive handout, bailout, nationalisation, privatisation, strange- or even innocuous-sounding law got passed, you can be sure there is a special interest behind it.

The energy industry is notorious for its ties to government. Michael Ruppert explains in the movie Collapse the National Energy Policy Development Group Report. It was immediately classified "because if that report were declassified we would be building scaffolds to hang Dick Cheney and everybody in that administration tomorrow." Negotiated behind closed doors, as all the most important policies are, the report was all about how to use public money to suck fossil fuels from the ground all over the world. Energy-sector executives and top government officials (many of whom used to be energy-sector executives) met in private to see how the state could help them. What should we have expected?

Since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, no one from the corporation has been arrested or fined, thanks to legal corporate personhood. BP has paid off 19 (or more) US politicians who are happy if BP is happy. The damage the spill caused is in the multiple billions of dollars to tourism, and fishing jobs that will take decades to come back. However, there is a $75m cap on BP's liability, which means that, at most, BP will pay for $75m in liability for the damage it has done. $75m is not a punishment. Executives at firms that lobby enough can take whatever risks they like because they do not suffer the consequences.

Barack is much greener, though, right? The Barack administration has made bad loans in the hundreds of millions to its friends in the private sector: the defunct Solyndra, which will probably never pay back its $535m loan, a couple of other "green" companies that were guaranteed loans, and a company that makes a smallpox vaccine for some reason. Why is the White House making loans at all? If these companies were sound, they would get loans from banks or other investors like everyone else, and private actors would bear the risk. But cronies get your money whether they produce or not.

The US federal government subsidises ethanol. Why? To secure votes in corn-growing states. It is clearly not to produce efficient energy. The amount of energy one invests to make ethanol does not equal how much energy one gets from it in return. Moreover, this subsidy raises the price of corn worldwide and may even be the leading cause of agricultural price shocks. It is a waste, not a solution. Like all subsidies, it is virtually impossible to simply end the programme, because a newly-empowered group has a stake in it.

Firms can also be bullied into lobbying. Microsoft spent little on lobbying until the antitrust suit brought against it by its competitors; afterward, it began spending millions every year. Gibson Guitars has been raided—weapons out, product seized, factory closed—over apparently-illegal wood imports. The raids have cost them millions of dollars. In the summer of 2012, authorities threatened to raid all summer concerts where such guitars were being used, with, of course, no intention of reimbursing ticketholders. In the end, Gibson will need to pay $350,000 in fines in addition to their seized product. As a result of this protection racket, Gibson has been induced to begin lobbying the US government.

A free market means firms that provide customers what they want survive and thrive, while those that do not create value lose. We no longer have such a market. In the age of big government, success has less do to with value to customers and more to do with bribes to the authorities. Free markets reward hard work, honesty and innovation. The market rigged by lobbying rewards nepotism and sycophancy. It is like having the option to cheat in a game that pays out millions of dollars belonging to other people.

People who believe regulations are necessary to maintain health and environmental standards are among those who confuse the ideals of the state and what it could do in a perfect world with what it actually does in this world. A market freed from regulations would still maintain high standards of health, because customers will demand it. The regulated market does a lousy job. The small, sustainable farms of the US are under attack by a state co-opted by industrial farms and large producers. Americans have increasingly fewer choices about what they can eat and from whom they can buy food. Americans are experiencing higher cancer, diabetes and allergy rates than ever before. We can trace it all back to these industrial farms, but they are protected by the health and environmental laws, including fees and endless paperwork, that people who do not understand interest groups and the state believe we need. The law lays down standards only the moneyed interests and their lawyers could meet (or even know about) with the sole objective of forcing out small landowners and destroying their livelihoods. And the state is destroying their livelihoods. Police regularly show up at farms with guns drawn to destroy agriculture and kill livestock that pose no threat to anything but the profits of rich farm owners. The Monsanto executives that run the US government are ruthless.

The revolving door

Which brings us to the revolving door. The revolving door is the cycling of the elite around positions of power. Politicians ending their political careers, or bureaucrats ending their desk jobs, will often become lobbyists; lobbyists and corporate executives make connections in the state and end up working there. One reason for the destruction of the American farm is so many of the people who have an interest in protecting large agribusiness work in the departments that regulate farming for the entire country. Arguments that we need people to regulate these things do not consider who is doing the regulating, and what their intentions are. The Barack administration is packed with Wall Street executives promising to save us from financial predators.

People taking advantage of the revolving door are mostly either former lobbyists employed by government agencies or employees of government agencies who have gone to work at lobbying firms and interest groups. All in all, the US Department of Commerce has 416 such people, the Department of Defense 519, and the White House over a thousand. Naturally, the response of democrats is to enact tougher laws, but with the fox guarding the henhouse, any laws to protect democracy from lobbyists will be at best cosmetic and at worst counterproductive.

The military-industrial complex

Some US presidents' farewell addresses seem to present ideas to future generations that achieve the opposite of their intent. George Washington, for instance, warned against entangling alliances, and the US has entangled itself with Israel. A century and a half after Washington, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the pernicious effects of the military-industrial complex. Did his speech save American democracy?

Thanks to legal loopholes, the Department of Defense (and all government agencies) can avoid competition and select whichever company they like to receive contracts. The loopholes, of course, are only for emergencies, but that has not stopped the DOD. An analysis of government reports and interviews with officials found several practices that ensured favoured firms would always win contracts. These practices include umbrella contracts for a variety of goods and services, citing an "urgent and compelling need" when there was none and extending large contracts instead of re-competing them. The habit of waste raises costs to taxpayers and leaves the door wide open to abuse.

Millions go from the war industry to electoral candidates. Retired generals get paid generously for "consulting". At least 32 George Bush appointees had ties to the arms industry. No-bid contracts to rebuild warzones shaken up by a US invasion regularly go to well-connected firms. The 2010 election was a particularly generous year for defense corporations, giving twice as much as they had only 8 years earlier. Congress spent $2.4b on 10 new jets and half a billion on tanks the Pentagon has said it will never use. The war in Afghanistan continues to rage; drone strikes on Pakistan have increased (the aerospace sector is the biggest defense donor; Boeing is practically the right hand of the US air force, its sales are pushed by US diplomats, and in addition to contracts receives billions in subsidies); and now the US is in open-ended military commitments all over the world. Washington's addiction to war may have several causes, and an all-too happy dealer is one of them.

Farm subsidies

But even if we cut all those other handouts, surely we shouldn't do away with farm subsidies, right? Farmers need them to live! Consumers need them to eat! In the US, $15b a year goes from public coffers to farmers. (That number, as always, does not account for the salaries and pensions of bureaucrats employed to administer that money.) The top 10% richest farmers get 74% of the benefits, because they are connected to big, corporate farms with major lobbying power; and of course, the more money you get, the more lobbying power you have. Tens of thousands of the "farmers" who legally own the land do not even farm.

Moreover, much of the public believes that, without farm subsidies, we would run out of food. Do they not realise if there is a market for something, it will get made? Food and land prices are up and rising, which means farmers will make more money regardless of subsidies. What the government subsidises is monoculture, which is bad for soil. Small farms are more efficient, more environmentally friendly, more productive and provide more jobs. But why would politicians dishing out subsidies care? They do not think long term.

In fact, subsidies can lead to shortages, as those receiving them no longer need to produce anything. It warps our buying incentives, as the multi-billion-dollar annual subsidies to corn farmers have led to, among other things, a rise in the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup, which is terrible for our health. Market-distorting subsidies and regulations make foods like butter from New Zealand sold in Britain cheaper than butter from down the road. I would rather not know how much pollution that is causing us.

And what will politicians do about it? As Kenneth Rogoff explains, "politicians who dared to talk about the health, environmental, or sustainability implications of processed food would in many cases find themselves starved of campaign funds."

What is out of the question about asking farmers to buy insurance like everyone else? Farming is why futures markets (a form of insurance) were created, and as Frederick Kaufman says, futures markets "helped to establish America as a financial juggernaut to rival and eventually surpass Europe." People who realise all this, from left to right, believe we should end such wasteful subsidies. But the government will not listen to a few pundits. Receiving taxpayer money has nothing to do with need and everything to do with power.

The story of Jack Abramoff

Jack Abramoff, superstar lobbyist, made $20m a year persuading the government to give public money to his clients. After four years in prison (not for lobbying, by the way), Abramoff revealed to the public a number of interesting things about his craft.

\--As time went on, he did not know right from wrong, much as an ordinary person becomes corrupted by power and takes on the traits of a psychopath.

\--His firm would, in turn, corrupt public officials. The path to corruption is not a single action but a series of them. It is lobbyists building relationships with lawmakers over time.

\--Most, if not all, Congresspeople can be bought, and they will rationalise their actions. They got access to private jets, played on the world's best golf courses, had free meals at fancy restaurants and VIP tickets to every sporting event and concert they wanted. The whole system is based on bribery. "There are very few members I can name who didn't, at some level, participate in that."

\--Abramoff's firm would offer staffers (the people who tell the Congresspeople how to vote) jobs that would triple their salaries. "The moment I said that to them, _we owned them_. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're gonna do; and not only that, they're going to think of things we can't think of to do."

\--"Members don't read the bills," says Abramoff. They don't care what they say. They pass whatever they are told to pass. Are you surprised?

\--After Abramoff went to prison, Congresspeople passed laws supposedly banning the activities he engaged in. Abramoff is not convinced they will curb lobbyist influence. "The reform efforts continually are these faux reform efforts where they'll tweak the system. They'll say you can have a meal with a Congressman when they're standing up, not sitting down." Perhaps you can no longer sit down for a meal, but you can sit down for a fundraiser. Anything other than cosmetic reforms do not serve politicians' purposes.

All this is typical of lobbying. This is where the politician's time and the public's money goes. US democracy is not the only place representation is hobbled by lobbyists: it is in the nature of government to take other people's money and give it to whomever they, in their unquestioned wisdom, see fit.

So we should end government handouts, right? How? You would not get millions of people to rally to end some specific subsidy or law, because each person would barely feel the difference (and the government would not give the money back to them anyway: it would give it to other interest groups). You could attempt uniting to end all subsidies in general, but there are too many people getting rich off them who would stand in your way, and they have convinced everyone else they are necessary. Politicians rarely have the spines to stand up to special interests because if they alienate one group, they lose a bloc of voters, get thrashed in the press and get no benefit from it. They have little incentive to give you back your money.

Politicians are beholden to special interests. It is another example of the endless cycle of all democratic politics: socialism for the rich; the law of the jungle for the rest. No amount of reform will change it, because if you give people power over other people's money, they will use it to gain benefits for themselves. The answer is not to let anybody have that power, and not let anybody take your money, because only you can decide what is right to do with it. As long as government is around, that is not an option.

16 Bureaucracy

The bureaucrat's first objective, of course, is preservation of his job—provided by the big-government system, at the taxpayers expense.... Whether real world problems get solved or not is of secondary importance. It doesn't take much cynicism, in fact, to see that the bureaucrats have a vested interest in not having problems solved. If the problems did not exist (or had been invented), there would be no reason for the bureaucrat to have a job. – William Simon, former US Treasury Secretary

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

I treat people as individuals. That means if you and I have things in common, if you do good things, and if you are friendly enough, you can be my friend. So with some exceptions (say, serial killers), I do not hold the chosen careers of my friends against them. But in some cases, I would like them to reconsider. Some of my best friends are bureaucrats. Sorry, civil servants. No, wait: bureaucrats.

It is not really surprising: some 1 out of 8 Canadians of working age, or 8% of the entire population (and growing), are employed by the government. That might sound reasonable until you realise the government does not actually produce anything. In fact, it sucks money out of the productive sector and gives generously to the "public" sector. And the more it takes from the producers and the consumers, the more power it has over them.

Bureaucracies do not want to solve problems. Perhaps individual bureaucrats do; after all, many of them entered government to make things better. But problems grant the bureaucracy power and privileges. Why would they want to give those things up? Take the War on Drugs. We now have the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, along with the involvement of the military, the CIA, Homeland Security and probably other agencies I do not know about. All of them would lose considerably if drugs were legalised, which is why they will do anything to avoid it. (See chapter 21.)

Bureaucracy itself is a source of government control, and it will take any opportunity to expand. During a crisis, politicians will create sprawling new agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, that giant waste of tens of billions a year. The DHS has caught no terrorists. Its main effect has been to increase the government's control over people's lives and subject children to sexual abuse. (See chapter 20.)

I think any job created that takes money away from the public because of its power rather than because the market priced its salary is not part of "the public sector". In fact, the private sector is public, because its main effect is to reward the public. The public sector is parasitic. And like all government, it rewards itself generously because it has power over trillions of dollars created by its subjects. Government salaries far outshine their private-sector competition, of course, making a career in the bureaucracy a rational choice to make.

No wonder corruption, in the sense of outright stealing from public coffers, has been largely eliminated in the rich countries: it has become legal. Some bureaucrats have it great: working at a job that would not exist in a free market, at salaries and pensions that add up to millions of dollars that should have been contributed to the economy but were instead sucked out of it, and they cannot even get fired. Why are superbureaucrats making six-figure salaries? Why did the US federal government pay $600m in benefits over five years to former government employees who were dead? The people involved knew about the mistake and did nothing to rectify it. Thus, any job that is a government job, whether or not it makes sense to be so, is pretty sweet  Looking at the million-dollar, publicly-funded retirement packages of some lifeguards, one is led to question the premise that government exists for the people.

But pension costs are rising as the ability to pay them is shrinking. They have risen by 20 times in California since 1999. A Pew research survey found unpaid state obligations to the public sector amounted to $1.38 trillion in the US, having grown 9% in 2010 alone.  Can the economy afford such handouts?

Not being able to fire someone is an enormous moral hazard. What happens in the private sector—you remember, the people that create wealth the government can steal so that bureaucrats can keep their "jobs"—when a business is inefficient? It is forced to change or perish. What happens in the public sector? It is given more money. What happens when a business screws you over, provides shoddy service or has nothing useful to offer? You stop giving it your money. What happens to bureaucrats? Look at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Since 2004, 1,644 employees of FEMA have been convicted of crimes ranging from bribery to coerced sexual contact. What happened after the fiasco of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when FEMA was supposed to save everyone? Surely, the agency should have been shut down? If it had operated in a competitive market, no one would ever trust FEMA again. But we are forced to pay for it and rely on it because it is the government. We cannot fire anyone. We have no recourse. We have no justice.

One way they increase their salaries and power is through unions. Private-sector unions negotiate over private money, money that comes from the income the workers play a role in generating. It is a private affair and there is nothing wrong it. Public-sector unions, however, are organisations that wrangle the government over taxpayer money. In this they are the same as a lobby group. Public sector workers do not compete with anyone to provide services, so they do not need to improve the quality of the services they provide, nor do they ever need to do so cheaper. Politicians have little reason not to cave in to union demands, for the same reasons as with lobby groups: giving more taxpayer money to special interest groups garners support and votes for the politician, and taking it away and giving it back to the taxpayers would create a new group of enemies. As they do with all their favourite lobby groups, politicians depend on public sector unions to fund their reelection campaigns. Public sector salaries have nowhere to go but up, while the government debt they are contributing to blows up like a balloon.

The legal sector—lawyers—is another group created by the existence of government. And trial lawyers are a powerful lobby group that severely burden the economy. Lawyers are only a "necessary evil" in a world of laws. Their jobs get more and more important in our society because the laws keep piling up. And as laws pile up, you lose.

Ron Paul, though probably not quite a voluntaryist, is nonetheless a very keen observer of government. "We need to understand the more government spends, the more freedom is lost." he says. "Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all." For instance, Gary Becker points out in The Economics of Life the Department of Labour lobbies on behalf of the workers vis-a-vis business and farming; the Department of Agriculture works to improve the position of farmers against business and labourers; and the Department of Commerce is the wing that is supposed to look out for business over workers and farmers. They are thus all superfluous. We do not need most of the jobs in government, and those that are useful could easily be privatised. But new laws and policies and regulations necessitate hiring new people. Because we are still being told we need all these laws, we need government and we need millions of people staffing each one, we cannot see the essential irrelevance of the bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is the blood of the state. But the state is not necessary. Is what the bureaucracy does essential? Useful? Benign? Let's ask Wendy McElroy.

For years, I have been complaining to my husband that the transaction costs of being alive were soaring—and almost always because of increased governmental requirements and ensuing governmental inefficiency. Here's one example: a few years ago, it took me eight months to get a replacement birth certificate that I needed for no other reason than to meet the requirements of another government form. I needed to fill out the other government form in order to legally engage in an activity the license for which had previously required only the production of a driver's license.

To perform a single act that should never have been licensed at all, I had to wait eight months and fill out two additional forms. For the privilege of going through this infuriating process, I paid two fees. And then insult was added to injury: the whole process was just a prelude to filling out yet another government form and paying yet another fee. The transaction costs of life are soaring.

...[M]y freedom of travel is being denied, and that denial comes in the form of transaction costs. Government regulations are making the exercise of my rights so expensive in terms of additional fees, time, inconvenience, and sheer unpleasantness that these considerations are beginning to outweigh the actual cost of exercising my rights.

...[T]he true winners will be government fee-mongers and heartless bureaucrats who cherish social control. They seem determined to burden the exercise of rights with transaction costs so heavy that the knees of the 'free' will buckle under them.

The bureaucracy is not accountable to the public. The only parts of government the people elect are the legislative and maybe executive branch. What if some bureaucrat screws you over just because he felt like it? Are you going to go running to your congressperson and beg her to fire the guy? Your Congressperson or Member of Parliament is slightly accountable to you; the bureaucracy is not accountable to you at all. They have power over you.

Eliminating jobs in the bureaucracy and returning that money to the taxpayers would improve the economy. First, the money diverted from productive pursuits to unproductive ones would begin to circulate once again. Second, former bureaucrats, if they have not become too lazy (many employers will not hire former bureaucrats), will find work in the private sector, where they can produce something that helps the economy.

For those considering going into the bureaucracy (or for that matter, paying taxes), let me ask you this. Would you work for an oil company that provides oil and creates wealth, both useful things, but that displaces and murders indigenous people in Peru? If not, why would you feel right about working for an organisation that displaces and murders indigenous people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, jails people for protesting or doing drugs, and takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich? Do the good things you believe the organisation does outweigh the bad, and that is a good enough reason to work there? Do you think you can change it from the inside? Are you only concerned with the sweet paycheque and content to ignore where it came from, and what you are supporting through your work?

Everyone has complaints about bureaucrats. Why? It is not only because they are annoying and high paid. The problem is the arbitrary rules governments impose necessitate bureaucracy. They take our time as we jump through endless hoops to obtain the right to live our lives. And the bigger the bureaucracy gets, the greater the arbitrary power of government gets and the more of our money it consumes. Let's eliminate this wasteful mess.

17 Let's reform the system!

Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice. – William Lloyd Garrison

###### ‎The ideas which now pass for brilliant (political) innovations and advances are in fact mere revivals of ancient errors, and a further proof of the dictum that those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it. – Henry Hazlitt

I propose a Constitutional Amendment providing that, if any public official, elected or appointed, at any level of government, is caught lying to any member of the public for any reason, the punishment shall be death by public hanging. – L. Neil Smith

###### Statists disregard the basic premises that government is the initiation of force, and the initiation of force is inherently immoral. You can tell them all the other arguments about why government is wrong, and they will concede democracy is imperfect, and "do I wish less money went to this and more to that? Sure. Do I think special interests should have less power? Of course. That is why we need to reform the system." Has reform of the system taken place during your lifetime? And has it been for the better? If not, why do you think that is?

###### Perhaps it is because no one can agree on the direction reforms should take. Do we want bigger or smaller government? More or less regulation of health care? Bigger or smaller military? More or less government intervention in the economy? Do we want a government that does what is right regardless of what is popular, or one that does what is popular, because what is popular is right?

###### Perhaps it is because voters and their representatives change their minds with the wind. How many things promised on the campaign trails of Barack Obama or George Bush have got done? Not many. They found other things to do. Do the people who voted for them remember any of those promises? Do they even care anymore?

###### Perhaps politicians have found out they can lie and get away with it, give hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to lobbyist buddies and no one notices, screw things up and still get reelected.

###### Or perhaps it is impossible to improve a system that is based on violence.

###### Ideas

There is no lack of ideas for reform. Have politicians ever implemented any of the thousands of good ideas from think tanks and countless more from hopeful citizens? Do they have any incentive to do so?

###### Proportional representation is indeed more representative. It reveals the different visions we all have for society, thus fragmenting decision makers, dividing the people who voted for them even more than the system already does and rendering impossible any kind of consensus. Sure, laws could still get passed, but they would be based on an even greater amount of horse trading (doing favours for each other) than goes on in usual legislative sessions. It does not change any of the real problems government creates. Likewise, campaign finance reform is always praised as inherently good. But it is still almost impossible for independents to run, unless they are millionaires. When was the last time there was campaign finance reform or electoral reform of any kind that benefited anyone other than the incumbents? I'll let you ponder that one.

We are so busy considering how to retool voting, campaign financing and other petty functions of democracy we have long given up real aspirations. How about hanging all politicians caught lying, as L. Neil Smith proposed? How about sentencing every judge who convicts or every policeman who harms an innocent man to life without parole? How about making politicians who voted for budgets that increase the debt pay the interest on that debt out of their own pockets? How about forcing anyone who votes to wage an aggressive war to fight on the front line, or if any of these people have consciences, to live with a family in the area being bombed? How about rigorously testing every candidate for higher office for psychopathy and publishing the results? These ideas might make for a better political system. But they are so unrealistic as to be a joke. "One cannot simply say, 'Let government help the poor.' 'Reform the income tax so that rich people really pay.' Things are as they are for reasons. It would make as much sense for the defender of the free market to argue that when he sets up _his_ free market it will produce equal wages for everyone." How can you reform a system that by its nature discourages it?

###### Here is another idea. Let us raise the annual salaries and pensions of all members of the US Congress by $2m each. What would that cost? $1.07b a year. About the same as 12 hours of defense spending. It is a truism to say people lie or steal when they have a strong enough incentive to. When one has power over the granting of favours one tends to want to profit from it. If they are already making two to three million a year, and know they will retire and die no poorer, fewer of them might take bribes. (Although presumably a number of them still will.) The problem is, most people who are convinced politicians are crooks believe they do not deserve more money, and those who believe politicians when they speak think they are being selfless when they cut their own salaries.

###### There seems to be this belief among democrats that democracy is infinitely malleable, that because people can vote for new representatives, they can shape the system as they want. Democracy, after all, I used to believe with no evidence, guarantees peace, freedom, equality and prosperity, is exportable because all the world's peoples crave it, and will last forever because everyone realises (or will realise) it is the ideal. All of those beliefs are disproven by the evidence. People who believe them grasp at the ideal while ignoring the real. Political systems change, but they tend to get worse rather than better, as bureaucracies expand and every aspect of life gets regulated; debts rise and economies suffer; freedoms slip away and citizens have less power to check the state; laws proliferate and organised crime grows. Democracy is indeed malleable, but it is molded in the ways politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested parties with their hands in the clay want, not according to the wishes of the voters standing outside the windows looking in hopefully.

But it is so easy to cling to the current system as either the best or the only one we've got, and so hard to envision a system of liberty. It happens to the best of us. Economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote that corporate crime such as tax evasion, and its corruption of government officials, through bribes and kickbacks, is exploding worldwide. But he did not consider that, without the ability to steal and spend other people's money, and government control over resources, there would be no corruption. You would do business with the private owners of those resources.

Then he defies all history by saying that, in order to change the relationships between business and government, we need "a new kind of politician leading a new kind of political campaign". So, someone who isn't concerned with taking power? Someone who is doing it for completely selfless reasons? Someone who will save the day? Has there ever been any politician like that? Or at least, if there has, has he or she ever taken power? And if he or she made it into power, did he or she somehow not get corrupted by it? And if not, did he or she have enough of it or stay long enough to make real changes? Apparently not. It is ironic for democrats to call voluntaryists unrealistic. As Murray Rothbard says, "the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."

Accountability

The reformists are the same people who talk about accountability. This is the chimera democrats are always chasing. The state systematically relieves its agents of responsibility. When was the last time police were jailed for a botched raid that killed innocent people? When was the last time a politician was jailed for lying to start a war? When have you ever heard of a bureaucrat getting fired for terrible service and lack of effort? If a government agency approves of and releases a drug that kills people, or does not approve a drug that would save them, who takes the rap? No one.

Not only that, but the benefits of legal irresponsibility have gone to corporations by wrapping their owners and managers in legal protection, and to unions by protecting them in similar ways. Unaccountability is the rule for every government department and the powerful groups the state protects. Those subject to the will of the state have very little ability to hold it accountable. That is what it means to have power over others.

Recently, for instance, the Government Accountability Office requested the Department of Homeland Security conduct a full cost/benefit analysis of the Transport Security Administration full-body scanner boondoggle, and of the idea of screening 100% of all containers bound for the US. Homeland Security replied such a study "would place significant burdens on agency resources". This middle finger to taxpayers comes from a department with an annual budget of $71b and rising and yet does little that is worthwhile. But a few tens of billions is nothing compared to the wasted trillions of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. I recommend the book _Three Trillion Dollar War_ by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes. Then you will see what accountability really means.

Changes can take place in government, of course, but usually only when enough people are angry enough with the government to demand them. In such cases, they might want to end corruption, take freedoms back, and so on. Such demands are inevitably to rectify problems the government has caused. They are not reforms that take place within the political system but because of challenges to it. And when the people are not looking, the system reverts to its traditional practice of concentrating power at the top. If there were no government in the first place, neither reform nor revolution would be necessary or reversible.

Besides, states get their power from taxes, votes and compliance. I think people who pay their taxes and vote and then discuss how they would like to limit the power of politicians are deluded. After all, the ultimate act of reform might have been the American Revolution. Look how it turned out.

The ever-astute Rothbard also pointed out, "[t]he state is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people's lives and property. Hence, the institution of the state establishes a socially legitimized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things." Because we are endowed with the ability to do good and harm, society's institutions should encourage the good and discourage the bad. Government, by its nature, encourages the bad and discourages the good. It is designed by psychopaths for psychopaths. If you want to reform the system, take away the state's ability to initiate force.

Part 3: Security and war

\- 18 Police

\- 19 Guns

\- 20 Terrorism and airport security

\- 21 The War on Drugs

\- 22 Immigration and borders

\- 23 Nationalism

\- 24 Democratic wars

\- 25 War: Counting the costs

\- 26 Support the troops

\- 27 Why do we still go to war?

\- 28 Afghanistan

\- 29 Secrecy

18 Police

When discussing things with a voluntaryist, statists ask questions like, "how would the roads get built? How would the trash get picked up? And what about the police?" These are entirely legitimate questions, as long as they are questions and not dismissals in themselves. However, one mistake some of them make is that one voluntaryist has or should have all the answers. One person could not have the answers to all of the questions about how to organise a free society. The people would find and decide on those answers together; and they would not find the perfect, final solution to their problems, as no one ever has, but would solve them as necessary. But because voluntaryists understand better the doctrines of freedom, it is up to them to present their ideas. One of the most difficult things for statists to imagine is a world without centralised law enforcement. As such, when they ask "how could there be no police?" they usually have not even considered there could be an alternative.

Michael Ignatieff, a professor and journalist I admired before he went into politics, once said anarchy could never work, because when the police went on strike in Montreal, there were riots in the streets, people were breaking into stores and stealing things, and it was chaos. I am not surprised. By monopolising the ability to defend the people, the police were holding everyone for ransom, and no one was prepared to protect him or herself. However, few voluntaryists suggest the police suddenly leave the streets. Any sudden and complete removal of a coercive authority is bound to lead to a power vacuum people will fill with violence. That does not mean there is no alternative to police. It just means we need a little more time and a little more imagination.

The police justify their existence if they serve the people by protecting the innocent from harm, as opposed to serving the elites to oppress the people. Some police, potentially in any law-enforcement organisation, do serve the people. But nearly everywhere in the world, the poor and powerless are the victims, not the beneficiaries, of the police. If you live somewhere you trust the police to serve you, count yourself among the fortunate minority. Most people have something more frightening to live with.

In the movie Brazil, a bureaucrat makes a typo with the name of a criminal, and the wrong man is targeted by police. A group of black-clad police officers show up at the mistaken man's home, destroy it and haul him off to prison. The man is never seen again. This terrifying scene in a science-fiction movie shows not some distant future or communist state. It shows us the modern police state. A police state is one where excessive power for the state leads the police and their political masters to bully the people. Citizens do not know what they could be arrested for, and have no power to hold police accountable. Fear of the police is endemic. The threat of arbitrary and excessive violence looms over everyone's head.

In the US, police powers keep growing as the Constitution deteriorates. Despite a nationwide 40-year low in violent crime, the federal government is handing out billions to militarise the police, making them more dangerous. Steven Greenhut explains. "Following the 9/11 attacks, officers have convinced themselves that every member of the public is a potential threat. Every local police department is awash in grants from 'Homeland Security' to buy the latest toys and weaponry. Attitudes have changed and the local police aren't your friends any more." Montgomery County, Texas, has purchased a weapons-capable drone. Tampa now has an eight-ton tank, as does St. Louis. Richland County, South Carolina has one with a .50 calibre machinegun. Fargo, North Dakota, which averages two homicides a year, has bought an armoured truck with a gun turret. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, boasted he had an army at his disposal. With the acquisition of a new high-tech surveillance system, one might say he has an intelligence agency as well.

One result of the militarisation of police, in equipment and methods, is the rise in SWAT raids. The Supreme Court has ruled such raids are now legal without any notification of the occupant (such as ringing the doorbell) or without a warrant. (Police in Indiana can force their way into a home for no reason at all.) Such raids involve indiscriminate killing of innocents (including dogs) and destruction of property with impunity, and are routinely conducted for every manner of crime now, from underage drinking to selling unpasteurised milk. More than 100 such raids are conducted in the US every day. Police abuses occur every day on the pages of responsible newspapers. Sometimes they are related to the War on Drugs, as police batter down doors, smash in heads and gun down people they suspect of selling certain plants and powders.

No looking, no talking, no sitting, no standing

You cannot film or hand out things the police do not want you to anymore. You cannot hold signs the police do not like. A journalist was arrested recently for filming a public meeting of the DC Taxicab Commission; another for covering the crackdown on Occupy Nashville. Plenty more journalists were arrested and beaten during the evictions of Occupy sit-ins. One man was stopped by an undercover cop. When he posted the video of the incident on Youtube, prosecutors charged him with wiretapping for filming the incident. The police raided his house, taking his camera, computers and other equipment. He was then charged with four felonies and faced up to 16 years in prison. A woman was arrested for filming cops. When she was set free, she posted the video online. The police then came to her place and ticketed the cars in her neighbourhood. And God forbid you film a police station, or you could be charged on suspicion of terrorism.

In fact, in the UK you cannot take photos of the police at all anymore, even though they can film anything they want. You cannot protest things they do not want you to protest, draw what they do not want you to draw or dance where they do not want you to dance. You cannot even hang up signs to protest taxes without getting arrested. You can go to jail for failing to put up the siding on your house (or at least not doing it properly or quickly enough). You can get eight years for possessing bath salts. If you are really unlucky, you can be arrested for smiling, standing, sitting or refusing to sit. They do not need a reason to hurt people.

Children's lemonade stands are getting shut down like windows (that require five armoured men to close), and people who had the audacity to protest threatening to use violence on children selling refreshments were arrested. Police arrested two people for using a raft in a flooded street. They were not charged. And a man was arrested for drinking iced tea, although he may just have been guilty of being black.

Police searching for bank robbers forced 40 people out of their cars at gunpoint and handcuffed them for more than two hours while they searched their cars. Not one of the people who used to be innocent until proven guilty objected. But they do not need to give consent.

Most people don't see what's coming because they view things in a limited way. The cops in Aurora were only trying to get their man, they will tell you. Such tactics would _never_ be used against innocent people. It never occurs to them that in fact such tactics have _already_ been used against innocent people. 40 of them, in fact. Not one of the 40 accosted had to rob a bank—or even jaywalk—to be treated just the same as if they _had_ robbed a bank. Just as we are treated as presumptive drunks at 'sobriety checkpoints'—and just as we are treated as presumptive terrorists by the TSA.

What, then, will prevent the Boys in Blue from treating anyone they wish to as a 'criminal'—given that it is no longer necessary for them to even pretend that us _anyones_ have done a _nything_ at all?

Innocence itself is no longer a defense.

Because of a 1968 court case, the police can engage in search and seizure if they have "reasonable suspicion" someone has committed a crime. Such vague language, typical of laws and court decisions, gives broad power to law enforcement and leaves the citizen without his or her fourth amendment. Random searches, for whatever excuse, are legally permissible. Invasive checkpoints are proliferating.

Sometimes violent acts against innocent civilians are carried out by police with histories of violence, and other police defend them, and they go back on the beat. One officer elbowed a restrained homeless woman in the face. Some police beat up a man in a wheelchair. Another slammed a mentally-handicapped boy into a wall and on the floor at his school. Police beat an intoxicated man to death for no apparent reason, detained witnesses and confiscated video evidence. Some police claimed a 21-year-old man handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police car shot himself. Another officer who was speeding slammed into and killed a girl crossing an intersection, and the girl's father was arrested instead of the cop. Not surprising, then, the survey that found the police are among the most egregious speeders in southern Florida. Operating in a culture of impunity puts one above the rules. Rules are thus not for those enforcing the rules.

Necessary force

Sometimes cops taser people, some of whom are minors who end up in the hospital. In many cases, tasers have been used against people in handcuffs, children, pregnant women, the elderly or the mentally ill. Police tasered a man trying to save his son from a fire. 334 (or more) US citizens died between 2001 and August 2008 from police tasers, which are supposed to be non lethal. A Canadian policeman tasered an adolescent in the face without issuing a warning to stop what he was doing. A group of police tasered, pepper sprayed and accidentally drowned a man while responding to a domestic disturbance call last year. Former marine Jose Guerena was shot by police 23 times for nothing; 13-year-old Jimmy Cannon was shot 8 times. Police put five bullets into a boy they suspected of underage drinking. A police officer killed a deaf, mentally-handicapped, 61-year-old man who did not respond to his orders. But perhaps there will be an official inquiry. They always bring justice (at a cost of $1b to taxpayers in New York alone). These are merely well-publicised, recent examples. Police brutality in minority communities has been a fact of life for decades. These are not isolated incidents. They are the result of giving someone authority and weapons. But then, the police are just following orders and keeping us safe.

Arresting childhood

State violence is being employed in state schools as police are called in to deal with everything teachers cannot handle. Children are increasingly taught to bow down to authority. Armed police roam the halls of junior high schools. Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts (and getting criminal records) in Texas for offenses such as swearing, misbehaving and getting in fights. A 12-year-old was arrested for spraying herself with perfume. A 13-year-old was arrested for burping in class. Two more were arrested for pouring milk on each other. A 12-year-old was arrested and handcuffed for writing on her desk. One 6-year-old was handcuffed and detained for misbehaving, as children sometimes do, and another was handcuffed and sent to a mental hospital for throwing temper tantrums. A 17-year-old student went to jail and paid a $100 fine for skipping too much school. Four students were arrested for starting a food fight. I guess sending them to the principal's office is too soft on these criminals. Two 10-year-old girls were arrested for bringing parsley to school and joking it was marijuana. Don't kids know you don't joke about harmless plants? But you can get strip searched for it. Another student was arrested for throwing paper airplanes. An 11-year-old was thrown in jail for bringing a plastic butter knife to school. A 7-year-old was pepper sprayed because he would not stop climbing on the furniture. And a 5-year-old student was handcuffed and charged with battery of a police officer.

In 2003, a school principal asked a SWAT team to raid his school, in which he suspected marijuana was being sold (it seemed likely, given that it was a school). More than 100 students were forced at gunpoint to lie on the ground. The team searched and found no drugs or weapons. How terrified the students must have been I can only guess. More than 200 schoolchildren were handcuffed and arrested in Bernalillo County, New Mexico for non-violent offenses in the three years before 2012. Texas has sentenced 400 teenagers to life imprisonment. These examples are evidence people are overreliant on the police and the courts, the police are out of control, and too many cops are bullies.

The surveillance state

Your cameras are illegal, but theirs are everywhere. The U.K. has more surveillance cameras per citizen than anywhere else in the world. One estimate puts the number of video cameras watching every move citizens make at 4.8m: 1 for every 13 people, with people being filmed some 300 times a day. And the police themselves admit that only 3% of crimes are solved using CCTV, and one crime is solved per 1000 cameras. The US scans irises of those arrested for a victimless crimes so they can track them. FBI surveillance teams regularly employ warrantless GPS tracking to monitor the movements of peaceful activists—even if they are not suspected of committing a crime. The Barack administration is fighting in court to keep this practice legal. The police are also monitoring and questioning Occupy protesters, and not just the thousands they arrested. The FBI are demanding access to Facebook and other online platforms to spy on whomever they want. (They probably already have it.) U.K. authorities are now admitting every phone call, text message, email and website visit made by private citizens will be stored for one year and will be available for monitoring by government agencies. The plan will cost £12b. Your consent is not required.

They can watch you everywhere, just in case you are doing something they want to arrest you for. But they are not legally permitted to take away your camera (though they often try). Good thing, too, as they are getting away with more and more brutality as they get more powerful. It may seem like I am being selective if I say police in democracies can arrest you for anything when I might not be taking a fair sample of democracies. They may be less corrupt and violent outside these places. But unless their power is strictly restrained somehow, it can be abused. Anywhere people ask their governments for a very secure or "law and order" society, they should be careful what they wish for.

The police are spying on you. The use of unmanned spy drones is exploding. European farmers suspected of claiming extra subsidies or otherwise violating the Common Agricultural Policy can expect to be spied on from the sky. In the US, drones take pictures of people on their property and in their homes, and the state can use the photographs as it likes. It can then conduct a physical search of the property if it sees anything of interest. And in case you think you will know when the patrols are around, you may want to know about the insect spy drones that look like robot mosquitoes.

Insect drones are remote-controlled spies for urban areas. They can be fitted with cameras and microphones, take DNA samples or implant tracking devices in your skin. Do you feel safer? That is just surveillance; drones can tase or kill as well. And now drones have a business lobby, expect many more of them.

Freedom does not mean we are allowed to do things until we are stopped. True freedom means no one will try to stop us unless we must be stopped. The moral problem with all this surveillance, from the wiretapping to the eye scanning to the GPS trackers on cars, is it presumes guilt. As such, it lends itself to abuse as innocent people are inevitably targets of arrest or violence. We see innocent people go to jail or get killed for a police mistake or a bad law. Is the legal system not ostensibly built on the premise that we are presumed innocent? Is it not better one innocent man goes free than 10 guilty men are sentenced? Perhaps no longer. I am not a student of comparative democracy but I would not be surprised if there are legal systems that are both strong and fair. But why should we have to take the police, part of the state, to court, also part of the state, and ask we not be spied on? And why should we simply accept the decision of the state in this process? Has the question of total security versus civil liberties been decided for us?

This surveillance also destroys our privacy. When once we were allowed to keep things from other people, anything we put online, or any laundry we air where a surveillance drone can see us, goes to the state. Its power to oversee our every move is increasing at a terrifying pace. And every crime committed becomes a further excuse to eliminate freedoms, a further "I told you so" from those who want to control us.

How would tapping our phones and reading our emails really save a life or two? But let's say they do. We need to be sure we really want to give a small group this kind of power over us, this enormous reduction in our privacy. And we should be allowed to decide as individuals, not "as a society", because individuals are the ones affected. If peaceful people do not consent, is it right for others to impose it on them, even if the others constitute a majority? In a statist society, deciding collectively falls to the government, which always opts for more power for itself and less for everyone else. It does not give the individual the chance to decide for him or herself; everyone must accept every decision this self-serving organisation takes.

Certain issues people may be able to reach a consensus on. If they like the idea of pulling over every driver to check if they have been drinking on New Year's Eve, they will agree to such a programme. They then grant some people a certain, limited authority to police their neighbourhood, which is their collective property. Perhaps they could hire an organisation to do it, or they could volunteer. It seems unlikely, however, many people would consent to having their pictures taken, their emails and other messages read by people they do not know and should not trust.

Some police forces, especially in the US and the UK, collect every scrap of information they can get their hands on about people, particularly those deemed troublemakers. Why do they want this information? Why should they know everything—or anything—about innocent people? What are they going to do with it? Surely, they will use it to arrest people. In addition, knowing how governments pander to interest groups, we should not be surprised if they hand it out to businesses. We have taken all their privacy, the state might reason; why not let our friends take advantage? Why would we be forced into this state of affairs? Can't they just leave us alone?

The police are not penalised for lying. Most people realise the police lie, at least sometimes, to judges and juries, so legal permission to lie is just a legal precedent away. They engage in entrapment of students who want to buy pot. They routinely plant drugs. Law enforcement agencies lie because they have the incentive to do so. Imagine you arrested or shot an innocent man. You want to obtain a conviction to prove what you did was right. The US military can now lock up anyone for any length of time. Fortunately for them, they do not have to take each case to court, which means they can say the person was a terrorist and will face no scrutiny. If they admitted they were wrong, the personnel, the politicians and the law would all be disgraced. Thus, it is better for everyone involved (aside from the innocent people) to lie. Such incentives erode our consciences the greater they are, and the more we do things that go against them.

Not all police are bad people, whatever that would mean. However, as the Stanford Prison Experiment showed clearly, it is the granting of authority and the weapons provided by the state that creates the conditions for anyone to turn abusive. They routinely overstep their authority, and have an incentive to lie to avoid their own prosecution. As Ta-Nehisi Coates reports, "Those of us who've followed police brutality cases over the years will see the pattern at work. When accused of police brutality cops often claim to be endangered, regardless of the facts of the situation. An abusive could be driving a tank and facing off with a baby stroller, and yet somehow he/she would be the one outgunned."

And contrary to their slogan, the police do not actually have to protect you. Their job is to uphold the law, which is whatever lawmakers want. But courts have ruled consistently they do not have to protect you—even to enforce restraining orders. 5% of 911 calls bring police fast enough to arrest the perpetrator. To those who say citizens' arming themselves would lead to chaos do not seem to understand an unarmed populace is a sty full of pigs awaiting slaughter. If anyone should be armed, it is normal people who might have to defend themselves one day.

So, does the US sound like a police state to you? The UK? Don't get too smug, Canadians, Germans, and others—your homelands are next.

Why is it we have these people who don a uniform and are suddenly allowed to mete out violence when no one else is? Were they chosen for their superior morals? Their fairness in applying the law? Did the people they brandish their clubs over have any say in their selection? Or is that beside the point? While obviously not all police are bullies, the people most likely to enter the police force are those who feel the urge to bully others. One study found domestic abuse in the houses of police officers is considerably higher than the population average. And many of the police who stand up against corruption and other abuses get in trouble. People who want power and authority without having to earn it through respectability, who are violent and controlling and do not want to go to jail, have found their calling. Police should consider their consciences when applying the law. If laws are unfair, if they put peaceful people in jail, there is no reason to enforce them. But doing so will not change the actions of many police, because not all police have consciences.

Do we really need police? If you leap to say "yes", I implore you to think more carefully. Some statists seem to think without government we would all be killing each other. Well, would you kill others? No, because you and almost everyone else has natural and cultural influences that militate against it. Only a few bad apples would. The same could be said of police who transgress their legal limits. However, again, those with a penchant for violence and power are more likely to join the police force; and when people are handed uniforms, guns, sticks and the authority of law, the potential for the abuse of power is far greater. Not all communities have violent crime; it begs the question to say the reason we do not have violence in a given neighbourhood is because of the presence of the police.

In my neighbourhood in post-revolution Cairo, there are few police to be found. There was not much crime—nothing visible, anyway. And why would there be? People who live there and do not plan to move have a stake in the stability of the community, and most are not willing to sacrifice it for the small personal gains of property theft or uncontrolled street fighting. People intervene to mediate conflicts. (Something similar happened at Occupy Boston, too. It is all part of spontaneous order.) No one misses the police much; and until the elections they did not talk much about democracy. Instead, the word they used for what they won and wanted to keep was "horeya": freedom.

In the lower-class neighbourhoods particularly, the police were brutal thugs, and when they said walk, you walked. During the Egyptian revolution, the police left all the neighbourhoods, creating a vacuum the people needed to fill as government-sponsored thugs hit the streets and tried to terrorise the people into begging the police to come back. The government thought the people would be so desperate to avoid the violence of men without uniforms they would ask the men with the uniforms back. Instead, the people took care of their own homes and defended themselves. It was not wonderful, of course, because they could not leave and go to work. When I suggest doing away with the police altogether and use the revolution as evidence we will not go around killing each other if it happens, the people in Cairo are skeptical. No one wants to spend all their time defending their homes. But if freedom from police becomes the norm, the people will find an easier path to security.

Since violence is a constant of human history and part of human nature, everyone should learn to defend themselves. Individual men should be able to defend themselves against other men. Women could be the victims of rape. Communities come under siege by gangs. Territories get invaded by aspiring emperors. And if the 20th century is any guide for the future, we can expect the state to turn on its citizens again. You might say not everyone wants to defend him or herself, but they might have no choice. Outsourcing self-defense to the police would only be the ideal if the police could be trusted. But people with power should not be trusted. Like the politicians, the police have shown us that.

Whenever a riot breaks out, statists call the rioters anarchists. That is misleading at best. Anarchists are people with ideas. These rioters are better described as thugs. It is understandable that most people make this mistake, because the image of the militant anarchist has dominated since anarchists were falsely accused of throwing a bomb at a protest in Chicago in 1886 and hanged for it. This image conflates the ideas of freedom with a protest tactic. Statists also consider riots a prime example of why we need police. I am still not convinced.

The police cannot simply stop rioting, and they obviously do not deter it all the time. They also cannot protect literally everyone, because there are not enough of them. The reason there are so many victims in a riot is people have come to rely on the state for protection, and if the police do not show up, they have nothing with which to protect themselves. People need to learn to defend themselves and their property collectively. How could that be done?

Monopolies take away our ability to choose, and thus our choice to live free. One dangerous monopoly is the police department. Many police departments are brutal, corrupt and widely disliked. If the police department where you are were opened up to competition, would it go out of business? Let the people start private defense agencies, neighbourhood watch or simply carry arms.

Agorism is creating institutions that compete with the state, and norms and rules that render it irrelevant. When we have disputes, why go to the police if we cannot trust them? We can resolve it peacefully, perhaps with an impartial arbitrator we decide on. (Find the details of this argument in chapter 40.)

If we are going to vest a group of people with the power to use force, why would we not insist they be accountable only to those who live in the neighbourhoods they watch over? How do we know these people were picked for qualities we approve of? What do we think of the laws they are upholding? How do we know if officers are corrupt? Why is it police can commit crimes like assault and kidnapping, and call them arrest using necessary force? Why must we accept them in our neighbourhoods, even if we have good reason not to trust them? Why do we not insist on local, popular control of all police forces? Police are a pressure group like all others, and want to grow their power continuously. I believe it would be wiser to replace them with local and free-market police.

The market for police

Are there no alternatives to police provided by the state? Police are there for security. Free-market security would probably be cheaper and more loyal to you than the police. What about security systems and all the other technologies that exist for security? What about security guards? What about guns? If every house had a gun, or could have a gun, thieves would be more reluctant to break in. Store owners can defend their stores, as happens during riots where people have access to guns.

Or the police could be privatised. The incentives would be to help customers, i.e. the community who hired them, rather than the state, i.e. the powerful who are far removed from society. They could still get disability payments. Risks would be priced into the costs of hiring them, like they are in every other private-sector job. San Francisco has had a private police force for a long time, paid for by private clients. One company in Detroit is showing how much better non-state operatives can be at keeping the peace. Or, the police could be security agents designated by the community itself to help people when needed. The community should have the power to fire one or all of the police that operate there. There is no doubt they would be compensated if wounded or their families compensated if they were killed; after all, that is what happens everywhere in the world. But police will only be accountable when the people of the communities they police have the power to fire them.

One difference between free-market security and state security is prevention versus cure. The state provides a cure: the police will (at least pretend to) hunt down the person who wronged you. But demand is for preventing crime altogether. That is why insurance companies have the incentive to prevent things from happening to make them pay out. The provision of security could thus be tied to insurance, and would be in a free society.

For their needs, the poor often do not have access to police (except where they know police as oppressors and not protectors), so they benefit most from private security. They could organise mutual protection, perhaps through neighbourhood watch programmes, as poor people live around other poor people with the same problems. The current model has almost everyone paying taxes and the benefits of police being unevenly distributed (much like infrastructure). If everyone had that money back, they would be able to pay for what security they needed. A security market would emerge with differentiated pricing to provide for both the rich and the poor, as it has with all the other essentials, from food to clothing to transportation.

To those who say these ideas are unrealistic, I might inform them they are already happening, to some extent. Those who say they are the same as having police do not realise a firm you pay in a free market is likely to adhere carefully to what you want from it, or else it will lose your business; whereas the police are very hard to hold to account, because they do not answer to the same people. No less, firms competing in a free market will almost definitely be more efficient and thus cheaper than the police, and one would be able to choose which services one wanted.

We have plenty of security providers at the moment. They provide security guards, cameras, alarms and so on, and as private companies that will do anything to keep your business, we can usually count on them. What if a thief manages to break through anyway? Perhaps the contract we signed with our security company says they should pursue the thief and get our stuff back, or we don't pay them. Though government police are not legally bound to protect us, contracts could ensure our service providers do.

Even better in my opinion, neighbourhoods could band together to protect themselves from thieves and thugs, as happened in Cairo and elsewhere. Being forced to take care of themselves, the locals banded together, and in some areas of the city fostered a sense of community as had never existed before. As Munir Fasheh describes in his TED Talk, instead of being citizens, "citizens with a defined national number, protected by a national government, connected to a national bank that steals from the people of the communities", we should behave as communities, with our loyalty not to an anonymous state and government but to the people we know we can depend on. That way, we will be safe from the thugs who operate outside the law and those who operate within it as well.

19 Guns

Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. – Huey Newton

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. – L. Neil Smith

Most people I have met are in favour of gun control. I used to agree with most gun-control advocates that only government agents should carry guns until I realised what that means. It seems counterintuitive that more guns would mean less violence. The logic is not, however, that people should be shooting each other, but the logic of deterrence. By decentralising power, we make it harder for anyone to dominate, or to kill and get away with it. As such, guns should be for almost everybody.

The reason the second amendment to the US Constitution was written was because the founders of the United States of America had experience with a government that had attempted to disarm its citizens, thereby robbing them of their ability to rebel. Anti-gun Americans today may be right in thinking they are not under imminent mortal danger from their government (though that might sound bitterly ironic to a victim of police brutality), but their house could still be broken into. There are criminals in the United States, just like everywhere else, and the idea a gun could be in any or all houses is a good disincentive from breaking in. Gun-control laws say not only you are not allowed to defend yourself against the state, but you must also put your faith in the police and military to defend you against everything from robbers to foreign invaders. If all houses have (or at least could have) a gun, not only could one protect one's property against break ins, one could protect against government aggression.

The history of gun control is a history of repression and persecution. The state disarms its citizens for the same reason it arms its security forces: to take power from the people. Many states have turned on their citizens after disarming them, killing countless numbers who cannot fight back. Consider the history of gun control in the US. The various groups who terrorised freed slaves, such as the Ku Klux Klan, were the first gun-control advocates. The Black Panthers, formed in the 1960s, were a reaction to the violence meted out against black people by the police. Riots erupted against police brutality in black districts of Detroit and Newark in 1968. Police, National Guard and the army attempted to crush the uprising and were shot at. Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act as a legal excuse to disempower those who were most likely to be targets of state violence. The Panthers and other black gun owners merely wanted to defend innocent people. Why should they follow the law like sheep and willingly lay down their arms when "the man"—the monopolist criminal—could still use them?

Even when the state itself does not commit ethnic cleansing or genocide, those things can still take place if the only ones with access to guns are those doing the killing. Imagine if Yugoslavs had been allowed to own guns. Had the same war taken place, the ethnic cleansing of large areas of the country might not have happened, as people would have been able to defend themselves and their homes. Perhaps no one would have died at Srebrenica, when some 8000 unarmed, innocent men and boys were killed because only a select group, duty-bound to defend, had legal access to firearms, and they were nowhere to be found. But the criminals, those committing the atrocities, had access to the black market, as they always do.

Perhaps there would have been no 9/11, with all its consequences: a few guns on each of those planes would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Perhaps millions of Jews and Slavs would have survived the Nazi genocide, and millions of Eastern Europeans would have been spared the gulag, if they had been armed. Modern gun-control advocates would look at the possibly thousands of people who would have died accidentally and regard them as proof only the state should own guns. The real lesson is we need to consider the moral case for gun ownership.

What could happen when another state invades our gun-restricted country where only the government has arms? If the opposing military broke through our government's defenses, we would be powerless to stop it from occupying all the seats of government and taxing and oppressing us as it wished. Let us consider a different situation, one where there is no government and no military, only the people with guns in their houses (or perhaps militias). The invaders have no government offices to occupy and no tax collectors to send round. They could, conceivably, go door to door collecting taxes, but even this would be exorbitant; and if they are at risk of being shot, they will think a third time.

I do not think a country like the US, or say Yemen (which has lots of guns), even needs a military. There are so many guns of various types, and knowledge of how to make bombs, that in case of invasion, a united America would fight a successful guerrilla war against the invaders.

One objection to guns I understand is accidents happen. The NRA's "guns don't kill people: people kill people" is fatuous in that a gun without someone holding it is useless. The fact is, a home with a gun in it is a home where you could kill someone. But surely knives, axes, martial arts, ropes, fire, ladders and strong hands could also kill people. Guns do it particularly effectively, but removing guns from the home does not make people unable to kill.

I would love to trot out studies showing gun ownership reduces crime and murder, but there are probably studies that show the opposite as well. My case is based on the supremacy of the individual. Men and women can be responsible with guns and will, at times, need to defend themselves and their families. Therefore, they should have access to guns.

A society decides how it treats people who own guns. To me, it seems wrong to in effect presume guilt by not giving an adult the chance to be responsible. Not everyone who owns guns will use them, and most who use them do not shoot other people. If they are not trusted with responsibility and disarmed just because we do not know them and thus do not trust them, we are assuming they are guilty and punishing them without evidence. In a state system, the law can be used to disarm ethnic minorities, as it has been many times in the past.

Gangs have access to guns. The big, powerful gangs are just as able to have them in armed societies like the US as in unarmed ones. The difference is, in the US they are paying licensed corporations to buy them, and elsewhere they are paying other black market operators and supporting organised crime. Thus, the people charged with defending us, the police, with a monopoly on gun ownership, could be spending their time and our money chasing an enemy that was created by their very existence. And in places like Japan, where gangs have fewer guns, they kill with bats and knives. Finally, the 9/11 terrorists, the most successful of all time, had no weapons at all. If you are ruthless, you do not need a gun.

Serial killers and the mentally ill have access to guns. Currently, it is the state's job to ensure these people are marked down. Guns do not produce serial killers, and serial killers could live in any country at any time. They will use whatever weapon they have to do God's work. It is nonetheless worth trying to prevent guns from falling into the hands of serial killers. One simple solution might be to demand of the gun market a database of all people who have been sold guns, with gun stores listing the basic information of everyone (though also protecting the information in the same way other companies do), and people would only buy guns from a dealer who contributes to the database. If an undesirable wants a gun, we have his information.

Moreover, people with a propensity for violence will often join the police or the military, thus becoming agents of the government, employing legal violence in its name. Of course, not everyone in those institutions has an excess of violent impulses, but you can be sure many people who love shooting gravitate toward groups where it is encouraged. Perhaps that is not an argument against gun ownership but for stricter controls on police and military power. But since that power exists, we should be allowed to defend ourselves against its unfair and arbitrary use. I see no moral problem in someone falsely accused or accused of a victimless crime defending him or herself against the police, just like I have no problem with "insurgents" because most of them are merely defending themselves and their families.

It might be better if we could decide not as countries but as communities if we would like guns. If ours is to be a gun-free community, we can make everyone who enters it sign something (see chapter 43). If we want to give everyone the choice, we can tell them when they arrive that some members of our community have firearms in their houses.

I will probably never buy a gun. I will probably never turn a gun on another living person. But I want the freedom to do so, simply to protect those in need. Gun control kills.

20 Terrorism and airport security

You may have noticed recently yet more airline regulations have made lines longer and slower, restricted what can be carried on board further, and made touching every part of hopeful passengers the norm, all in the name of security. We want to be safe, no doubt about it. We want to believe our government, whose job is ostensibly to safeguard our security, will stop terrorism. It will not.

9/11 was a godsend to George Bush. It made his popularity shoot through the roof and gave him a free hand to expand the government and the powers of the president. Saying he would catch the evildoers made his subjects feel safe. One terrorist attack in New York sent people in Florida, Texas and Tennessee running for hills. I remember during the 2004 election hearing more than one American interviewed say they were voting for George Bush because, without him, the terrorists might take over. Terrorists cannot take over the United States, but they can goad it into destroying itself. Al Qaeda achieved a lot to that effect. But now bin Laden is dead, I guess there will be no more terrorism.

What are the odds you will die of terrorism? They are actually less than the odds you will win the lottery. But politicians love terrorism because they can create new illusions to make you believe they are in control. Vote for me, I am tough on terrorism. I have a plan to kill all the terrorists. They try to get us thinking about terrorism when we are more likely to die of snakebites, drowning in the bathtub and eating peanut butter. (Peanut butter grows a deadly mould when it goes off. That's the limit of my helpful household hints.) They maintain the illusion of security by getting us to confuse real safety with safety measures. Believing is seeing.

Actually, I wonder if the likelihood of a terrorist bombing on an airplane will increase. The Transport Security Administration, the TSA, it turns out, is not the rock we once thought it was. According to a House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations (presumably they are the ones to thank for keeping us safe, with a name like that), there have been 25,000 airport security breaches in the past ten years. Meanwhile, the TSA has confiscated a cupcake, a plastic toy gun, a purse with a gun embroidered on it, a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it and a plastic toy light saber. Representative Jason Chaffetz called the TSA's operating procedures "security theatre". "There's a better, smarter, safer way to do this, and the TSA isn't prioritizing here," Chaffetz said. "How do we be more secure but less invasive? We have to find that balance." Fortunately, there is a way. Leave it to a politician not to realise it does not lie with more government.

Airplane security is a popular idea—we want to know the planes we are flying on are safe. As such, there is no reason to believe the airlines could not conduct sufficiently thorough security checks themselves. After all, if someone with a bomb got through, the airline's credibility would collapse and it could go out of business. The market holds it accountable. (Moreover, the costs would be reflected in the price of the plane ticket, meaning only those flying would pay for their security, rather than forcing everyone to pay through taxation. Opaque procedures for awarding contracts to pressure groups like those who make body scanners would be eliminated, bringing overall costs down.) Other airlines could allow passengers to take handguns on board. But how is the government accountable in the same way? Which politician can you blame and threaten not to vote for when the TSA makes a mistake? It wasn't MY fault, every single one of them would say. The TSA, like most government departments, is thus wholly unaccountable, and agents can do the most invasive security checks without fear of losing their jobs.

The TSA has the authority to feel up your children. You may recall a viral video of a TSA agent rubbing a young girl's inner thighs and running her fingers inside the top of the girl's jeans. Obviously not all TSA agents are pedophiles, but if you were a pedophile, you would have found your calling. A four-year-old in leg braces was forced to remove them because, well, he might have been a security threat. Is there any reason they thought a 95-year-old woman was a security threat and ordered her to remove her adult diaper? The private sector, the accountable part of the world, would never have done that. The private sector is in it for money, given voluntarily. The public sector is in it for power, given in return for the illusion of security.

TSA agent rules also state they should give extra "attention" to anyone who shows contempt for them. That's actually everyone. It makes sense to pull aside the angry people, because, as Gene Healy put it, "making a scene on the airport security line is sound strategy for anyone trying to sneak a bomb onto a plane." They now call screeners "officers" and give them uniforms that look almost like those of police. A pilot who writes for Salon had a pair of safety scissors, you know, the ones for children that couldn't cut butter, taken away from him by airport security. The petty dictators in the bureaucracy love their little scraps of power, and they win more and more of it.

Oh, sorry, sorry, airport security staff, you are just keeping us safe. So is the over one trillion dollars that has been spent on Homeland Security (as distinct from human security) since 9/11. Professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart co-authored a paper that found, "to be deemed cost-effective, [the extra trillion] would have to deter, prevent, foil, or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful Times-Square type attacks per year, or more than four per day." They also found anti-terrorism spending outpaced all anti-crime spending by $15b a year. I wonder if ever more security at the airport has done anything at all to make us safer. It has harmed our health: TSA scanners might cause cancer. It goes without saying it hasn't prevented any terrorist bombing of malls, public buildings, public transportation and so on, because there are no security checks there. Making the airplanes safe is like trying to stop up one hole in a sieve. Besides, how would a machine that checks for bombs and guns have prevented 9/11? No bombs or guns were involved.

Whether or not we are actually safer, all these invasive security measures should have us asking a few questions, foremost among them, is security truly more important than freedom? Is reassurance more important than dignity? And if so, who gets to decide these things?

The TSA has spread its reach considerably in the past few years. It now conducts thousands of announced security screenings every year. These screenings are frequently airport-style patdowns at bus terminals, ferries and subways, and even, for some reason, of passengers descending from trains. It participates in a programme of putting undercover officers on buses for the sake of counter terrorism, even though there are no terrorists. But everyone, especially foreigners, is a suspect.

Visa restrictions since 9/11 have kept out scientists, engineers and businesspeople who could have helped the US economy. But never mind those costs: they are for security. No price is too high for a colour-coded warning system.

It doesn't really matter. Your odds of being killed by a terrorist, according to all risk analysts, economists and anyone else who knows what they are talking about, are essentially zero. The private sector—the insurance companies—offer terrorism insurance, implying they have a handle on the risks the government does not. Because these people look at facts, rather than emotions, they know statistically you are more likely to drown in the bathtub and die falling off a ladder. Maybe we should ban bathtubs and ladders.

But that is not the point. For a politician, no spending of your money is too much spending of your money, and no excuse is more effective than keeping you safe and protecting your freedom. (Hence the Canadian government's multi-million dollar floating barrier to prevent terrorism that was sunk by mussels.) Outsourcing something to the "private" sector while retaining full government control over it is a recipe for cronyism, which means wasteful, unnecessary, shoddy public goods. The full-body scanner industry is worth millions while not actually detecting anything. It is not surprising that audits of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with its $71b budget and unaccountable nature, reported $34b worth of contracts containing waste, fraud and abuse. Not surprising though perhaps not accurate, as I consider every dollar spent by Homeland Security wasted. But it is essential for a group of psychopaths intent on taking away everyone else's liberties.

Increasing spending increases the size, scope and power of government, and thus its freedom vis-à-vis yours. If you do not think that is what is happening, explain why the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI coordinated the takedown of the Occupy Wall Street movement. For homeland security? And the more spending bills get passed, the more riders there are on those bills that give money to friends. Why do you let such people handle your money? I guess because you do not have a choice without moving to a small island somewhere.

Terrorism is scary

A great way of sucking your money away from you is to scare you. Elites frequently try to create a state of emergency in order to use emergency powers. Sometimes, of course, they do not need to. The sight of two airplanes hitting the World Trade Center was so shocking most Americans threw their hands up and cried out for a strong state to take over. Including 9/11, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s is close to the number killed by deer or allergies to peanuts. Yet 9/11 left the statistically-disinclined in perpetual fear, willing to approve of measures that limit their own freedom and kill and imprison people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

After 9/11, John Ashcroft, then attorney general, told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary "Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities—plotting, planning and waiting to kill again." On Feb 11, 2003, FBI chief Robert Mueller told the Senate Committee on Intelligence "the greatest threat is from al-Qaeda cells in the US that we have not yet identified" and claimed somehow to know "al-Qaeda maintains the ability and the intent to inflict significant casualties in the US with little warning." When he went back to the committee two years later, he never mentioned the secret FBI report that said after more than three years of intense hunting, the agency had not found a single terrorist sleeper cell in the US. The 2002 intelligence estimate had said there were up to 5000 terrorists connected to al-Qaeda. Perhaps this oversight was induced by paranoia. More likely, it was deliberate hype, as was presumably that which led George Bush to talk about nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein in the same breath.

Governments love to hype the terrorism threat—so much so they invent plots when business is slow. The FBI uses blatant entrapment to jail and destroy the lives of otherwise innocent people for life under trumped-up charges and spread the lie that the terrorists are everywhere. Imagine the scandal if anyone read the important news.

It is not hard to see why they would hype the terrorist threat: the more terrorists there seem to be, the more power goes to the agencies charged with finding them.

The FBI finds people through a network of informants who are paid handsomely to rat on people, creating an incentive to do so without evidence. Alternatively, people are coerced to ratting on people and threatened with major jail time if they do not, as in the case of Tarek Mehanna. Tarek was eventually arrested and sentenced to 17 years on a charge of translating something the state did not like. People who support his sentencing believe one should be imprisoned for having a "terrorist" opinion.

Meanwhile, "experts" teach police Muslims will do anything to kill non-Muslims. "Islam is a highly violent, radical religion that mandates that all of the earth must be Muslim" says one. How are we to believe a word of it? These arrests strengthen the state by giving it license to expand its powers to lock more people up. The state does not follow its own laws, such as the first amendment to the Constitution in Tarek's case, which means it is not bound by any rules.

Every day on the news for years after 9/11 (and probably still to this day, though I do not watch TV news), some government spokesperson or his corporate media partner told us about the horrors of terrorism to our fragile little countries. It was as if each news program, each politician, each conservative suited think-tank inhabitant was baiting his competitors into saying more about terrorism, how wonderful America is, and how bad our enemies are going to get it. In the words of John Mueller in his book Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them, "[s]ince 9/11 the American public has been treated to seemingly endless yammering in the media about terrorism. Politicians and bureaucrats may feel that, given the public concern on the issue, they will lose support if they appear insensitively to be downplaying the dangers of terrorism." And the public (i.e. the average voter) tended to parrot their views while believing they are thinking for themselves.

The consequences

Bruce Schneier points out a number of costs this security theatre is exacting. The first is loss of trust. Societies of high trust are happy and more prosperous. That used to be the US. Now, it has become secretive, suspicious and humiliating.

Second is the physical harm from the radiation of the body scanners, along with the mental harm from the abuse many who have gone through such security measures believe they have suffered. Moreover, an estimated 500 Americans a year die because they choose to drive, which is more dangerous, instead of flying.

Third is the loss of productivity. We have mentioned the DHS's $71b annual budget. The extra waiting time due to TSA procedures was estimated at 19.5 minutes per person in 2004 (and things may have got longer since then). The economic costs of such wasted time are about $10b a year—more than the TSA's budget.

Fourth, airports, and increasingly other places the TSA has set up shop, have become rights-free zones. Your possessions can be confiscated; you cannot make jokes or wear clothing offensive to the TSA or they can deny your entry onto the plane with no reimbursement; and they can (and might have already) put you on a secret no-fly list. Many of the thousands of people on this list are US citizens living abroad, meaning they are effectively banned from entering the US.

Fifth, all this insecurity, fear and loss of liberty plays into the hands of the terrorists. What is it you think terrorists want? They do not want to take over the world. They cannot—terrorism is an act born of weakness. They cannot even take away liberties. They can only sow terror. They want people to become scared and stop trusting each other. They know governments take every chance they get to take money and freedom from the people, and an act of terrorism—even if unsuccessful—fits the bill. "That we allow governments to do these things to us—to effectively do the terrorists' job for them—is the greatest harm of all." What do you think: have the terrorists won?

And I have not even mentioned the kicker: government is the main cause of terrorism. Just ask the terrorists. Governments like the US cause the grievances terrorists rail against and governments like Saudi Arabia fund Islamist militancy around the world. By the way, those people who say terrorists are irrational and can't be reasoned with don't know what they are talking about. There is overwhelming evidence out there to the contrary, available to anyone who is willing to listen to people other than the think-tank people on the subject. But the reason we work so hard to combat it is we do not understand it.

Terrorism is almost always in response to state aggression. Ask the Naxalites, the insurgents of the Indian hinterland who only took up arms after they and their families had been kicked off their lands to make way for steel plants. Ask Yemenis why so many of them are turning to al Qaeda when the US is bombing their villages and al Qaeda is providing food and water, as does Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ask Kurds, Chechens, Palestinians, Basques, Uighurs in China, Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Northern Irish why some of their compatriots resort to terrorism and they will point the finger at a state that had repressed them for many years before they got desperate for a solution that was not available through peaceful means.

When governments sell people Patriot Acts and airport security to prevent terrorism, they are taking away freedoms to protect people from dangers the governments created in the first place. And governments know it. Remember when Osama was assassinated and Barack said the world was now a safer place? Embassies and airports around the world immediately took extra precautions.

21 The War on Drugs

Adam Kokesh: What do you have to say to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [LEAP] who would say that ending the War on Drugs would lower the rate of deaths of law enforcement officers unnecessarily in the line of duty?

Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States: I don't think that's right.

When considering the morality of laws with relation to the principle of non-aggression, we must look at the prohibition of drugs. The only moral question to ask is, how does one's possession of drugs hurt others? Alcohol and other drugs can lead to violence. But violence itself is the crime. How is possessing or selling something that might not lead to violence illegitimate? Such are the questions that statism does not answer. Statism is not based on morality but on the decisions of a powerful minority. That minority benefits from the criminalisation of drugs.

The logic of the War on Drugs died at birth. Prohibition has never even begun to achieve its stated objectives. How could it? As the judicious Pat Buchanan puts it, "There are two sure ways to end this war swiftly: Milton's way and Mao's way. Mao Zedong's communists killed users and suppliers alike, as social parasites. Milton Friedman's way is to decriminalize drugs and call off the war." Governments around the world have tried a watered-down, somewhat-less-totalitarian version of Mao's way, but they are not achieving his results. What results are they achieving instead?

The consequences

Does the criminalisation of drugs help drug users? Why not ask the millions who have been jailed, some for 20 years or more, whose families have been torn apart, because they disagreed with the government's laws? Joanne Page of the Fortune Society says this is "not a war on drugs; it's a war on poor people with drug involvement. And the casualties are terrible." The law has created a murderous market, and law enforcers have become murderers themselves.

At least $1t has been spent enforcing drug laws, with no resulting decrease in drug use. 40m people have been arrested on drug charges since Nixon declared war on drugs 40 years ago. Over 50% of people in overburdened jails in the US are there on drug charges. And yet, in the words of Neill Franklin, executive director of LEAP, "drugs today are more available, more potent and cheaper than ever." In 2009, the US federal government spent over $2b housing drug-related prisoners. Every 19 seconds, someone in the US is arrested for a drug law violation, 82% of which are for possession. (One estimate asserts 800,000 a year are arrested on marijuana-related charges alone ) In other words, you are paying so that the government can lock up people with things in their pocket that will never harm you or your children.

Despite the irritating tenth amendment, the US federal government does not recognise laws passed by the states. One type of them is their drug laws. Most states have either legalised medical marijuana or hemp or otherwise decriminalised sale of the plant. The Drug Enforcement Administration regularly raids medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have passed laws legalising them. Barack campaigned on an "I inhaled", public health, compassionate approach to drugs, and turned out to be one of the most militant drug warriors in history. Even though marijuana might even lower suicide rates, never mind fighting cancer and lessening the pain of chemotherapy, the Barack administration has been ramping up these raids. (Governments are not interested in science that does not advance their agenda.) Along with the product, the DEA takes the computers and collects the files of people who have bought pot there, apparently holding them so they know who needs to get nabbed next for something they are legally (and morally) allowed to do.

Is it any wonder more and more people are coming to see the government does not have to care about us? That our safety or freedom are the last things on their mind? That the rule of law lies in tatters? And that this is not what Jesus had in mind? We have a federal government interested in prolonging this devastating war on non-violent (and some terminally-ill) people with blatant disregard to the Constitution. How can this take place in a free society?

Marijuana is the US's biggest cash crop. (It's pretty big in Canada, too.) Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates legalising all drugs would bring in some $40b in tax revenues at all levels if the drugs were taxed at rates similar to alcohol, and we would save another $40b in incarceration and court costs. But as he points out, this might not make much of a dent in the colossal US government budget deficits; and the real reason to legalise drugs is "all the people who want to use drugs are being somewhere between mildly inconvenienced and grossly harmed by the policy of prohibition. We are not helping drug users in any way, shape or form."

Would drug use skyrocket if drugs were legal? Well, why don't you do heroin? Because it is illegal? (For that matter, why don't you kill and rape? Because they are illegal?) In fact, during alcohol prohibition, bootleggers sold to teenagers. Dealing could not be regulated. But when something takes place on the surface and not underground, society's rules can govern it.

When the government tells you what you can and cannot put in your own body, it is claiming ownership over you. You know better than any technocrat could about what is right for you. Protecting you from yourself is not only a misguided idea; it is demonstrably not what the state cares about. The government would need to destroy most or all guns, cigarettes, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, cars, Coca Cola and Big Macs if it wanted to keep you healthy. Maybe it should ban all those things. But in the words of Lev Timofeev, a former Soviet mathematician and analyst of the shadow economy,

Prohibiting a market does not mean destroying it. Prohibiting a market means placing a prohibited but dynamically-developing market under the total control of criminal corporations. Moreover, prohibiting a market means enriching the criminal world with hundreds of billions of dollars by giving criminals wide access to public goods which will be routed by addicts into the drug traders' pockets. Prohibiting a market means giving the criminal corporations opportunities and resources for exerting a guiding and controlling influence over whole societies and nations.

The prohibition of drugs is destroying large parts of Latin America and Central Asia. Remember _the Lucifer Effect_ _and the Stanford Prison Experiment? Our behaviour depends greatly on our situation, and our situation depends greatly on incentives created by others._ Drug lords like Pablo Escobar were not necessarily bad people before they took to drugs. But they saw big opportunities to make big money because of the laws that existed. They needed to protect themselves against the long arm of the law, so they started their own militias, and criminalisation became a war. If there is no possibility to engage in commerce through voluntary transactions, but the demand still exists, the trade will continue but it will become dangerous. That is true of any criminal enterprise in the world. As a result, some 60,000 people have been killed and 25,000 gone missing in Mexico since 2006, not to mention Colombia, Peru and elsewhere in the past 40 years.

The US government has made things worse and killed its own agents. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sold some 30,000 guns to Mexican drug lords that were used not only to kill innocent Mexican civilians, but eventually US government agents. Thousands of Mexicans have protested the War on Drugs, which is fast becoming a civil war brought about by powerful governments that do not have to listen to their people.

But gangs are getting more powerful, and are setting up shop all over the US. Hundreds of people, including young children, have been killed in Chicago, a city with an estimated 100,000 gangbangers. A local police sergeant says the gang warfare in Chicago resembles the ethnic warfare he witnessed in Iraq.

Since the War on Drugs guarantees high prices for any illegal drug, it is no wonder poppy farming has become so common in Afghanistan. Supply is in the East but demand is in the West. When the West criminalises drugs, farmers in the East stand to profit. The Taliban now encourages poppy farming as a way to make money to kill foreign soldiers. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan. It is the most corrupt country in the world, in fact, according to Transparency International, which said the following: "In poll after poll, Afghans don't rank the Taliban, terrorism or the economy as their highest worry. Corruption is their top concern and tackling it, their main need." Not only does government enable high drug prices through prohibition, corruption would not exist without a government because no one would have the power to force people to pay bribes. The US military now targets drug traffickers as part of this ill-conceived war. How are foreign forces supposed to win hearts and minds when their main partner sprays crops in Afghanistan and destroys farmers' livelihoods? The criminalisation of drugs by the powers that are supposedly at war with the Taliban is shooting oneself in the head to cure one's headache.

Much of the heroin from Afghanistan passes through the old Silk Road, a network of routes through Central Asia to Russia and Europe. Countries like Tajikistan set up border guards in an attempt to intercept the drugs coming from Afghanistan, and in spite of fierce policing and harsh methods only stop an estimated 10% of the flow. Like everywhere else, traffickers and border guards run a high risk of getting killed. Rather than risking their lives, many guards turn a blind eye or take bribes. In Uzbekistan, the War on Drugs has provided pretext for crackdowns on any opposition the regime finds threatening by jailing anyone and claiming they had drugs. "Radical" Muslims are usually the target. Between the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, it is not surprising why so many international observers warn Central Asia is becoming a hotbed of Islamic extremism, and could be on the brink of collapse.

Back on the domestic front, the War on Drugs places huge burdens on the US legal system (except when people in the government are caught). The backlog of drug cases that divert billions of dollars from more important pursuits, the use of expensive courts and trial lawyers to prosecute people for selling a few dollars' worth of cocaine, the loss of civil liberties, the corruption of law enforcement; these are corollaries of a legalistic approach to prohibiting drug use.

Neill Franklin of LEAP explains most police officers that prosecute the War on Drugs consider themselves soldiers given orders and expected to uphold the law. But they do not usually spend the time to look at the facts of this pointless war, and as such do not question the criminalisation of drugs. More and more police officers are dying in the line of duty in the US, and you can guess what laws most of them are trying to uphold when they are killed. And yet, because of the law, because the politicians in the back pockets of the pressure groups are in charge, because we put them in charge and then turn our backs to them, the police are under pressure to put themselves in harm's way. LEAP is made up of brave police officers who defy their political masters and stand up for what is right.

The causes

What is the War on Drugs, anyway? It is the effect of a law. One law (really, a series of laws, but one would be enough) sends a multi-billion-dollar industry underground. With all these obvious reasons to end the War on Drugs, why does it continue? Does the government care about your health? Is that the reason drugs are illegal? The reason the War on Drugs is so difficult to end is that the government is beholden to—even controlled by—special interest groups. Contrary to what some democrats seem to think, presidents and Congresspeople do not wake up in the morning asking what they can do for their country or their constituents. They ask what they can do for their patrons, the lobbyists. Who do you think might benefit from the criminalisation of drugs? Certainly not those looking for treatment. Many laws give rise to new pressure groups. The drug laws have their own. Let's meet some of them.

Illegal drugs are major competition for legal ones. Tobacco and alcohol companies have no interest in seeing any more drugs on the market. Perhaps that is why they were, for a while, the top funders of Partnership for a Drug Free America. (Now, big pharma contributes the most.) Partnership tends not to mention more than 400,000 people die every year in the US from smoking, 75,000 from alcohol and some 370,000 (or more) died from FDA-approved (thank God the government protects us from the market) pharmaceuticals in the past decade, while the number who have died from marijuana is zero. The alcohol lobby donated to the scuttling of California's marijuana-legalisation initiative. The government is under pressure from the mighty tobacco and alcohol firms not to legalise their competitors, and has no qualms about killing to keep them happy. If you have ever wondered why lobbyists are so powerful, consider that 80% of those employed as lobbyists by the beer, wine and liquor industry and 78% of tobacco lobbyists are former government employees.

Pharmaceutical companies, too, have no interest in letting any other drugs than their own become mainstream. They already face considerable competition from alcohol and tobacco. Their drugs are so high priced (because they are protected by the force of law) theft from pharmacies is skyrocketing. Moreover, the drug-testing industry and the addiction-recovery industry both lobby to keep drugs illegal. No less than the pharmaceutical firms, everyone from clothing manufacturers to paper companies would face steep competition from hemp if it entered the marketplace. But we must protect the public from the stalk of the cannabis plant.

Another reason drugs are still illegal, and one reason the War on Drugs is prosecuted so harshly, is it pays for a politician to look tough on crime. Crime is crime sometimes for moral reasons and sometimes because lawmakers say it is. The more laws there are, the more chances politicians get to look like people who get results. It is the same reason money to protect against terrorism flows like water: the more of your money they spend, the more ability politicians have to appear to be doing something.

Other politicians preside over constituencies that benefit from the prison-industrial complex. With the steady expansion in the number of prisons came the increased number of correctional facility corporations and jobs that rely on them. More than 50,000 people were arrested in New York in 2011 for possession of a harmless plant called marijuana. And a 56-year-old grandmother was convicted of conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the US and sentenced to life. "Over-incarceration ruins lives, tears apart families, renders individuals unemployable and exacts too high a price on our society," said Dotty Griffith of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Tough on crime isn't always smart on crime." The special interests driving the increased prison population are one reason why privatisation without a reduction in government power to reward the new industry might not be a good idea. The Corrections Corporation of America spends millions on lobbying and donations to political campaigns, and has made billions doing so for two decades. It has lobbied for tougher laws and sentencing, such as the 1994 "three strikes" law, the abolition of parole and mandatory minimum sentences.

Judge Jim Gray calls the prison guard union California's strongest lobby group. It oversaw the building of 21 new prisons in the state and encouraged these same tough new laws that today have California's prisons brimming over at almost twice capacity. No wonder they have an interest in full prisons: the average guard makes more than $70,000 a year.

Black men are disproportionately targeted by police in their quest to rid the streets of the scourge of people who look different. Prisons force inmates to labour as part of their "debt to society", while the debt is collected by the prison owners and the politicians that represent them. Now they have been convicted, those people have, in many American states, lost their vote for life and get a criminal record employers can use to refuse to hire them. The apparent legitimacy of the law is a great cover for institutional racism.

Not all lobby groups are in the private sector. The drug war grants police and prosecutors bigger budgets, which gives them greater power vis-à-vis the public whose money they are spending. The DEA and the ATF receive ever-bigger budgets as well, enabling them to buy cool new equipment to help them do a job they should not be doing in the first place. As their budgets increase, the profits to be made off drugs and the desperation of the groups selling them, the ones created by drug prohibition, increases proportionally, so more people will fight on either side, catching thousands of innocents in the crossfire.

A number of police unions, which make money from federal grants for cracking down on drugs, lobby to keep drug laws where they are. Lobbyists working on their behalf make plenty of money keeping the public ignorant and confused on the matter. And the companies that supply the increasingly-militarised police have a major stake in keeping this "war" going.

The police have the incentive to steal. In 1970, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, also known as the Forfeiture Act. It was expanded in 1978, and then again in 1984. According to Jarrett B. Wollstein, "[c]ivil asset forfeiture is based upon the medieval doctrine that when property is involved in a crime, the property becomes 'guilty', and can be 'arrested' and forfeited, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the property's owners." You do not need to be tried or convicted. Anything is fair game. A New Jersey man had $22,000 taken from him by a police officer claiming it must have been for drugs. "He couldn't prove it was legitimate," said the officer. Police also stole a man's bail of $7500 after insisting his family bring cash. It wasn't unusual, they said: "I'd say we've done it maybe eight or nine times this year." Cops in Michigan seized money from drugs and prostitution to pay for drugs and prostitutes. Other police seized an entire hotel because as many as .05% of its customers had been arrested on drug charges. We do not need the state to defend our property; we need to defend our property from the state.

Not surprisingly, "the level of seizure activity has exploded since 1984," says Bruce Benson of Florida State University. Police can seize cars, jewelry and all the money they can find (even if they only _say they_ s _uspect_ it is connected to drugs). Many local police drug units are partially or wholly funded by the assets they seize. And since it is easier to catch the little fish than the big fish, the petty buyers and sellers are the ones who lose most.

I wonder, if a municipality or other government chose to reduce the budgets of the local police or even the feds, would they turn more to asset seizure as a source of revenue, and maintain the same budget for their militarisation. If drugs were legal, the police would not spend so much time and money "regulating" them. And of course, the drug gangs would be free-market, small and large businesses. Perhaps the police could spend their time catching the criminals of crimes that are not victimless.

The US military, too, long involved in South America, ostensibly to try to stamp out cocaine, has its hand out, too. The long-running turmoil in Colombia has given the US military a pretext to plant military bases there. The CIA, with its fingers in every pie, has been accused of being one of the conduits for cocaine in the US (and might at some point have been the main one). The expansion of the War on Drugs throughout the continent and consequent growth of drug cartels may open the veins of Latin America further in the future. Some people believe they are doing it to protect the American people. What do you believe? Protecting its citizens is a great excuse for a government to garrison soldiers somewhere. The empire thanks you for your understanding.

Finally, just like in so many government-connected corporate scandals, the banks are here too. Money laundering is big business, and banks all over the world have cashed in. Governments could conceivably regulate the business, but why would they harass their cronies?

All of these groups would lose if drugs were legalised, or if the drug war were "won".

Make no mistake. The War on Drugs is not simply a failed policy: it is an understandable, even predictable, result of statism. It started in 1970 when a politician (Richard Nixon) wanted to squash his peaceful enemies (hippies) and distract from his foreign policy agenda (the bombing of Laos and Cambodia), and has accelerated thanks to every other politician who has stood to gain from it. In the end, the War on Drugs is a symptom of big government. Big government is the reason your tax dollars are going toward killing and jailing people for victimless crimes, creating and funding drug cartels, and bringing violence to the streets of your hometown. Big government requires a steady flow of votes and campaign contributions in return for rewarding special interest groups with tax dollars. As such, it will not reverse until enough people threaten to withhold their votes for the party that does not end the drug war. However, the reality of the criminalisation of drugs has not hit most people, and will not unless they understand it.

No more excuses

Not only us crazy voluntaryists understand the logic against prohibition. The Global Commission on Drug Policy reported "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world...billions of dollars are wasted on ineffective programs,...millions of citizens are sent to prison unnecessarily,... [and] hundreds of thousands of people die from preventable overdoses and diseases." The report was endorsed by Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson. Some of these thinkers have said they are not strictly in favour of the outright legalisation of drugs. Fine. Adopt half measures and you will get half results. Alternatively, we could commit to the full legalisation of drugs and stop having to worry about all this nonsense.

I heard someone say that legalising drugs would not make a difference to the gangs because then they would engage in different activities to survive. But that ignores the fact that the economic incentive of gang membership is the very lucrative drug trade itself. If gangs switched to, say, stealing cars, they would be running far greater risks than running drugs for less money, and their membership would shrivel. Until that happens, expect many more dead everywhere. The most dangerous, most addictive drug is not crack or heroin but laws that create black markets and reward special interests.

It is also said that only the less harmful drugs, like marijuana, should be legal, because legalisation amounts to sanction. But that argument misses the point. After all, it is unlikely we are about to consider heroin or crack addicts role models. All drugs should be legal for two reasons. First, on a purely cost-benefit analysis, there is every reason to believe that legalisation would save money and lives, including through overdose. It would drastically reduce the influence of criminal organisations around the world, reduce the corruption of law enforcement and politicians, reduce harm done by black market substitutes for drugs whose harm has much to do with their illicit nature, stop tearing families and lives apart, and reduce the incidence of police destruction of property through break ins.

But the argument from morality is that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body when the consumption of that substance does not harm anyone else. Our bodies are our property, and no one can take away a free man's property. Unless we are irresponsible children with no judgment, all drugs should be legal.

22 Immigration and borders

In the next section we will discuss markets. We will consider the damage done by state intervention into the economy, and why free markets serve people better. Before all that, however, we will consider the most regulated market of all. The most regulated market in the world is the labour market. And the biggest barrier to a free market for labour is the national border.

Which of the world's borders are the most tightly controlled? Those of the rich world. Why would that be? It has something to do with the privileges afforded exclusively to citizens under the welfare state. Having lots of children means a welfare system is potentially sustainable, though it is largely unnecessary, as children will take care of their parents. Since welfare states were implemented, in war and in the wake of World War Two, fertility rates have dropped. Overall fertility rates have historically fallen as prosperity has risen. However, this drop in fertility has made welfare states unsustainable. This problem is particularly acute when people live longer and technology improves: health-care systems require more money to buy the equipment to keep more people alive longer. But since the austerity of the War, citizens of the rich world have acquired an entitlement mentality.

Now that the austerity generation is nearly gone and the first welfare generation is retiring, the belief that we somehow deserve all the important things is entrenched. Entitlement is supposed to guarantee jobs, minimum wages (or for some "a fair wage", which presumably means something higher than market wage), schools and universities, recreation centers, hospitals and clinics, medicine, retirement at 65 or younger and pensions. Given the enormous government spending required to maintain all these things, again, in their current forms these privileges are not sustainable. Without a rise in taxes to pay for it, which would mean less money for the productive sector and thus less wealth to go round, the welfare state cannot continue to dole out the same level of benefits it always has. There is, however, an alternative: immigrants.

Though it may seem unfair to ask the poor to pay for our luxuries, there might be billions of people around the world willing to do so. But the people of the rich world do not want immigrants; at least, not many. Immigrants burden our public services, take our jobs and worst of all, "threaten our way of life". As a result, we tighten the borders. Tight or closed borders, like unions, reduce competition for jobs, raising unemployment and thus unemployment benefits, raising wages and with them the costs of doing business. Corporations ship jobs overseas where they can pay lower wages and avoid burdensome taxes and regulations (though due in part to that trend, other countries now offer certain advantages as well). Workers get angry they have lost their jobs, and instead of considering their lack of competitiveness, the welfare state or the closing of the border had anything to do with it, they advocate policies of violence (arrest and deportation) against the immigrants they think are the reason for all their troubles. I deserve to have been born in the richest country the world has ever seen, so I reserve the right to keep others out.

Many people are opposed to immigration, and are opposed to trade that affects their jobs, and are opposed to the offshoring of their jobs. They blame big business for offshoring, as big business is only in it for themselves. Well, labourers are only in it for themselves, as is everyone. That makes us all selfish, not just rich people. Workers who are protecting their jobs by not letting anyone else into the country could easily be described as selfish as well.

When immigrants enter a country, many of them (depending who is allowed in) gravitate toward the lowest-paid jobs, because these jobs are jobs for which you do not need much English or whatever language, a college education, local accreditation, and so on. If native-born people believe they should have those jobs rather than others who had the misfortune of being born elsewhere, let them work for them. If they cannot do the jobs at market wages, which is whatever the workers who are available and good enough to do the job will accept, they could either upgrade their skills, look for another job, start their own businesses, form cooperatives with other workers and neighbours or figure something else out.

Throughout history, when technology and immigration have destroyed jobs, the newly unemployed typically find new jobs. When jobs are destroyed, as thousands are every day, a roughly equal number (depending on conditions such as economic boom or bust) are usually created. There is nothing to fear from job destruction, or from people who will accept lower wages' taking jobs, because there is no fixed number of jobs to go round. A related economic fallacy is the belief that war would be good for the economy. War employs many men, but the activities they perform are destructive, as opposed to productive. They are employed by the state, which sucks money and people from the productive sector of the economy. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a budget of over $5b and employs more than 20,000 people. If any of these people had been left in the private sector, it might have taken longer for them to find jobs or get their businesses off the ground, but they would have done so eventually, adding far more to the economy over time.

Working people complain that foreigners are snatching up their jobs, call people illegal and demand deportation and giant fences. The state distorts the labour market by denying entrance to the country to people who have as much right to be there as anyone else. There is less competition for the same jobs. Corporations are forced to pay higher wages. When corporations are thus hobbled, they want to reduce costs and therefore seek out cheaper labour in other parts of the world. If the workers accepted less, corporations would stay put. But people who believe that having the same job for 40 years is somehow a right get self righteous. Instead of adapting or improving themselves, they blame immigrants, corporations and the government.

Their only argument is that they were there first. But that is not a moral argument. If all people are of equal essential value, in terms of their deserving respect, dignity, freedom and happiness, there is no moral case for immigration laws. But that is not what we are told. The entitlement mentality blinds us to our own faults, and nationalism blinds us to the irrationality and immorality of fortified national borders.

Borders make sense when they are amicably agreed on by owners. The borders of your property, for example, or unguarded borders in Europe that now demarcate cultural boundaries rather than the do-not-pass-or-we-shoot variety, make for good neighbours. But when nationalism comes into play, ancient claims to territory surface. Our ancestors conquered this particular area (usually before national boundaries were invented) and we are willing to kill others to prevent people we do not like from coming in. This is our property and our people and our resources and our little lines drawn on the map.

But where is the logic of these claims? Even the idea that "we" used to control this or that territory, or have done for a long time, usually has no merit. Every national boundary was born in conquest. The empires of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, China, plus all the empires that disappeared before the Treaty of Westphalia, all drew lines around their possessions. They needed to be clear what was whose. At the same time, these possessions contained people not native to the empire's center of power on them. The empires needed to keep them in line so they invented nationalities. Almost every (if not every) one of these borders did not reflect the cultural makeup of the people it enclosed; they were arbitrary. But when the empires left, instead of redrawing the borders, the elites decided they wanted to make everyone inside those borders think they were a cohesive group—a nation—because it would help them gain power. No government wants to relinquish control of part of its territory because it means less power; and less power is out of the question for anybody who has it. So they invented myths about how everyone within the imperial borders has always been a nation, and since we are the family or party who will help keep our nation together, support us. Or else the most powerful ethnic groups took power and raided public coffers until civil war broke out. The story of post-colonial electoral politics in a nutshell.

Why are there so many border disputes? Why not dissolve the borders and share these artificial creations called countries as equals? Because the empires and post-colonial elites have already made the people feel they are indivisible and proud nations that must retain territorial integrity at all costs. They do not want to share with outsiders. Children know how to share. If children were at the helm, they would share. But adults would rather kill people before that happens. They would rather break up families than give people a chance to continue contributing to the economy. There is no sharing within our border.

And God forbid one might call those against immigration racist. It certainly seems that way to me. Borders and anti-immigrant policies of any kind strike me as inherently racist. There is something superior about people from within our imaginary line, but those outside just do not deserve the same benefits. Of course, that is not how the argument is framed. Instead, it is considered unrealistic to think a country like Canada, the US, Australia, etc. could ever absorb tens of millions more immigrants. But why not? There is obviously space for them. "Overpopulation" is not a problem anywhere people are free to move and create their own opportunities. The problem is lack of money or other resources to feed and house everyone. As we will see below, the claim that integrating newcomers will come at enormous expense or would cause food shortages is largely baseless, especially in a free society. But the racism is still there, under the surface, whether the non-racist people against immigration realise it or not.

Most of those people believe we merely need to uphold the law. But they ignore what the law really is: the interests of the powerful turned into the opinions of the majority and enforced at the point of a gun. There is no moral obligation to follow immoral laws; indeed, some say it is a moral obligation to break those laws to reveal their bankruptcy. Law has always been used to limit the freedom of peaceful people. It has been used to further racism, as in the segregated American South.

Are we afraid our culture will change? It makes sense to think our culture is superior to that of others because it is what we are used to. It is the culture we understand best; every other culture is full of freaks. If we do not understand other people beyond the surface, and we do not try hard to understand, it is easy to see them as inferior. Ruben Navarrette believes that the arguments about border security, lower wages and overburdened schools are nonsense. No, he says, it is cultural change that makes us shiver, and any rhetoric disguising that fact should be exposed.

It conjures up the alarm bells that Benjamin Franklin set off about German immigrants in the late 18th century, who he insisted could never adopt the culture of the English, but would "swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours." It popped up in the mid-19th century amid worries that Chinese immigrants were "inassimilable," which led to Congress approving the explicitly-named Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. And it helped welcome the 20th century when Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge warned that immigrants (read: the Irish) were diluting "the quality of (US) citizenship" and others complained that Italian immigrants were uneducated, low skilled, apt to send all their money to their home country and prone to criminal activity.

I think opposition to immigration stems from a combination of factors economic and cultural, but Mr Navarrette's argument has merit.

It is not just welfare and jobs that attract the "invaders" (a term used, ironically, pejoratively by many people who supported interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan and the drone wars that pay no regard to sovereignty). Immigrants also want to avoid wars. The US government's War on Drugs has killed tens of thousands of Mexicans, Colombians, Guatemalans and other Latin Americans. Not only do they have a reason to leave where they are, an argument could be made that a certain government with a certain agenda owes them something. The war in Libya and the overfishing of the coasts of Somalia have naturally created refugees. The European states that sponsored and will profit from these two ventures have let innocent people drown in the sea. One commentator describes letting refugees die in Fortress Europe's moat as a strategy for keeping them out. But at least they are not burdening our welfare system.

Should we give them amnesty and kindly let them stay? Who are we to do so? Sheldon Richman reminds us of our place.

The illegals shouldn't be granted amnesty. Amnesty connotes forgiveness for doing something wrong—and they have done nothing wrong. Indeed, the government should be asking forgiveness from them.

...But they came into our country without permission, conservative talker Tucker Carlson and his ilk say incessantly. Without whose permission? The whole population of the United States? The federal government? Why the assumption that either of those aggregates can have the right to give or withhold permission for someone to relocate here? This is a country, not a country club, and rights are natural not national. If someone wants to come here and can do so without trespassing on private property, that's his right and his own business.

As with all kinds of laws, a few people making money off the status quo hinder their repeal. Your country as a whole does not benefit from restrictions to immigration, but some people do. Well-connected corporations make millions off taxpayers for locking up undocumented immigrants. Like workers who fear newcomers, special interests will fight to the bone to influence legislators to retain their privileges. The criminalisation of movement keeps prison operators happy and showing up in the lobbies of power.

In 2011, US authorities deported nearly 400,000 people—a number that has been rising every year—who had no work permit, wrenching apart thousands of families. A few people win (mostly defense contractors), but desperate people who risk their lives crossing an invisible and arbitrary line on a map for a better job lose. If we want to boost economies and reduce poverty, let us open all borders.

A further reason immigration is so restricted is that the anti-immigrant argument is partly a scapegoat. It is contrived to divert attention from the underlying causes of unemployment and other things we blame on newcomers. A government that induces financial crisis and steals money from people has a major interest in pointing fingers. Who better to blame than people who are visibly different, poor and cannot stand up for themselves?

We are told we are freer than ever before. Is it true? Until a hundred years ago, people who wanted to cross borders did not carry passports; they just went. Now, we need passports and visas, obtained following time-consuming and expensive (in fees and taxes) bureaucratic processes. And not everyone can get a visa, even in the rich world. We can be denied access to the US-Canadian border for a record with a DUI, possession of a medical marijuana card, shoplifting or arrest for attending a peace rally. You do have legal recourse, which you can apply for after five years, but you need to send in court, police and FBI records, and a $200 fee. It's a good thing about that fee, eh? Without that, how would the people who don't let peaceful people cross borders make their livings? The persistence of borders is another bureaucratic rule designed to justify the existence of the bureaucracy.

The argument that national welfare systems would be overwhelmed underlines the flaws of the welfare state. Why would we get rid of immigrants at great expense in order to perpetuate this expensive system of welfare? We could welcome immigrants, who contribute to the economy, and not have the violence of deportation on our hands.

The myths are that immigrants steal jobs, commit more crime, go on welfare and deepen poverty. The reality is different. Most immigrants are young men, which one would think would mean more crime and incarceration. But in fact, the incarceration of native-born Americans in the US is five times higher than that of immigrants of every ethnic group. And why not? Immigrants go to work, not to commit crimes. Moreover, welfare case loads have fallen as illegal immigration has increased. Overall poverty has decreased too. It is not simply due to the high-skilled immigrants but the low-skilled ones as well.

Worker productivity depends far more on location than skill. The hardest-working maid or taxi driver in Ethiopia will not make more than a few thousand dollars a year. Shame, as the more money he or she makes, the more value is produced. More workers in an economy means more economic growth, as witnessed when women joined the labour force in the rich countries. Better location is why the "brain drain" argument may be fallacious. The dramatic increase in a worker's productivity, often meaning many times more money, means migrants have that much more to send back home. There are plenty of proposals that fall short of eliminating borders to let more workers move to where they are more productive, and it is very likely they would help get us out of this global economic slump into which we have been thrust.

A book by the Center for Global Development's Lant Pritchett called _Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility_ cites two studies that reach startling conclusions. Far from harming economies, the full liberalisation of labour markets could result in gains to global GDP at nearly _forty trillion dollars_. Actually, given what we know about how well free people and free markets generate growth, and given the strict laws preventing a free market for labour, this figure may not be so surprising. Most of the benefits would accrue to the poor, but a rising tide of poor people would probably lift the boats of anyone working for any business they bought from. On a purely cost-benefit analysis, it makes sense to let all immigrants in. Economies would burst with growth, and though temporarily unemployment might increase, over time it would probably remain low. The short-term consideration of losing one's job should be measured against the potentially enormous long-term benefits to nearly everyone.

Immigration reduces world poverty. Anyone who says they care for the poor and support barriers to immigration is either lying or does not understand poverty. When they support foreign aid to reduce poverty but not opening borders, they would rather throw a bone at a homeless man in order to ease their consciences than integrate him into their neighbourhood. And everyone who sees famines on television and throws up their hands in despair needs to consider that if starving people could emigrate, most of them would survive.

If crops fail in one place, it is likely they will flourish elsewhere, at least if people can move. In a free market, supply almost always rises to meet demand: existing producers produce more and new producers enter markets that offer lucrative returns. Naturally, it is possible that climate change, in a much more advanced stage than it is today, would lead many more crops to fail all over the world; though as we will see in chapter 39, it is by no means impossible for a stateless society to have better means of protecting the environment than the status quo. Open borders are a cure for famine.

But the real reason it is wrong to hold back immigration is that it is wrong to initiate force against peaceful people for any reason, and wrong to close off a country and call it yours. It is not your country. It is everyone's world. Using coercion to keep others out of our countries advocates violence against innocent people. And it does not help the poor.

Borders are prisons. Movement around the Earth has been the human way of life for 200,000 years, and yet we fear the unknown so much we are willing to erect barriers to it. The highest of those barriers are in our minds.

23 Nationalism

######

###### As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted, law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil. — George Orwell

###### _The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself._ _– Friedrich Nietzsche_

The root of opposition to immigration, along with the root of modern war and other statist evils, is nationalism. Nationalism is the belief that we are all divided into nations, and that one's country is superior to all others. It places the nation above the individuals that make it up, meaning that if for any reason the nation is in trouble, the individual must lay everything on the line for it. This madness must end.

Nationalism is perhaps a bigger problem than statism. Statism is simply the idea that we need a state. If the state did not cover more than a city, it would have far fewer resources than today's nation state. Do you think a municipal state would try to track you with spy drones or cause trillion-dollar financial crashes? But nationalism magnifies the power of the state many times, because it legitimises a national state with far greater resources.

The apparent timelessness of the modern nation state conceals, in nearly every case, a violent past. States are forged by conquest. Their histories are of war, massacre, slavery, the forcible transfer of native populations and the destruction of local cultures and economies. These things, in fact, are carried out to this day, always by the state (except slavery, which is also done by corporations and non-state human traffickers), and it is a testament to the state's power that so many people approve. Other nationalists refuse to admit the truth about the history of their beloved countries for the same reason they do not want to know how many lovers their partners had before them: they do not want to shatter their illusions of purity. If you do not know about the dark side of your country's history, it is because your public-school system wants to believe in the superiority or infallibility of your country. If you refuse to admit the past, or believe the end (the glorious present or future) justifies the means (the lies of the present and the violence of the past), the schools have been successful. You may be able to see through the lies, but the masses do not have that luxury.

I agree with Professor Stephen Walt that nationalism is the most powerful force in the world today. States

have a powerful incentive to promote national unity—in other words, to foster nationalism—because having a loyal and united population that is willing to sacrifice (and in extreme cases, to fight and die) for the state increases its power and thus its ability to deal with external threats. In the competitive world of international politics, in short, nations have incentives to obtain their own state and states have incentives to foster a common national identity in their populations.

And today's strongest states, including the US and China, are ones where nationalism is mainstream and highly valued.

Do you feel pride in your country? Does your heart swell when you see a flag or hear a national anthem? I have trouble understanding why someone would feel anything. A country is not a person; it is just an idea. If you like the idea, live there. But why is it we feel deep affiliation with people from the same country rather than those with some other of the millions of characteristics that make us who we are? Why don't we build communities of people who like reggae? Why don't we form armies to defend people of the same shoe size? Because we have chosen a different arbitrary distinction from others to kill for. To me, it is all the same nonsense.

Reactions to the Olympics are a great example of why nationalism is ridiculous. My country won a gold medal. No. Someone from within the same line on a political map as you won a medal, through his or her own hard work. There may be nothing more obviously an individual effort than winning at the Olympics (notwithstanding the coach, or the team, whoever is involved). The people from the same country have absolutely nothing to feel proud of. They did not do anything. Tribalists find validation in the actions of others from their chosen group, and weak people take credit for other people's accomplishments. Besides, if I consider myself a citizen of the world (and by the way I do; it is not just something cool to say), shouldn't I feel proud if ANYONE wins a medal? Whichever country wins the Olympics, it is my country!

We are too proud already. Pride in our own efforts can lead to narcissism and collective pride can lead to collective narcissism. But individual narcissism is not fueled by history text books that gloss over facts and make people believe fairy tales about how wonderful their country has always been. Like collectivism, individual narcissism can lead to war, but only when it comes from a psychopath in power and nationalists follow him blindly. What is there to feel proud of aside from one's own results? But maybe those results are only worth being proud of if they benefit others. So how about we consider everyone in the world when acting, rather than just our country?

After all, how well do we know any of them? Some nationalists act as if we are all one family. We know something about the culture, the general. But how many of those people would you even want to spend time with if you knew them? We are hardly a family; at best, a nation is a big club.

Is it ever nationalism that motivates people to improve their community? I doubt it. Some nationalists have that sense of responsibility and some don't. But if people are aware of the rest of the world, they are just as likely to go somewhere else to help people. Nationalism is exclusive, and I believe morality depends on universal values. Obviously, there is nothing more moral about helping people in your own country than helping people elsewhere, since all people are of equal worth, equally deserving of the application of morality.

But to a nationalist, some people are simply superior. The people in our exclusive club are the best, and the people allied with our country are pretty good (though not to be trusted), and the people we are told are our enemies are evil. This sentiment is eagerly spread by the elites, and has fooled almost everyone. Reacting with disgust to the brutality of a government she believed represented her in some way, my Egyptian friend told me "at least we are not like the Israelis". I tried to explain to her that we are not talking about "people" in the sense of moral actors with consciences, but a system; a machine whose parts are controlled by people who have given up their consciences for power and wealth. Every complex society has psychopaths, who have more in common with each other the world over than with us, wherever we are from.

It is so easy to manipulate nationalists. Take Americans' reactions to 9/11. People who had been told their entire lives "you are an American" immediately assumed that "our country is under attack". Leaving aside the fact that there was only one attack and it ended, which was not known at the time, what connection did people in Maryland and Florida and Nebraska have with the people who were killed? None whatsoever. They might well have hated each other if they had known each other personally. And if they had died in car crashes, they would have been completely ignored. But instead, the people went into a frenzy of fear, anger and despair for people they never would have met. Likewise, what did American Muslims (and other minorities) have to do with 9/11? Still nothing. Yet the Center for American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., counted some 1700 attacks on Muslims in the five months following September 11. The New York Police Department shows officers a shocking film about how radical Islamists are planning to take over America, which may be why the police spy on Muslims so persistently. Muslims are the "other". They cannot be trusted. Nationalism is used to spread hate, which is good for politicians but bad for minorities (and taxpayers). Americans approved of the invasion of two countries full of people that had nothing to do with the attack because they were told that the country and "national values" were at stake.

Those values are largely illusory, however, because they are things like freedom and justice, which people of all cultures want. And belief in the superiority, or just the distinctiveness, of our own tribe blinds us to the many, many things that make us all human, almost the same everywhere, equally deserving of compassion and respect. And taking pride in an exclusive part of humanity ignores that fact.

Witness how willing so many people are to swallow the claim that China is manipulating its currency, and that this is what hurts the US dollar or even holds back the US economy. Nationalists are so happy to hear the pleasing narrative that the foreigners are at fault that they completely ignore (perhaps because they do not understand) the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the dollar to far greater detriment. What? It's China's fault? I knew it! I told you they were bad.

The space programme and the Olympics are further products of nationalism. Hosting the Olympics is a big source of national pride, so some people are willing to put up with any number of billions of dollars (a figure that is continually revised upward) taken to pay for it. Space travel was a source of pride during the Cold War when the Soviets launched a couple of rockets out of Earth's atmosphere and the US spent tens of billions of dollars to feel good about itself again.

Nationalism is also about discriminating against minorities. Politicians benefit from providing the people with an enemy, because an enemy is a reason to give money and power to them. They will protect you from the Jews, Gypsies, Huguenots, or whatever group they have told you to hate recently. They might see others as "dangerous to our way of life", competing for "national resources" or otherwise a threat to our precious possessions. To people who can be taught to hate or fear others for what they are, power is a zero-sum game among ethnic groups. And all the civil wars we have seen in our time have been caused by this kind of thinking, from Rwanda to Iraq. Everyone different from us is a potential enemy.

As such, minorities, largely or entirely locked out of power, might take to terrorism to achieve freedom from an oppressive majority (separatism) but get tarred as evil terrorists who cannot be reasoned with. The truth is that they keep coming back because they have been denied freedom and justice. Nationalism requires the integrity of the nation state, which means that anyone wanting to separate must be eliminated. As a result, we get terrorism in Turkey, Sri Lanka, Russia and Spain, heavy repression in Tibet, a highly militarised standoff in the Taiwan Strait, and a strong state wherever terrorism can be used as an excuse to expand it. Nationalism on both sides created the separatist terrorists. As Ilya Somin notes, "playing with nationalism is like playing with fire. It's not inevitable that you will get burned, but the risk is high...[and] a small nationalistic flame can often turn into a conflagration that burns down the whole neighborhood."

Terrorism is not limited to Muslims, of course. Anders Breivik was a terrorist. Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist. And the recent shooting at a Sikh temple in the southern US should remind everyone that, with the right beliefs, anyone can kill. "It's called 'radicalization' and it happens to 'us' and to 'them' and the end results tend to be the very same." When it is us, however, of course they are not terrorists. They are just a few bad apples, fringe elements that any society produces.

Governments also like nationalism because they want to be able to sign a deal at the top and have everyone presume that it is legitimate for the entire group the signers claim to represent. Nationalists believe we need representatives because we are a coherent nation. They tell us we are community, therefore everything our representatives do is supposed to form the collective will. Even if a few self-interested elites could possibly represent the majority, how is it right for the majority to force its will at gunpoint on the individual?

But the majority is not really in charge in any society. The majority in a democracy can be easily fooled into believing that it is giving the orders by telling it that what its representatives are doing is good for everyone. A "free-trade agreement" (as if there has ever been one), for example, will contain various handouts to the loudest of special-interest groups and it will be imposed over an entire national economy. Nationalists might accept the agreement because, though the agreement benefits some individuals at the expense of others, it is all for the elusive "greater good". And as a result of this collectivist thinking, when a government agrees to something, it is assumed to apply legitimately to everyone in the country: "we" agreed to it. What about the many, many agreements that are no good for most of the people affected? Those people were not even asked.

But even if we are a community that desires representatives, why do those representatives need to be the same people who wield a monopoly on violence? Aren't the people who want that power the least like us of anyone in the nation?

At the extreme, when politicians and generals manufacture threats to the equally-elusive "national security", nationalists buy in easily. They are thus more likely to sacrifice their money, freedom and lives for the nation. Why else would so many Americans polled approve of the expansion of drone wars around the globe? "There are dark, primordial, psychological reasons why Americans support the [drone] war. It is driven by the dream of perfect safety. Like all terrible traumas, 9/11 instilled in us an overpowering desire to protect ourselves. In an ambiguous and threatening world, the knowledge that we are fighting our enemies, that we are doing _something_ , is reassuring."

However, if the elites could not count on collectivists, they would not risk starting fights in the first place. Journalists will often fall in line in times of "national crisis" (as if a real crisis could permeate or be confined to one country). Dan Rather, following 9/11, equated "patriotism", or unthinking loyalty to one's country, to doing whatever the president told Americans to do. "I am willing to give the government, the president and the military the benefit of any doubt here in the beginning", Rather said. In other words, he would give up the career of journalism, which means asking the tough questions and speaking truth to power, for that of cheerleading. Nationalism shuts up the minority that disagrees with the president's war plans, calling them traitors and accusing them of siding with the enemy. Nationalism is thus a means for government control of the willing and coercion of the unwilling.

We do not need to know anything about someone else to discriminate against him or her; just being told he or she is different is enough. Research finds it only takes a few hours for us to be conditioned to fear and hate people only superficially different from ourselves. Being on a winning team (which to people who do not participate in teams or have achievements of their own could be a nation or race) is a source of self esteem, as is denigrating those on other teams. We can be given any number of reasons to believe we are better, and our criteria for what is good about a country tend to be entirely based on things we believe ours is best at. Freedom is the most important thing for a country; our country is the most free; therefore, our country is the best. This is uncritical ethnocentrism, and ignorant people fall into its warm embrace whenever the people on top need a favour.

Those libertarian nationalists who say they are proud of their country but ashamed of their governments still think in collectivities. If they are proud of the culture they are most familiar with, which they had little hand in shaping, they are furthering the myths of nationalism. If they are ashamed of their government, then they presumably believe the government does or can represent them. Why would they believe that? Don't libertarians represent themselves?

Set to boiling point by ambitious elites, nationalism can become an arbitrary expression of desire to kill and die for a space of land within whatever border the government claims to control, wherever the borders are, however many years ago they were set. Some form of tribalism is probably natural to humans, as we, like other primates, are territorial. First, however, it is illogical to assume that something natural is something good. Second, man's territoriality is an argument for individual property rights, not for nationalism. We all have something to defend against aggression, but to think we should defend an entire nation is to take the idea of property or tribe to preposterous lengths. Your country is not your property.

When I express this individualist point of view, collectivists ask me, "so what if some country was invading your country? Would you defend it with your life?" The answer is no. I do not have a country. I would defend my friends and family with my life, and I would organise to ward off any attacks on other innocents as best I could. But my friends and family are all over the world. I have no deeper a connection to someone in "my" country that I do not know than I do to someone in Burkina Faso that I do not know.

Nationalism also makes secession much more difficult, as secessionists must fight (at least the opinions of) nationalists who believe they have some ownership over the land of those who want to secede. Nationalists will tell you this land is their land, indivisible (and possibly too small). The elites who inculcate these values want to count on support for putting down any secessionist movements that may arise, because the larger the territory they control, the more wealth they can extract from it and the more power they have.

Nationalism has always been dangerous, but now it is simply irrelevant. The only argument that is superficially plausible for the continuation of the nation state is the military and its defense of national security. It may have made sense when there were real threats to people from other nation states; hence the union of the Czech and Slovak people, or the Yugoslav republics, during the 20th century to protect against the predation of external empires. However, today's national security threats are not from empires and foreign militaries (unless you are in the US or Israel's crosshairs). Now, nearly all wars are intrastate (civil war), rather than interstate. The closest thing to national security threats from abroad are terrorists (whose threat is almost always a response to government-sanctioned military aggression), criminal organisations (which would barely exist if drugs, guns, prostitution and crossing borders were legal), and environmental disasters (rescue's being entrusted to the same people whose main training is in weapons is unnecessary; like the nature of the threat, rescue teams could be transnational). The nation state impedes efforts to prevent transnational threats because it is beholden to local interests that might not be interested in solving problems and divert resources from the people for their own ends. National elites routinely fail to agree on useful paths toward solutions because farmers, unions, corporations and other state dependants will not allow them to. There are no national security threats because there is no national security. The nation itself is an illusion, and all countries are based on it.

Though tribalism may be innate, in today's world tribalist impulses are mitigated by the internationalisation of our society through our exposure to media, people and ideas from all around the world. Exclusive, outdated, national celebrations and traditions such as Independence Day are creations of the elites to sell loyalty to the state. The state and the nation are linked in the imagination, so when the state goes to war, it tells everyone the nation is going to war. That is why we have the idea of "the national interest" and "national security". Have you ever noticed whatever the government wants happens to be in our national interest as well? Have you ever noticed whatever the government wants to conceal is a matter of national security? Nationalism threatens to deny access to the rest of the world through narrow-minded protectionist policies that limit a country's economic potential, and the creation of enemies that legitimises taking more money and more freedom from the people.

The idea of democracy promotion is related to nationalism, because it is based on a belief that our ideas are the best, because they are our ideas. Again, we are talking about ethnocentrism. Our culture is better. We want you to learn from us, and then you will be better people. As soon as a revolution breaks out somewhere they know nothing about, democrats say the revolutionaries are fighting for democracy. My guess is, they are fighting for freedom. Freedom to choose a few of the people who rule you is not real freedom. Real freedom means not being subject to rule by force by anyone. But our ethnocentrism blinds us, and leads us think they want a system just like ours. Maybe they want more freedom than we have. Maybe they only like the idea of democracy because they lack other ideas. After all, most people in the self-righteous rich democracies of the world tend to believe so fervently in the superiority of their system over all others that they have been forcing it down the throats of the rest of the world for decades. You should all be democracies like us, because we are America and so can you. If you want to help the people in a post-revolutionary state like Tunisia or Libya, or a country in conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq, help them become self-sufficient, not as a nation but as individuals, communities, or whatever groups they want. Let them trade with whomever they want. Let them travel to any country they want. Help them build independent and voluntary businesses, charities and other institutions to deal with their problems. Teach entrepreneurship, medicine, and other things that healthy communities require. One thing they do not require is a new regime that does not know or care about them to tell them what to do.

Why is nationalism negative? Let us ask the hundreds of millions of people who were killed because someone loved his country. The collectivist notion that "Germany" was a definable nation led to tens of millions of murders alone in the 20th century. Germans were steeped in nationalist ideology, eager to believe their country was superior and was under threat by inferiors. One Nazi doctor, asked how he could reconcile the slaughter at the concentration camp where he worked with the Hippocratic oath, replied "When you discover a diseased appendix, you must remove it." Nationalism is an arbitrary distinction created by elites to justify accumulating power, growing governments and starting wars, and if you do not know that, you do not understand nationalism.

Nationalism is an outdated impulse and has no place in modern society. It is another way elites divide us when we could move past such simplistic and dangerous divisions. Anarchy means no nations and no national rulers but cooperation with any peaceful person. It thus leads to understanding, respect and peace.

24 Democratic wars

Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men.... The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws. – General F.S. Maude, commander of British forces in Iraq, 1917

War does not determine who is right, only who is left. — Bertrand Russell

In Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, socialism was creeping into public life. Social democrats were gaining followers and attempting to forge international links with other left-wing groups. They wanted what is today known as social justice. The elites felt threatened. We can't let these people take power, they thought. Trouble brewed and in 1914, World War One began. World War One turned out to be not only the most costly and deadly war in human history but entirely pointless. But one effect it did have was to turn a number of the internationalist socialists into nationalists; to abandon their hopes of improving their country, and to go to war for it. The elites stumbled into, and to an extent concocted, a war, and people who had nothing to gain took the bait. They died in the millions as a result.

Distracting the people from problems on the home front is just one of many reasons those with militaries at their disposal choose to use them. Most wars start because of disputes between elites, or to maintain the privileged position of empires, states and corporations. Why should the rest of us get caught up in their personal squabbles and empire building? Let them have duels or fistfights and stop killing millions of innocent people and spending trillions of our dollars to secure their power.

Though wars may be started by self-interested, psychopathic elites who feel no compunction about killing millions of people, they are held in place by well-meaning but ignorant people who believe that military power is a reasonable way to deal with the world's problems. There is a dictator somewhere in the world? Let us, the good guys, go take him out. It's not invasion—it's liberation. It's not occupation—it's nation building. It's not installing a dictator—it's democracy promotion. Most of those same people believe that the Allies—again, the good guys—entered the world wars to stop an evil, save the world and secure our freedoms. It is incredible to me how many people in democracies believe that the reason we should vote is because people died in the World Wars to defend our freedom. These people lack perspective.

What makes us the good guys, anyway? Ethnocentrism. Our ideas are so good we would be wrong _not_ to impose them on others. Sure, thousands or millions might die, but in the long run, they will have democracy, and they will be just as great as us. At the beginning of NATO's intervention in Libya, Stephen Walt wrote

Of course, like his predecessors, Obama justifies his resort to force by invoking America's special place in the world. In the usual rhetoric of "American exceptionalism," he couched it in terms of US values, its commitment to freedom, etc. But the truly exceptional thing about America today is not our values (and certainly not our dazzling infrastructure, high educational standards, rising middle-class prosperity, etc.); it is the concentration of military power in the hands of the president and the eroding political constraints on its employment.

Now, "America finds itself lurching from conflict to conflict often with little idea of how they will end, other than the hope that the forces of righteousness will prevail," and calls it humanitarian intervention.

The manichean good guy-bad guy distinction is a great way to rally people around a war in a place they cannot find on a map. We know nothing about them except that they hate freedom. We like to think we are the good guys, and our government, who we believe is an extension of our collective will, is the strong arm of our superiority. To believe that the US Department of Defense, the Department of State, the CIA and so on, or their equivalents anywhere else, are good guys by any measure is a joke. While the good-guy justification might be enough to keep the soldiers showing up and the public overlooking the enormous costs of war in blood and treasure, it is not why elites pick these fights.

A history of the World Wars

My explanation that World War One was initiated to distract the people from socialism is of course incomplete. Different decisions were taken for different reasons by the closed circles of elites in each country that participated in the war. Britain's, for instance, went to war largely to cripple its rival Germany, but also because the government in power was afraid of collapsing. When war is popular, the government who starts it improves its standing. The alliance of Russia and France, and later Britain, boxed Germany in geographically, and being a latecomer to the imperial game, Germany's expansion would need to be mainly local, rather than overseas. It attacked its neighbours. Certainly, German decision makers (Kaiser Wilhelm not least among them) share the blame for the start of the war; all the powers do.

The people of the United States gained no advantage through their involvement in Europe's war, but when the Eastern Front collapsed and Wall Street bankers began to fear they would not get the money they lent the Allies back, the US went to Europe. Woodrow Wilson, the man who won the 1916 election as the president who kept us out of war, mobilised the troops. It should not surprise us that someone who signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act would be a servant to bankers.

Then came the Treaty of Versailles, which was obviously victor's justice and not true justice. No one benefited from this war (notwithstanding the contractors—see chapter 25), least of all the lower classes; and everyone paid the price again one generation later.

Three men at Versailles—Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau—who thought they could reorder the world caused incalculable chaos in the interwar period: dictatorships, starvation and post WW1 conflicts across Europe and the Middle East. Their decisions should not be ignored when considering causes of today's problems. Civil wars might not be taking place in Syria and Iraq if they had not been created by a flourish of the pen in Paris in 1919. The point is not that the three men or their countries were less moral, or that a German victory over Europe would have been better for anyone. Rather, the problem is that they were given so much power.

Hitler came to power on the back of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles and its devastating effects: hyperinflation in 1923 and deflation in 1929. The closing of borders to trade after the start of the Great Depression also did nothing to help Germany, and in fact showed the Germans that, not only were they crippled by the punishments inflicted by foreign powers, but they were being left in the lurch when trade might have saved their economy. 6m Germans were unemployed when Hitler took office. He found a smooth road to fascism.

People condemn Germany's bombing of Britain, but what did the British expect? Hitler did not want to fight Britain, but Britain attacked Germany first. Then people show their ignorance by not knowing or their double standards by not caring about the firebombing of German cities, which in cases such as Dresden, where 100,000 were killed, were solely punitive and had no strategic value.

No one entered the war or bombed anything to end the Holocaust, either. If they had, the British would have allowed more Jewish refugees to enter Palestine, and neither Canada nor the US would have turned away the almost 1000 refugees aboard the MS St. Louis. In reality, the rich countries had already rejected the idea of taking any Jews in in 1938 at a conference in Lake Geneva, enabling the Holocaust by closing borders. Moreover, Hannah Arendt and other historians believed the Holocaust was inspired by the carelessness with which colonial bureaucrats signed orders for administrative slaughter of native peoples and the disdain they felt for them.

Protecting minority rights was the last thing on any decision maker's mind. Look at how the US and Canadian governments imprisoned their own citizens of Japanese (but not German) descent. Saving Jews was not the concern of FDR, just as freeing blacks was not Abraham Lincoln's priority. Both of them went to war to enlarge the power of the state; and in both cases, it worked.

People say it was right to defend Poland. But Poland's government, like Germany's, was a racist dictatorship. (France and the US were full of racism too, and like Britain they repressed native peoples around the world; but I guess being democracies they were all right.) Germany and the Soviets attacked Poland at the same time, but Britain attacked Germany only. Given that the Soviet Union took control of Poland and the rest of eastern Europe after the war, the Allies' claim that they were defending the freedom and sovereignty of Poland must have sounded bitter to enslaved Poles. If saving Poland had been important, surely the democracies would have tried to wrench Poland out of the grip of the USSR after the war.

Then people say they should have attacked Germany in 1938 or before. But the only time Nazi Germany had invaded a country before the invasion of Poland was an intervention into Spain to take sides in the Spanish Civil War, like a number of other countries had, and I think it is fair to say that anyone who approved of the NATO operation in Libya can understand that. When this kind of foreign military intervention results in suicide bombings, the whole religion of Islam is blamed and all (or sometimes "not all") Muslims are portrayed terrorists, when the real culprit is staring us in the face.

The US did not have to enter the war. Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbour so it could begin a takeover of the continental US. It did so to change the equation, to do something about the sanctions on Japan that were making it impossible for Japan to continue to subjugate China. Notes from a conference at the White House two weeks before Pearl Harbour show that, while Franklin Roosevelt did not know Pearl Harbour was about to happen, they anticipated war and discussed how it could be justified. FDR baited Hitler into declaring war on the US, as Hitler did not want war with the US. A major overreaction ensued in the US, and FDR had his mandate for war.

Britain was not particularly moral and freedom-loving. It controlled the world's largest empire and held down indigenous people by force. The scorched-earth campaign in South Africa (where the concentration camp was invented), the Amritsar Massacre (not the only massacre in British India, just the most recent) and the killing of thousands of Iraqis in 1920 (in which everyone's hero Winston Churchill played a major role) were not only immoral; they provided an example the new imperialists could profitably emulate. Territorial expansion and empire were rational. With policies that contributed to the Great Depression, the great powers closed their borders to foreign goods; and as Frederic Bastiat once said, "if goods don't cross borders, armies will." In the absence of free trade, empires like Britain's and Russia's afforded enormous benefits. Countries like Japan that had did not have enough natural resources for industrialisation, and Germany, hobbled by the 1919 borders, saw empires as a great way to get what they needed to grow. Hitler mentioned natural resources that Germany did not have in his writing as chancellor.

The supposed paragons of democracy (the US, Britain, Canada, etc.) had given women the vote barely 20 years earlier (around the same time as Germany). The US was certainly no beacon of morality by WW2. As Albert Jay Nock wrote in 1939,

in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices large-scale carpetbaggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.

And morality was obviously not a major consideration in going to war, or the moralisers (the British and US empires) would never have allied with Stalin. Unlike Hitler, Stalin had indeed killed many people—some 20m—and enslaved millions more in the gulags. It is no wonder many native forces in Eastern Europe fought with the invading Germans against the Soviets, the side that had proven its barbarity against them. If the allies had become more moral after the war, they would have insisted on freedom for all people, instead of first attempting to occupy Iran, then escalating the war in Indochina against indigenous freedom fighters, followed by everything else that happened when the imperialists were allowed to go back to the work they preferred. Anyone who studies US foreign policy knows that during the Cold War, the US was responsible for coups, dictatorships, mass killings, wars, and various other crimes that suggest the allies' winning of the war was not unequivocally good. World War Two had nothing to do with liberating anyone, and everything to do with eliminating a rival empire. War is never about what is right, and necessarily about the interests of the state or states that initiate it. The troops did not die to make us free; they died for nothing.

More importantly, the idea of taking out Hitler or the Nazi regime and imperial Japan worked all right in the medium term (notwithstanding the enormous costs in lives and wealth, the Cold War and the Soviet takeover of half of Europe), but simply tackling dictators and then replacing them does not strike the root of the problem. It is the same style of misguided policy that believes in combating terrorism rather than ending the aggression and occupations that cause it.

The two real problems are, first, the existence of the means to build up a military in the first place, through government power to tax, conscript (or just pay security forces better than everyone else), disseminate propaganda, silence dissenters, and so on; and second, the unquestioning following of authority. If Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al. had not had access to the levers of the state, or if enough people had defied them, they would just have been scheming loudmouths at town hall meetings. If we were to eliminate some dictatorship, if it were somehow an easy task, I would suggest building things up from the bottom, perhaps training the people in basic security and letting them figure out their own solutions, instead of imposing a new government on them. I do not believe it would be necessary to do many things on a national level when they could be done locally or regionally, across borders.

How to start the next war

Either way, anglophone culture has a kind of fetish for World War Two. Men love to watch movies in which the heroic Allies duke it out with the evil Nazis and Japanese. We are so proud of ourselves that we say things like "you would all be dead [or slaves] now if not for our boys", which is a counterfactual that defies credulity. Hitler has become a cartoonish image of evil. Because of our uncomfortable relationship with fact, it is easy to manipulate the masses into believing that the next Hitler is right around the corner. Saddam Hussein, for instance, was compared to Hitler before both the 1991 and 2003 wars against him. We HAVE to eliminate him: he is Hitler!

The myths surrounding previous wars contribute to the next war. The goodness of the Good Gulf War (1991) has been crushed under the evidence. I remember as a kid watching American TV during that time, listening to everyone shout about how bad Saddam was and how the US needed to invade Iraq. It made sense to me and my 9-year-old mind. One thing they said was that Saddam's troops were ready to invade Saudi Arabia, our good friend, then entered Kuwait and threw babies out of incubators. That turned out to be a lie. No one realised until it was too late, and the public had already given the politicians the go-ahead to invade. And it was just one of the pieces in the propaganda puzzle; and we do not need every piece in place to approve of the war. But even though some of the lies had been exposed, all the public could remember on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom from a decade earlier was Saddam was the bad guy.

The stated rationale for intervening in Iraq both times was Saddam was evil. But when we declare war on anyone in a country, we are declaring war on that country. Individual countries are neither moral nor immoral. They contain mostly innocent people. When we declare war on a country, we are mostly declaring war on innocent people.

Do we go to war for freedom? Whose freedom, exactly? Certainly not the freedom of those in the country starting the war. Wars tend to produce "emergency" laws that jail people for dissent, muzzle the media, censor unfavourable stories and demonise anyone voicing an opposing opinion. Taxes go up (except in the case of Iraqi Freedom, when they went down, further widening an enormous hole in the budget). When the war is over, the newly-enlarged and emboldened government, with its taste for higher tax rates and greater control of its people, is less accountable than ever. Is that what we should "thank a vet" for?

We do not fight for others' freedom, either. Iraq is not, contrary to what you might have been led to believe, a "free" country. Predictably, the new regime has become more repressive, authoritarian and corrupt. Those who believe that, whether or not the war was justified, at least Iraqis have democracy, are not only misguided with regard to the value of democracy but to what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Furthermore, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of people who have died and the millions who have been displaced in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, cancer rates and birth defects are exploding. (The Vietnamese might have been able to predict this turn of events.) War has long-term environmental effects that are themselves another reason why only the self interested or foolish would support war on a country in order to save it.

Contrary to common perception, democracy does not make war less likely or less dangerous. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a democratic decision, approved of by a majority of Americans polled. It was enabled by government fearmongering propaganda, falsified and politicised intelligence and media outlets that did not research government lies. Operation Cast Lead, the 22-day bloodbath in Gaza of 2008-9, was a democratic decision, with over 90% of Jewish Israelis approving. Democracy does not lead to peace; in fact, as Jack Levy has argued, democracies will often adopt a crusading spirit, attempting to rid the world of evils like terrorism and dictatorship. Democratic governments sometimes come under pressure from their people to start or continue a war in order to stay in power. Governments repeatedly lie and cheat their citizens into supporting wars that do not benefit anyone but a few elites, and have done so for thousands of years. Finally, protesting a war, the only method of public action concerned people seem to have left, may in fact increase support for it.

Whether intended or not, a major outcome of war is the expansion of government power and the disastrous trampling of rights. The American Civil War introduced the draft (which, as forced labour, is akin to slavery), censorship, the suspension of habeas corpus and thus perhaps the first major violation of the tenth amendment (but not the last) with the placing of state power in the hands of the federal government. World War One brought back the draft, more censorship—criticise the war and you are in trouble—deportations and spying. World War Two conscripted people by the millions, introduced food rationing, placed citizens under surveillance and interned over 100,000 Japanese Americans. The War on Drugs has chipped away at the fourth and fifth amendments (which is why it is so convenient for the government to call it a war). The War on Terror introduced the Department of Homeland Security, enhanced pat-downs at the airport, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay Prison. And to crown off this list, the US military is now legally able to detain anyone anywhere for any length of time. Land of the Free? Hardly.

Eric Foner, professor at Columbia University and president of the American Historical Association, mocks the idea that somehow freedom loses a war.

It is hard to see how at any point in American history, whether it's the Civil War, World War One, the Cold War or the War on Terror, it's hard to see how these infringements on the right to dissent, infringements on basic civil liberties actually have any military value whatsoever. Does anybody think that Germany would have won World War One if Eugene Debs had been allowed to speak in the United States? Or is it really the case that we can't allow people basic civil liberties, the right to a trial, the right to see the evidence against them, because otherwise Osama bin Laden is going to take over the world?

But a lie repeated often enough acquires the veneer of truth. In August 2011, 40% of Americans polled believed it was necessary to give up civil liberties in order to curb terrorism.

Fighting people on the other side of the world to free the people they oppress has probably never been the primary concern of anyone who made the decision to go. The effects of the wars show that soldiers are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the state. And the state is not interested in protecting your freedom. War takes away everyone's liberty, money and lives, and only a few benefit. Libertarians have no business supporting war.

25 War: Counting the costs

###### When, after many battles past,

###### Both, tired with blows, make peace at last,

###### What is it, after all, the people get?

###### Why! Taxes, widows, wooden legs and debt. — Samuel B. Pettengill

Your money is going toward killing people you do not know. The War on Terror, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the War on Drugs, the drone wars... Can we awaken from this nightmare yet? Can we at least stop paying for wars that are bankrupting us? Unfortunately, as with everything governments do, we do not have a choice.

How much has been spent? It is hard to say. Military spending is notoriously opaque, for security reasons (a great way to hide things from the public). The National Priorities Project estimates the US government has spent more than $7.6t on "defense" since 9/11. You may want to consider that figure for a moment. Then consider what else it could have been spent on, then why anyone should ever be allowed to take it in the first place.

Modern governments finance wars with debt, which means we will be paying for many years to come. When we are shown the costs of wars, we usually only see the direct budgetary costs. As such, it is widely reported that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost about $1t. Though an enormous figure in itself, the one-trillion statistic obscures the money the warmakers cannot account for, the costs of treatment and pensions for soldiers, compensation to the families of the over 6000 US troops killed (not much compensation for Iraqi or Afghani families, though) and debt financing. The war on Iraq almost definitely made oil prices rise by at least $10 a barrel. The actual figure for the costs of the war may well be over $3t (and upwards of $6t). Three trillion dollars. Barack's first defense budget came to $685.1b, which means it grew, and hit $708.3b for 2011, which means it is still growing. $20b has been spent just on air conditioning, but wars in the desert will require that. (In fact, if they had given the troops the same luxuries they gave military contractors like Halliburton and KBR, it would have cost many times more.) Billions have been spent on dead-end inventions. Your money is also going toward military bands, but only to the tune of a billion dollars a year.

Modern wars could not be fought without going (deeper) into debt. Niall Ferguson, in his book Empire, quotes author Daniel Defoe to describe the enabling effect of debt.

Credit makes war and makes peace, raises armies, fits our navies, fights battles, besieges towns, and, in a word, is more justly called the sinews of war than the money itself. Credit makes the soldier fight without pay, the armies march without provisions. It is an impregnable fortification. It makes paper pass for money, and fills the exchequer and the banks with as many millions as it pleases upon demand.

What was true for the Dutch and the English in the 17th century is true for all warmaking states today. Thanks to borrowing, unborn generations have been saddled with debt for rich men's wars.

Wars are also financed by printing money. Raising taxes always looks bad, because people know they can blame the state for higher taxes. Printing money causes inflation. As prices go up, consumers blame the businesses who are raising prices, rather than those really making them go up. Through debt and printing money, governments are able to hide the costs of war and blame other phenomena.

A Keynesian might say that this money has been well spent because it has stimulated the economy. No, it hasn't. It can't. If war were a productive enterprise, we could skip the killing and simply bomb all our old buildings. But it is not productive; it is destructive. It has dragged down the economy with higher debt, higher oil prices, higher costs to veterans, fewer jobs, higher interest rates, hundreds of thousands of young people taken out of the workforce and trillions of dollars diverted from the productive sector of the economy to the destructive government sector. The wars exacerbated the economic crisis in which the US is still entangled. But even if Keynesianism worked, how do we account for the money that is missing?

In October 2009, the Inspector General of the US Department of Defense released a report that exposed various "significant deficiencies" in Pentagon balance sheets from fiscal years 2004 to 2008. The Department of Defense has never been externally audited. But by examining the various internal audits that have been carried out, which also took into account the inefficiencies of the opaque system of contracting, the report uncovered more than $1 trillion in unsupported account entries.  (Please do not be surprised. The Pentagon does all manner of things we are not supposed to know about, and for obvious reasons keeps them quiet.) The Senate Finance Committee wrote a report a year later that took the Pentagon to task for its "total lack of fiscal accountability" for "leaving huge sums of the taxpayers' money vulnerable to fraud and outright theft." Fraud and theft are typical of all governments; but not all governments can raise and waste a trillion dollars and not have to face the guillotine. And since a democracy's only real way to hold anyone to account is elections, the unelected bureaucrats and guys with medals have little to fear.

One example of this wastage is the $6.6b in cash the Pentagon for some reason thought it wise to fly in a plane over to Iraq. It has presumably been stolen, but who knows? Two more are the $13b in aid to Iraq reported wasted or stolen, and the $7.8b the Department of Defense cannot account for. That money could, theoretically, have given thousands of people a lifetime's education at the best schools. But the state has other priorities.

How could any organisation, especially one that is barely accountable to anyone, answer for trillions of dollars? The Pentagon is too big and too opaque to audit. The role of special interests in taking your money to spread war is well documented. If you need an example of profligate handouts to war contractors, consider this: even after the scandal of the missing trillion dollars, the Pentagon requested another trillion to operate the fleet of Lockheed F-35s. Where do they get all this money from? They steal it from the private sector.

In _War Is a Racket_ , Major General Smedley Butler begins, of all the scams we fall victim to, "[War] is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

Only insiders benefit, of course, and they make big money. As such, they have a major interest in keeping wars going and lying to everyone about why they must. According to Butler, at least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the first World War.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few—the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

He goes on to outline the financial interests that guided pre-WW2 Allied policy from supporting to opposing Japan, and how the costs of war and expansion are borne by taxpayers. Foreign involvement from 1898 saw the origin of the debt the US is struggling with today. Smedley details the enormous earnings of various corporations from WW1, some of whom produced things that were never used. Aside from the probable facts that today's wars are more costly and more groups have their hands out, little has changed.

Perhaps the main cause of war throughout the ages is territory and its resources. In the age of national sovereignty, it is against international law to attack and occupy another country and take its resources. Laws made by states protect the sovereignty of the state. The US has, for some time, forced unpliant states to open up their economies by military intervention. We can, possibly, thank the existence of the World Trade Organisation for less US aggression than there might otherwise have been. But powerful countries can violate the law and suffer few consequences. Wars for resources continue.

Take Iraq. Iraq's oil ministry hopes 4.5m barrels per day will be extracted by 2013. Even if production falls short of this goal, it will bring in considerable revenue to those who own it. Commodity prices are rising and oil at least will continue to rise, probably until it we stop using it altogether. The more of it you control, the richer you will be.

Financially, the war was a costly disaster. My friend once asked me, why would the US spend over three trillion dollars to fight a war for oil if the oil is estimated at a similar value over the coming decade? I responded that the people who will control the oil are not the same people who paid for the war. To whom will that control go?

First, it will go to oil companies—executives and shareholders in particular. Not only do large oil firms, which function largely as the right-arm of the modern state, benefit directly from the forced opening up of the resources of weaker states; they also benefit from the higher prices that result from the instability in the newly-"liberated" nation. Let us see which firms have acquired the largest stakes.

The usual suspects, such as Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and BP, have won the usual concessions. Mixed in with them, though, are the China National Petroleum Corporation, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., the Korea Gas Corp, Malaysia's Petronas, Turkish Petroleum International and Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom. Iraq's oil is being auctioned off to the powerful people who might otherwise have had the power to block future wars. Now that they profit from war, they are likely to support it more willingly in future.

The ruling elites of each country have far more in common with each other than they do with you and I. Many, or most, or possibly all of them are psychopaths. They literally do not care about anyone but themselves, and will do anything to gain more power. Contrary to what they would have us believe, they will gladly work across borders because other powerful people can help them attain their goals. It is why the US sends tear gas to Egypt, and why Russia sends arms to Syria. Interstate cooperation is pooling power and using it for war and repression, and that is what Iraq found itself subjected to.

Some Iraqis will make money from this oil as well. Those in the government, plus the rich and powerful connected to the government, will likely profit heavily. Corruption and inequality will increase. Some of the people who do not benefit from oil revenues will demand pieces of them. Rather than give anything up, the new rulers of Iraq will spend it to repress the Iraqi people. If history is any guide, that repression will lead to protests, religious extremism and terrorism.

Iraq is not very democratic, as a mere glance at the violence of Iraqi politics makes clear. Democracy does not, in any case, mean justice or equality. It does not guarantee that voters will have any control over the oil or see any revenue from it "trickle down". One might say it would be fair to give that oil to the Iraqi people, particularly the millions that lost loved ones over the past twenty years due to sanctions and invasions. Those having babies with birth defects could probably use the cash, too. But then, fairness is not something the powerful tend to bestow on the world. Iraqis are, in effect, paying tribute to their conquerors.

Spreading around Iraq's oil to the global power elite will have the effect of making similar aggression against weak but resource-rich states or non-state people easier. When Russian and Chinese oil firms profit from the newly-acquired oil fields, they will support more such interventions. Of course, they will protest, but only in public. More invasions will also leave much of the oil-producing world unstable and the price of oil high. We have seen the uprising against Gaddafi turned into an excuse to invade another OPEC member. The multilateral nature of the intervention grants it the veneer of legitimacy while the plunderers make off with the booty.

Taxpayers from powerful countries are paying for invasions of weak countries and the killing and torture of resisters so that the world's power elite can become more powerful. Most of the troops have been kicked out of Iraq but the powers got what they wanted. Expect less freedom, more terrorism and more "humanitarian intervention" everywhere as a result.

In a stateless society, such widescale, high-tech wars would be impossible, as there would be no central authority that could take as many trillions as it wanted to create a vast war machine. But more to the point, war would not be profitable. A major incentive for war would be gone. We could have avoided half a million deaths if the ruling elites had merely said, "give us three trillion dollars or we will invade Iraq!"

The main imperialist powers will naturally be the richest ones. Liberal (ie. free) economies are strong economies. The most oppressive states do not have free economies and thus have trouble sustaining wars. Only a state with a strong economy could afford to keep a powerful military machine going indefinitely. The US went through Vietnam and survived to learn nothing from it; the USSR lost the war in Afghanistan and collapsed.

Military powers continue to spend countless sums developing new weapons that make killing easier and more efficient. The contractors make big money, with Lockheed Martin coming out on top, pocketing $36b from the US government in 2010 alone. Though the government contracting business is a somewhat opaque process, we see big corporations making tens of billions from governments who like war as a way to suck the people's money from them and enlarge their own budgets. They ostensibly aim to eliminate civilian casualties, but in the wars they fight, insurgents, terrorists or whoever your enemy is blend with civilians, and new technology has not reduced the proportion of civilian casualties to bad guys. Pilots still bomb people on the ground from thousands of feet in the air and get called brave heroes by the politicians benefiting from the war.

The US, the main imperial power of today, maintains a relatively liberal political culture and economic policy (though both of these are fading away), and as such its economy is strong. However, because it is able to project its power, it does so, to disastrous effect for large parts of the rest of the world. The American people believe in the freedom they believe the US has internally and want the best for others, so they are easily won over to illiberal wars by promises to free the people of their dictator. The rich countries simply have the power to project themselves into other people's affairs. They can get away with it because only voting keeps them in check, and foreign policy does not hold voters' attention. The organisations they pick on are so weak—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Uganda and Nigeria—they could not possibly put up a real fight.

Libya is a case in point. Barack did not ask Congress for permission to go to war, even though he is required to do so according to the Constitution. (I like the ideals of the US Constitution but it does not seem to be much more than a piece of paper anymore.) Barack's people said the war would last "days, not weeks", and it lasted six months. The interveners' original mandate was a no-fly zone to protect people that was soon expanded without authorisation from the Security Council to picking sides, assassination and regime change. On May 13, after nearly two months of fighting, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the war had cost $750m. It doesn't seem like a lot for an organisation that spent $3t on Iraq, but then that figure was an official government figure and probably included only the costs of bullets, missiles and fuel, not the planes themselves, the salaries of the soldiers, the money for the rebels, the post-conflict reconstruction (if there is any), and whatever else we do not know about. (Expenses are endless and vastly inflated. The US military pays $400 a gallon for gasoline to Afghanistan.) And the interveners were quick to recognise the rebel forces as government, which means a) there was no consultation of the people, b) the world will be expected to look away when the rebels, now the good guys, commit atrocities, and c) the rebels will be pliable to the demands of foreign governments (which will presumably mean no-bid contracts to their oil friends). Is this self-determination for the Libyan people?

That said, for the sake of fairness, the war is over and Gaddafi is gone, which might be the best outcome we could have expected, and some credit must go to NATO. Even though this book condemns war, it seems wise to judge events on their eventual outcomes. If Libya becomes much freer and more prosperous as a result of NATO intervention, it may have been worth it. If history is anything to go by though, Libya will not be much better off after Gaddafi.

All these invasions send a clear message to states like North Korea that have or are developing nuclear weapons: keep them. As military historian Martin van Creveld points out, "The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy". Nuclear weapons are a highly rational state enterprise. It is fundamentally out of the question to attack a country with a nuclear weapon because it might use it. So North Korea, Iran and whomever else the US and Israel talk tough about, hold on tight to your nukes if you want to hold on to your regime.

Only spending by an organisation with an unlimited budget could have produced the nuclear bomb. North Korea could never have built such a bomb from scratch. Only a democracy could. Only a democracy has the money and the ability for scientific openness, and yet the ability to appropriate billions of dollars (in 1940s money) for such projects. For the immense sum spent on research and development to gain an advantage in killing others, the advantage often does not even last until the end of the war, because another state can steal secrets or develop its own special killing machines.

War is good for the economy though, right?

War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives are supposed to hate: centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results, but unfortunately it seems like logic goes out the window when you get a stiffy from uniforms and flying flags. – Joseph Sobran

The state grows from war. It expands its power over daily life. The growth of the state means more money for the state and its constituent groups and less in the economy. It demands greater centralisation of resources. It raises taxes and borrows heavily. It vastly enlarges its hand in planning the economy. Those who believe World War Two brought an end to the Great Depression do not realise that war itself is an economically-destructive, not productive, act, using up resources that would otherwise have been spent creating value. Taxation diverts resources from productive pursuits to state priorities, which may or may not be productive or efficient. Diverting money that could have been spent on clothing, food, cars or electronics to bombs and tanks is necessarily destructive.

There is more. The US military builds weapons for enemies that no longer exist. Why would they do such a thing? Because of frontloading. Frontloading means overpromising what a proposed military project can do and understating the estimated costs. It turns out that this great new thing does not do what was promised or cost what it projected. But instead of killing the deal like someone spending their own money would, they spread the different parts of the project across as many congressional districts as possible. Once enough Congresspeople will benefit, the deal is done. "It becomes impossible to stop it. Once you turn on the taxpayer spigot, it can't be turned off. They've rigged it this way."

Then there is cost-plus contracting. Cost-plus contracting means the government reimburses the company for its costs, plus an additional fee for profit. If you do not yet see how this could be abused, consider what happens in practice. Halliburton in Iraq would drive trucks up and down streets and highways, exposing employees to danger, with empty trucks. Driving the truck costs money, and the more money they spend, the more they make. They would receive the wrong equipment, burn it and then charge the state. They gave the troops contaminated water because it was cheaper. Investigators found that Halliburton's improper billing of the government amounted to over a billion dollars. But of course, they did nothing against the law, and have not been punished. The state does not punish its friends, only the innocent. Parasitic corporations such as Halliburton could not exist in a free market.

You do not benefit from war. You only lose. Imperialists benefit, as they get to control more and more territory; military hardware firms benefit from generous contracts; civilians, soldiers and so on do not benefit. Unfortunately, many of those people are sheep. Every society has a few "deep thinkers" and a large number of "sheep thinkers". Sheep thinking not only limits our imagination; it could have enormous consequences. In _Nuremberg Diary_ , Gustave Gilbert recounts a conversation he had with Hermann Goering, Hitler's second in command, who revealed a deep understanding of the ability of the elites to control the sheeplike masses.

Why, of course the _people_ don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?...But after all, it is the _leaders_ of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

History shows plenty of examples of the public's approval of or even pushing for war. So often the elites want war and convince the people they need to go to war. As the idea of war mixes and churns in political discourse, in the media and in the minds of the people, it soon becomes a given that we must go to war. After all, we are under attack.

26 Support the troops

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country. – Texas Guinan

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments. – Napoleon

Not all sheep are docile. Some become soldiers. Soldiers are agents of the state and agents of war. Soldiers are trained to follow orders unquestioningly and kill people without knowing who they are. They have their most humanising qualities, such as compassion, squeezed out of them through indoctrination. They are put into uniforms to strip them of their individuality and thus their ability to act independently of orders. They are forced to conform. They are chosen when they are young: able to kill but less able to think critically about killing. After they kill, many of them turn into nervous wrecks. Saddest of all, they believe they are keeping us safe and free. Well, some of them do.

I wonder what the "Support the Troops" people think when they find out some soldiers have been killing civilians for sport. I wonder if they realise that the soldier who recently killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan had been on three rotations in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. And though most are isolated incidents, like collateral damage (a euphemism for killing civilians accidentally, such as one incident in which nine children were killed from a helicopter in Afghanistan), friendly fire (a euphemism for soldiers' killing their fellows) and rape (sometimes a deliberate policy of intimidation or ethnic cleansing), they are inevitable in war. Do you know why? Because when people are given the kind of power over others that a big gun or an army grants, many of them will choose to use that power however they want. We call soldiers brave, but they are only brave because the situation requires it. Not all of them are brave. How brave is it to beat, rape and kill unarmed men, women and children? How brave is dropping bombs on or shooting cruise missiles at people? These people are heroes?

Every war sees dead civilians. The soldiers and civilians in the country prosecuting the war have been told that they are at war with an entire country, and as such, civilian casualties are easier to stomach. In Afghanistan, for instance, thousands of innocent people have died from air strikes (perhaps 3000 in the first six months alone, though estimates vary). (It makes one wonder if there is really such a thing as targeted, "smart" weapons; and if not, what it is we are paying billions of dollars to develop.) How many newspapers reported the figures at the time? Perhaps they were afraid of looking unpatriotic. If patriotism means dropping bombs on people, or letting it go unreported, you can have it. The media report little in the way of dead innocents, and use a variety of loaded language to soften the blow when they do. They explain that the civilians may have been providing support to the terrorists, which leads us to believe the troops are indeed heroes. Soothing lies help us sleep better.

We could still kill people who are harming innocents—the only enemies we should ever have—and leave innocents alone. We do not need a state to have special ops teams that get into tight spots to cut the head off the snake. We will always have people who want to do this type of work. Large-scale wars are just not necessary. But while they continue, expect innocent people to get caught in the crossfire every year from it. The troops, like the police, fight so hard against the bad guys that they end up just like them.

"Support the Troops" is another simple slogan that ultimately means "support the war". It is repeated time and time again that soldiers died for our freedom. But how? Can you name one instance in which that has happened? The people who parrot this slogan have yet to make the causal link between war and any increase in freedom. Our freedom is, in fact, slipping away, and has been since the inception of the state. As a rule, the more war there is, the less freedom we have; and those freedoms are often permanently lost. It is not the fault of the troops but the powermongers in the capital. But until more soldiers turn on their political masters, they will continue to enable the war on freedom.

I also wonder what "Support the Troops" really means. Which troops? All of them? What about the racist ones? What about the ones who are just mindless killers? We should support even the ones who deliberately kill innocent civilians and take trophy photos with them? What about troops who urinate on corpses? The slogan lacks all nuance. (A politician's idea of supporting the troops is to use them and get photographed next to them.) On Memorial Day 2012, the Economist wrote

Calling 'hero' everyone killed in war, no matter the circumstances of their death, not only helps sustain the ethos of martial glory that keeps young men and women signing up to kill and die for the state, _no matter the justice of the cause_ , but also saps the word of meaning, dishonouring the men and women of exceptional courage and valour actually worthy of the title. The cheapening of "hero" is a symptom of a culture desperate to evade serious moral self-reflection by covering itself in indiscriminate glory for undertaking wars of dubious value.

The troops are suffering

Do those claiming to support soldiers even know who Bowe Bergdahl is? Perhaps not, as media and government do not like to talk about him. Are they the same people who do not take their governments to task for reducing funding for body armour, pensions, medical and psychiatric treatment for veterans? Did you know that 17.4% of soldiers in Afghanistan report acute stress? Did you know that some 20% of suicides in the US are veterans, even though they make up less than 1% of the population? Between 100,000 and 200,000 Vietnam vets have killed themselves. Plenty of suicides take place among current soldiers as well. In fact, since imperial war has involved more drones and robots and fewer boots on the ground, suicide accounts for more deaths of US soldiers than deaths on the battlefield. Posttraumatic stress disorder is believed to afflict up to 30 percent of close to 2 million active-duty soldiers and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan vets have filed for disability. More probably will as a toxic garbage dump burns outside Bagram airbase. Unemployment among young male veterans is now more than 22 percent, and hundreds of thousands of US military vets are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including 55,000 women. But we should not be surprised that the state lies to and mistreats the people it hires to murder on its behalf.

I do not think we should have any troops that are answerable to the state, but while we have them, how about they get what they were promised and what they need? Is that what it means to support the troops? Because that is not what is happening. Do not expect government to make it happen, either. In free societies, people take care of their soldiers. In statist societies, we expect the state to do so. We sweep the issue under the rug, and hope others will solve it. And how could we hold them to account if they did not? When was the state of veterans' care ever an election issue? It will not be until the problem is unbearable (like say, seeing two guys get married). If you support the troops, take away the government's ability to send them to their deaths in pointless imperial wars.

What is the difference between soldiers and terrorists? (Or insurgents or enemy combatants or whatever word the propaganda machines are using this week.) First, soldiers are employed by a state and terrorists are not. That means soldiers are pursuing the state's interests and terrorists are pursuing their own interests. Most wars are concocted by elites and wrapped in flags and slogans. Flags and uniforms lend wars and the actions of soldiers legitimacy in the eyes of nationalists. They get it: soldiers=good, terrorists=bad. Terrorism, on the other hand, is usually born of desperation. Therefore, in general, terrorists have real grievances and soldiers take for granted that their commanding officers have the best interests of the country at heart. To argue that terrorists are less moral than soldiers because they target civilians is moral obfuscation, coming from the spurious belief that the state is somehow a moral institution, the actions of which are more legitimate than someone pursuing self interest. Soldiers sometimes target civilians, sometimes as an aim of war and sometimes for fun; and those branded as terrorists sometimes target agents of the state (such as attacks on occupying forces).

The pressure of combat is presumably a reason some soldiers commit wanton acts of violence. But even outside of war, troops commit acts of brutality. The Pentagon estimates that over 19,000 acts of sexual assault took place against US servicewomen in 2010 alone. The number is only an estimate because a survey found that two-thirds of women are uncomfortable reporting what happened and over half feared reprisal if they did so.

And when there are such abuses, we rightly call for the guilty soldiers to be prosecuted. What tends to happen, though, is that the military will throw the book at a few soldiers whose abuses have been made public, and it will attempt to cover up any more so the military's image remains professional and just (much like they try to cover up images of coffins with flags draped over them). One point of the book _The Lucifer Effect_ by Philip Zimbardo is that individual responsibility, asking who did the crime, while necessary, should not be the only consideration when apportioning blame. Additional questions are, what were the conditions where all this was allowed to happen, and who created them? Donald Rumsfeld's deliberate sidestepping of international law and basic decency trickled down to his army in Iraq, which is how we got Abu Ghraib.

Many of the troops defend the wars by saying that their actions resulted in the death of a warlord type, or the head of a terrorist operation. But what are the effects? Killing a local bad guy is usually how the state ushers in a more distant one. But troops do not get the chance to consider their actions in the light of their results. Instead, they are given medals—a great way to make them certain they were right.

Why do all kinds of people, even some libertarians, think the military is wonderful, and that it protects our freedom? It is because the military is one of the most important institutions of the state. It justifies expanding the state's power outside and inside its borders. It is the final protector of the state in war and revolution. We are thus told all our lives to venerate the military and the soldiers.

But keep swallowing lies and one day you will choke on them. The US military now has the power to lock up, indefinitely and without trial, anyone and everyone the state deems a threat. Should we respect troops that lock people up without trial? Troops that do not question their orders? Troops that torture and kill innocent people? Why?

The troops are victims

Deep down, I cannot bring myself to blame the troops. They do not start wars. They are picked at a young age, lied to and exalted. They are told that their actions, whether occupying a foreign country, shaking down a village, killing whomever they are told to kill without question, are all in the service of the noblest cause. Indeed, these actions are supposedly the epitome of service to one's country, and their deaths will not be in vain. But they are pawns in the hands of the powerful. Killing bad guys is meaningless without the context of the longer-term effects. It might make things worse. I believe it is an insult to the dead and damaged of past and future wars not to consider the evidence that they did die in vain.

Have you ever seen this picture?

This is Sergeant Kendra Coleman. An improvised explosive device blew off her leg in Afghanistan. She believes her sacrifice was justified because in doing her tour of duty, she was protecting the US from terrorism. Were her actions worth it? That depends. It depends what she did, who made her do it, and what the long-term effects will be. But more importantly, she believes her going to Afghanistan somehow kept her country safe from terrorism. If she really believes that, it is a result of being brought up in America in the shadow of 9/11 and joining the military at a young age. On the way, she has been led to believe this ridiculous propaganda. She is not stupid or weak. She is a victim of the state.

Stan Goff, US Army Special Forces veteran, served in eight combat zones and swore five times to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But, he says, he found not one enemy of the Constitution in Vietnam, Guatemala, Haiti or any of the other places he went. He appeals to young Americans considering joining the military.

I know it's a tough economic choice to make these days. I know the jobs suck. I know school is too expensive for a lot of people. I know they make it attractive. But you have to continue to remember what it is that they're doing. That organisation does not exist to give you money for school. That organisation exists to assert the political will of the United States government against other people by force of arms. And what they do is not like it's portrayed in the movies. They're not sending you out to be a hero, they're sending you out to be a bully. They're not sending you out there to be a hero. That's not what it's about. It's never been about that.... And in the real world you have to live with the consequences of your decisions the rest of your life. Think hard.

Soldiers are not only taught to kill, and that killing is right, but to believe in the utmost honourability of their organisation and their superiors, and thus the uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of their orders. That is called indoctrination. But I guess since we are mostly taught not to question through state-run schools, what would we expect? Like nearly everyone else, soldiers have been deprived of the ability to think critically about war. Besides, many people who go into the military want to follow authority and want to kill. But why should we pay for their training, indoctrination, guns, tanks and bombs?

But not all soldiers want to kill. Most are persuaded, much like the public is, that, in extreme circumstances, it is noble to kill. I am not fan of killing anyone, but of course I can understand that killing can be the right thing to do. If you are defending your own life or the life of an innocent, or someone you love, it may be necessary to kill someone. It may be necessary to sacrifice oneself. Defenders of the innocent have rightly been considered noble and brave and necessary throughout history. In many or most cultures, they are privileged and honoured. They protect people against murder and enslavement—what could be nobler than that?

But that is not the situation most soldiers find themselves in any longer. Most states do not fight defensive wars very often. The US has not fought a defensive war for 200 years. (Contrast that with the demonic Iran, which has not fought an aggressive war in 200 years.) Wars against terrorism are usually results of state, not terrorist, aggression. Every war for humanitarian ideals (if there has ever truly been one) has just set the intervening powers further down the road to the next imperial war by enlarging the state, legitimising aggression and spreading the lie that war is not so bad on the people. Soldiers need to think very critically about their role as agents of the lies, the plunder and the killing.

One problem is that the US, British, Canadian and other public constituencies do not care enough about the turmoil abroad caused by their governments' policies. Most of them will never fight in a war, nor will they see the war brought home to them (until the next terrorist attack, at any rate; and then they will not realise the war was the cause of it). Many of them do not care what happens abroad, as long as the car is full of gas. Many others support these wars, believing they are self-sacrificial and good for everyone. When the public is not exposed to the bloodshed and the costs of war, it can give its seal of approval willingly.

Fortunately, there are some soldiers who refuse to fight the state's vile wars. They speak out in protest of aggression, occupation and torture. Some soldiers have witnessed or undertaken such cruelty against fellow humans they realise the injustice and irrationality of the war. I ask soldiers to adopt the non-aggression principle and only defend the innocent. But to do so, they must follow the dissenting soldiers' admonition: to think carefully about their role in creating the conditions that put those people in danger.

27 Why do we still go to war?

They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. – Eugene Debs

Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. – William Pitt

Because some people have a strong interest in war, because people are so easily manipulated by flags and photos, wars continue. We are given all manner of reasons why we should go to war, from the self-preservation motive and the argument from fear, to the humanitarian ideal that speaks to our noblest intentions. We even think we have to go to war because humans are a warlike species. Let us look at some of these arguments in greater depth.

Defense of the realm

Who is trying to attack you and your country? Most enemies are manufactured, like the "radical Muslim" spectre champing at the bit to kill as many Americans as it can. The CIA consistently overestimated the threat from the Soviet Union. They used the threat to con the public into approving of taxes and debt to pay for huge military and intelligence budgets, and until the late 1960s had people scared to dissent. By then, they had already killed thousands of Vietnamese (who posed no threat to anyone outside Vietnam), and were in too deep to get out without killing a million more. Hundreds of thousands of young men were drafted—a euphemism for military enslavement—to fight this war, and tens of thousands of them died or went crazy. If anyone threatens you with violence, it is your own government.

I have no enemies. We did not choose our collective enemies; political opportunists did. Who are the scapegoats on any given day? Terrorists? Muslims? Iraqis? Iranians? Chinese? Are communists still our enemies? I forget. In George Orwell's 1984, the enemy, the object of all the hate, would change when the Party decided it would change, and the people accepted it without question. Orwell had a strong understanding of how manipulable humans are. To this day, the enemy of the people is whomever the elites who control the people say it is.

Now the US has entered into wars with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not Afghanistan was a reasonable target has become irrelevant. The American people were still so filled with revenge that, at any given time, between 56 and 78% of Americans polled felt it was right to invade a country they knew nothing about to kill people of the same religious category as those who killed a small number of their compatriots. Regarding 9/11 and the two wars that followed it, who was taking revenge? Both sides. Who won? Neither. Revenge has neither eliminated the threat nor provided any kind of catharsis to anyone.

But perhaps a foreign government wants to attack you and steal your oil supplies. Leaving aside the fact that national and occupying governments alike drain a country of its wealth, we should question the premise we have been fed all our lives that government protects our safety and freedom. The existence of government in the past has not prevented imperialism, as any kingdom that is stronger than the next one might attack it and take its resources. The idea that governments protect us from invasion is a hypothesis waiting to be tested.

[C]an anyone out there show me any examples of a government successfully defending its population from violence? France in 1789? Russia in 1917? Germany in 1933? Poland in 1939? France in 1940? England which, after winning the war against national socialism, imposed socialism on its own population? America, which subsidizes and arms dictatorships and currently has more than 200 troop bases around the world stirring up anti-US rage? What about the Civil War, which murdered 600,000 Americans without even effectively freeing the slaves? The First World War, which caused the Second? Did America emerge from the Cold War more free or less free? (Hint: taxes, debt and regulations!) Did Korea or Vietnam end the Soviet regime? Of course not—the inefficiency of central planning did. What about World War Two? In 1950, more people were enslaved by dictatorships than in 1939—despite 40 million murdered! So how can anyone say that governments protect their citizens? Violence begets violence. All states do is wage wars, raise taxes and enslave their populations with debts and regulation. Knowing that governments murdered 170 million [of their own citizens] during the 20th century, we can all be forgiven for a little skepticism when we hear the argument that governments protect their citizens.

Governments can be subdued if more powerful ones want to do so. Imperialism is an option for enrichment in the absence of free trade. When there is free trade, however, the costs of maintaining a war machine are likely to be greater than the costs of simply buying the resource in question. Wars like Iraqi Freedom ensure that a select few corporations with connections in the government of the invading powers do not have to pay premiums for access to resources that were previously in the hands of a despotic government, and thus the costs are passed on to the taxpayers instead. But after their army ran away, Iraqis still put up a fight. And in a place like the US, where every second house has a couple of guns in it, the people could put up that much bigger a fight. There is no reason to believe people would not willingly come to each other's rescue if they were being victimised; unless of course some powerful government with a persuasive tone had taken away their means to defend each other. If they owned an oil field, they could hire private security to protect it. Again, a big military could break through, but it would impose big costs on the aggressors when they could just buy it at market prices.

Moreover, one reason to invade another country is to control its state functions. If there is a state apparatus to take over, an invader can just move in, like a new president moving into the White House. Everything is already set up to take from people and control them through police and intelligence services. But in the absence of a state, how could they tax and control people? Go door to door? They would have to start from scratch to recreate something that took years to develop, and this time the population would be hostile. A voluntary society would also probably be far richer, because there would be no parasite class to appropriate and destroy wealth. They would not need the enormous military forces large states have, because most of those forces have offensive capabilities a stateless society, which would be purely defensive, would not need (think stealth bombers and missile-launching submarines).

Control of territory and resources for the sake of power to rulers or profit for well-connected corporations is one reason we are familiar with. That includes imposing neoliberal policies, or forcing open markets on behalf of large corporations. The military-industrial complex has always benefited from war, since before Smedley Butler. I wonder why people get so upset when the military outsources its functions to corporations. People complain that corporations only do things for profit, ignoring the human side of things, as if governments at war were concerned about people. Would it somehow be better if governments took the reins more firmly? How about we just don't go to war at all?

Elites have non-monetary reasons to start wars as well. Since people who are interested solely in attaining power (mostly people with psychopathic tendencies) can be found in abundance at the top of governments, we should not be surprised how often wars are caused by lust for power. And power brings with it a certain illusion of legitimacy. William J. Fulbright, speaking during the Vietnam War, said

[P]ower tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations—to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. . . . Once imbued with the idea of mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work. The Lord, after all, would surely not choose you as His agent and then deny you the sword with which to work His will.

And citizens get sucked into the game. Many wars have something to do with maintaining the balance of power. Do you care about the balance of power? Does it matter to you if another government has more power than your own? Does it affect your life if Iran is more powerful than Israel? But to those who view the world as a playground, relative power is everything. No one can control the sandbox but me.

Sowing instability

Arms races lead to war as well. When one state builds its military, other states feel threatened they will be invaded. They might fight preemptive wars, going to war when they believe an attack is imminent; or preventive wars, strategically initiating force when they believe the other party will be more powerful in the future. Military build ups are again the prerogative of the elite and the ignorant nationalist. Strong militaries do not make nations strong. They invite suspicion, fear and preventive war.

Massive military buildup did not prevent the world wars; in fact, they enabled deadlier killing than the world has ever known. Whenever you read history about the World Wars, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and the Cold War, just remember that none of those things would have been possible without the state. So why do we need bigger, stronger militaries? To project the government's power beyond its borders.

You cannot end terrorism by bombing it. The dictum that for every terrorist killed, another one (or two or more) is created is often true, especially when the object of the terrorists' anger has not gone away. Plenty of people realise that, including most or all of the people who wage war. But that is not why the bombs continue to drop.

Every so often, people will write in newspapers that the US's foreign policy is causing instability, and as such it should change policy. But why do you think it chose that policy? Why do you think US troops and bases are in over 100 countries worldwide? Why do you think it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Why do you think drone strikes are taking place in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and probably other places we do not know about? Instability is the goal. If Iraq is unstable, it cannot threaten the regional supremacy of the US and its allies. If Afghanistan and Pakistan are on fire, India, China, Russia and Iran can all see the sparks. Pakistan is slowly (or perhaps rapidly) disintegrating to potentially devastating effect for the region, but the US mainland is not in the region. It may be subject to a couple of terrorist attacks, but terrorist attacks serve the interests of the power elite as well: all the more reason to intervene militarily wherever the terrorists are. The more instability, terrorism, drug mafia, guerrilla war and so on, the easier it is to keep power rivals down and legitimise a US presence with the ostensible purpose of stabilising the area, when the outcome is always the opposite. Thousands of people die, but remember that most of the people who plan these operations do not have consciences.

These days, saving others is a popular reason to invade. Humanitarian intervention has a mixed record, from Bosnia and Kosovo to Afghanistan and Libya. In its modern form, it is quite new and admittedly has some promise. Unfortunately, given the promise it does hold and the successes its followers claim for it, humanitarian intervention can easily be abused. People are bought off with the promise that weapons are getting more and more discriminating, but the evidence suggests otherwise. It is the fool who forgets that military intervention of any kind will leave innocent casualties in its wake. It will cost money that taxpayers should be allowed to control as they see fit, no matter what the outcomes of the war. And any successful humanitarian operation might be followed by ten that use the first as a pretext for more violence. With government, the temptation for abuse is too great. People who want to engage in humanitarianism of any kind should take such matters into their own hands, without forcing others to pay and die for their utopian dreams.

Two reasons to retain some helicopters and planes are first for self defense, depending how people perceive threats from outside, and second probably for search and rescue missions. But in both cases, the free market could find a solution. If there are people who want to rescue hikers trapped on mountains, no question a noble profession, and hikers who might get trapped who are willing to pay for their services, we have a market. It could be required to buy insurance to enter the privately- or communally-owned mountain. And why would they refuse service to people who somehow had no insurance? Doctors take a Hippocratic oath; let the search and rescue teams discuss if they want do something similar. There is already a private organisation rescuing people at sea, and it has been doing so for nearly 200 years.

It is possible that free people will need to defend themselves in large numbers against foreign invaders. Fortunately, smart people have considered that possibility as well. As I explain in chapter 34, we could hire businesses of varying toughness and defend ourselves with those around us. History holds plenty of examples of collective security, which is simply people working together to defend themselves. Collective security is older than humanity itself. People might create a military and keep it until the threat is gone, which might never happen. Coming together for self defense is not an example of the inevitability of the state but, on the contrary, of our ability to cooperate when necessary. If the people choose to keep the military a voluntary and non-hierarchical enterprise, it will not become a state.

It is not out of the question to maintain a military of some form. I am a strong believer in the effectively-unlimited potential of humans. It is possible we could reach a stage where we could maintain constructive militaries who work solely to protect the innocent. Indeed, such militaries may already exist, in a few small countries no one will ever invade without becoming a global pariah. But where entities with the legal monopoly on initiating violence exist, the potential for abuse exists.

This problem might still exist in the stateless society, as communities might arm themselves threateningly in the manner of small, native villages, and the cycle of violence may rage. However, there are a few reasons to believe that would not happen in a modern, stateless society. First, communities would not live in isolation. Residents would continue to live and work next to each other, with little distinction between them. Not only would they be friends and family, they have economic interests in maintaining friendly relations. Second, our world has made great strides in communication. If one group feels threatened by another, its members could visit the other and discuss things. Third, if communities make the choice to become stateless, it will be because they realise aggression is wrong and counter productive. They would have made choices based on moral principles and be bound by polycentric law never to attack innocents for personal gain.

War is not inevitable

Many make the claim that war is deeply embedded in human nature and is an unavoidable constant. The evidence is not as clear as they believe, though. Ashley Montagu says war can be traced to social factors and childhood socialisation. Judith Hand says hyper alpha males are the instigators of most wars, and that war only emerges when cultural conditions enable it. If we could eliminate the conditions for war, we could eliminate war. If we are not at war all the time, human nature is just as useful for explaining peace as war. Our nature is easily flexible enough that sufficient desire for peace will lead to peace. The widespread (not universal) occurrence of warfare does not mean engaging in warfare is adaptive or provides reproductive benefits. Moreover, it seems to have occurred only very recently in human history, and might not have been present hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Aggressivity is flexible, and can manifest itself in sports, business, and so on. It is thus the environmental conditions under which violence and war occur that need to be taken into account when considering human nature and violence. Saying that we are inherently warlike means there is no point trying to reduce or eliminate war. Why attempt the impossible? But these are simply cultural beliefs that we are socialised to hold.

War is not necessary for young people as some kind of coming-of-age ritual or expression of humanity, as was more widely believed in other times in history. "Be all that you can be" means working hard to realise our potential. We do not have to hold a gun while we do it. We have other ways. Take sports. Robin Williams in the wonderful _Dead Poets Society_ says "sport is actually a chance for us to have other human beings push us to excel." Or look at how people play video games. Intense practice with one's brain in such complicated games as exist today improves a number of useful skills. And if people need to learn how to fight a war, they will.

The media distort our perceptions of the amount of violence in society because so much of what we watch features violence. And yet, most adults spend almost every day without purposefully inflicting injury on others, being the victim of aggression or even witnessing someone else's victimisation. Not only is this true of us in mass cultures, but the same holds even for the most statistically-violent cultures in the world. The cross-cultural data show that violence is the exception among the countless peaceful solutions we find to our conflicts such as negotiating, agreeing to provide compensation for damages, reaching compromises, forgiving and reconciling with friends and strangers alike. Douglas Fry reminds us that "[h]umans have a solid capacity for getting along with each other peacefully, preventing physical aggression, limiting the scope and spread of violence, and restoring peace following aggression." These findings should not only change our understanding of war but our ideas about the necessity of standing armies, the purpose of military intervention and the possibility for non-violent conflict resolution.

Non-warring societies do exist. The very fact that they exist seems to disprove, or at least call into question, the idea that man is naturally warlike. All human societies have believers in the supernatural, music and possession, as well as revenge and murder. Not all societies have warfare (or rape, for that matter). In fact, at least 70 cultural groups do not engage in war at all. Apart from many smaller groups such as the Semai of Malaysia or the Amish of the United States, one could cite Sweden and Switzerland, having gone many years without war, Iceland, 800 years without war, and Costa Rica, which has disbanded its military.

One of the groups who have not developed war is Australian Aborigines. Aborigines, under very different conditions from our own, developed relatively peaceful cultures. Bands that could have fought traded instead. They tended to respect each other's territory. Band membership was open and fluid, and people had relatives and contacts in other groups (which is one reason I doubt the US and China will go to war). They also had advanced dispute-resolution mechanisms, such as duels, contests, meetings and reconciliation ceremonies.

Fry suggests war can be replaced by "more effective, less brutal ways of seeking security, defending rights and providing justice for the people of this planet." All humans seek justice, though their methods vary. Some favour violence and some don't. Much of the violence humans inflict on each other, which may have been called "senseless" or "evil", is a consequence of the desire to right wrongs.

Governments may at one time or another have a reason to go to war, and when they find that reason, they have a powerful, modern military to use. They will spend millions in taxpayer dollars to sell the war, using so many lies that are uncovered too late (if ever) there is little reason to consider what governments say about their wars much more than propaganda.

But if you really believe so strongly in military intervention, if you actually believe politicians' and generals' stated reasons for killing thousands of people, wounding and displacing thousands more, destroying houses and the natural environment, go do it yourself. I don't, so I won't be joining you, and I won't be financing your war either. War is built on lies, theft and murder. I urge everyone to join voluntaryists in rejecting and resisting all the state's wars.

28 Afghanistan

The war on 'terror' will never be over; it will just change locations. Like the war on drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the many others that will follow, it is a war on humanity. These wars will never be won; the State will just keep creating new boogiemen to frighten us with. The sheep will anxiously anticipate the next fall guy the State offers up as a sacrifice for the war on whatever happens to be next. Be careful, the next pawn could be me or you. – Mike Wasdin

The trend in warfare for the past hundred years or more has been to involve civilians gradually more in every conflict. Many of today's wars, such as those in Iraq, Turkey, the Palestinian territories, Sri Lanka and Chechnya, pit a government against one or more terrorist organisations who consider their territory occupied by the government. The government, usually a democracy, is attempting to project its power over a wider territory than the people of that territory consider legitimate. They gain the bonus of providing the government's constituents with an enemy around which they can rally, distracting them from the government's other crimes. They spend millions of dollars on public relations in order to paint themselves as the moral side in the conflict. The enemy kills babies. We build homes. Because the organisations resisting occupation are non-governmental, they are not militaries and are usually called "terrorists" (or more recently "insurgents"). Particularly since 9/11, soldiers have been the good guys who fight terrorists, and terrorists have been, in George W.'s phrasing, "the evildoers". Terrorists, militants and insurgents mix with the people, their base of support, which means that when militaries go after them, civilian casualties result. The occupying troops want to convince the locals that they are there to help, and the locals do not really buy it. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan epitomises this trend.

It seems that the ideal outcome of the mission in Afghanistan is the following. First, decimate the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the other insurgent groups, or at least lop their heads off. That should lead to the outcome of ending tyranny in Afghanistan once and for all. Officially, as of March 2009, the ISAF is there "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." Voters like that mission: the bad guys are sexist, Islamist dictators; and even though we messed up Iraq, maybe we have learned something from it? Second, help the local population build up infrastructure, improve their health and education, etc., both to win hearts and minds and for the good it would do them. Third, reduce terrorist attacks on Western and other targets. This is the stated vision of ISAF commanders and the public.

The first point regards the difficulty the foreign militaries face in fighting their chosen enemies. First, there is al Qaeda, which is highly resistant to decapitation because it does not really have a leader or a center. (I suggest not buying into the hype that they are terrorist masterminds. It was a small collection of terrorists, who are dead, who perpetrated 9/11. Let the ones alive actually commit a terrorist attack against Americans before Americans start fearing them.) I do not know if it is possible to drop a bomb that would kill more than five of them. More centralised groups like Hamas and the PKK have survived the loss of leaders, partly because this kind of group is highly adaptive (more so than large, hierarchical militaries).

Then there is the indigenous anti-occupation resistance. As far as I know there are three large groups fighting the foreign troop presence (not including a number of Afghanis recruited for government security forces who have turned on the ISAF). The Quetta Shura Taliban, the Haqqani Network and Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin are (I think, though I am by no means an expert on Afghanistan) examples of organisations that it would be very hard to destroy, because they are made up of locals banded together by the cause of ejecting foreigners. They are different from Iraqi resistance organisations, because many of the latter engaged in street warfare, whereas Afghan resistance groups populate the many villages of Afghanistan. In journalist Nir Rosen's words,

It is impossible to live among the people the way the Americans did during the surge in Iraq, because there is no population concentration, and every home in a village is so far away from another, and there are few roads. You can rumble along a road for a few hours to shake hands and drink tea with some elders only to head back to the base to get a burger and ice cream before the chow hall closes, but the Taliban own the night and can undermine any deal you will make. They are part of the community.

Graham Clumpner, a US soldier who was stationed in Afghanistan, tells his point of view.

Our job was to go into people's houses at night and capture or kill them. High value targets, al-Qaeda, the Taliban—these were the people we were supposed to be killing. However, as we moved forward, many of the houses we raided were empty. Or worse, a lot of them had the wrong people in them. Neighbors would turn in other neighbors that they didn't like. We didn't understand the culture or the language. We didn't care. For all we knew, everyone was a terrorist. This may have turned out to be true because when we raided the wrong house, we turned everyone in that house against us.

I could see things deteriorating every day. Our contact with the locals only isolated us and made things worse. Our treatment of the prisoners was what changed me. When they were blindfolded and handcuffed, it was easy to see them as less than human. So, we treated them that way.

There are some defections from the resistance groups to national troops, but when that happens the defectors are usually enticed by the money. The occupiers could probably get most Afghans on their side for, say, $10 trillion over 5 years, but is Afghanistan really worth it? Is it even worth the $10m in aid some say is being siphoned out of the country every day (that might be going to anti-ISAF militias)?

(I will not go too far into the regional instability that the occupation is exacerbating, but insurgencies in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan give support to the Afghan resistance and render all attempts to "stabilise" Afghanistan impossible. Even the best "regional strategy" imposed from the top is likely to fail.)

No less significantly, according to Gen. Stanley McChrystal (and all other sources), the Taliban get a big part of their funding from the drug trade. Until the main drug consuming countries (mostly the US, but Canada and Europe too) legalise drugs and let legal competitors enter the market, the price of drugs will remain high, Afghanistan will continue to provide the vast majority (about 70%) of the world's heroin and the Taliban will continue to make millions of dollars off it.

Many supporters of the push against the Taliban and other bad guys is their claim that the Taliban are bad, therefore we must fight them. But this argument begs the question. What is missing is the major premise: if someone is bad we should fight them. However, that is not the case. We may have been presented with only two options, kill or be killed, but they constitute a false dichotomy. Sure, another 20 years of killing and trillions more dollars and maybe the war could be won for the "good guys". But besides being a waste of money and lives, I seriously doubt the political will exists for it. Afghanistan will go to whomever wants it more, and the indigenous resistance have already shown who that is.

Second, helping the locals. Gordon Brown mapped his vision in 2009: "build basic services—clean water, electricity, roads, basic justice, basic health care, and then economic development." What a warm feeling taxpayers must get from such a selfless and charitable mission. I am sure some local Afghans have benefited from what the ISAF governments have given them. However, photos for Stars and Stripes tend to obscure reality. Journalist William Dalrymple describes the situation on the ground.

[T]here have been few tangible signs of improvement under the Western-backed regime. Despite the US pouring approximately $80b into Afghanistan, the roads in Kabul are still more rutted than those in the smallest provincial towns of Pakistan. There is little health care; for any severe medical condition, patients still have to fly to India. A quarter of all teachers in Afghanistan are themselves illiterate. In many areas, district governance is almost non-existent: half the governors do not have an office, more than half have no electricity, and most receive only $6 a month in expenses. Civil servants lack the most basic education and skills.

This is largely because $76.5b of the $80b in aid committed to the country has been spent on military and security, and most of the remaining $3.5b on international consultants, some of whom are paid in excess of $1,000 a day, according to an Afghan government report. Much of the money for security goes directly to warlords, bribed not to threaten ISAF troops, strengthening them in the process. This, in turn, has had other negative effects. As in the British occupation of 1842, the presence of large numbers of well-paid foreign troops has caused the cost of food and provisions to rise, and living standards to fall. The Afghans feel they are getting poorer, not richer.

The locals are not yet on their way to prosperity. In fact, they are suffering. The situation of women is not getting better, either. The cover of _Time_ two years ago portrayed a frightening picture of an Afghan girl whose husband had cut off her nose, saying that this would happen more if "we" left Afghanistan. What it overlooked was that 9 years of occupation had still not ended the abuse of women. Neither the ISAF nor the Karzai government have brought education or rights to women; they cannot unseat the people who are taking them away, nor do they have a credible plan to do so. Moreover, there is something larger that NATO is taking away from Afghans.

The very presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan results in civilian deaths, either in the crossfire of firefights, misplaced (or just really big) bombs, midnight raids, shootings at checkpoints, shootings at protests against foreign troops, drone attacks that have killed a number of civilians that is still unknown, or when foreign troops go on a killing spree. On May 19, 2011, the Taliban killed 35 people working on US-financed road projects which, at least according to journalist Hashim Shukoor, "the insurgents believe threaten their access to refuges in the tribal regions of Pakistan." They would not have killed these people had the ISAF not been in the picture.

Foreign troops attempting to protect civilians from the Taliban tend to increase civilian casualties directly or indirectly. There is evidence the US military has targeted aid workers by simply deeming them "combatants". Brutal weapons are systematically destroying innocent people: they are not as discriminating as those who order their use would have us believe. A tribal elder told William Dalrymple, "How many times can they apologise for killing our innocent women and children and expect us to forgive them? They come, they bomb, they kill us and then they say, 'Oh, sorry, we got the wrong people.' And they keep doing that."

The recent escalation of the war is presumably why risk to minorities has grown more in Afghanistan than in any other country ("Civilian deaths have climbed every year for the past five years, totaling nearly 3,000 in 2010 according to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan."), and almost certainly why so many Afghans are angry with the foreigners and can't wait to see the back of them. Millions of Afghans have been made refugees. People tend not to fall for the "throw off your oppressors and we'll stop bombing you" approach. Rightly or wrongly, people blame the foreigners for their plight, turning to the devil they know to protect them from the one they do not. As long as the madness of the occupation persists, Afghans will not be turned against the indigenous oppressors in favour of the foreign ones. More civilians died in 2011 than in any other year of this war. How many more need to die before "the country" is "free"?

Those they do not kill get locked up. Bagram prison has been the scene of detention without charge and torture. Sexual humiliation is routine, whether the person in jail has actually done anything or not. Bagram is the most notorious Afghan prison, but it is not the only one.

Why would we be surprised to hear about all the killing and torturing? Who cares how "moral" the militaries try to tell us they are? This is war. War is a horrible thing, no matter where, no matter what. Everywhere militaries go, they bring murder and the destruction of families and homes; they bring terror and fury; they bring chaos. To believe that modern warfare minimises civilian casualties and frees people is naïve, wishful thinking and dangerous self deception. And the most foolish of all are the ones who think our boys, from our awesome country, are somehow on a mission for good against evil. These people would rather hide their heads in the sand than wake up to the realities of war. And believing that war would be worse without a state is to believe that bombers and drones and tanks and depleted uranium shells deployed on imperial missions somehow prevent more bloodshed and destruction than they cause. What a sick joke to tell the families of the victims of Afghanistan or any other senseless military adventure.

Neither are the intervening powers welcome in Pakistan. The ISAF has pushed some of Afghanistan's problems into Pakistan, and as a result, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan have become "AfPak", a stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Pakistani army has lost many soldiers fighting what many Pakistanis complain (ever more frequently with bombs strapped to their chests) is the US's war. The country is crumbling as rage against the US and the corrupt Pakistani regime mounts.

The US has been using drones to target suspected militants for assassination while exposing no Americans to danger. Reaper Drones and Predator Drones are unmanned planes controlled from the other side of the world that fire missiles. Where war used to mean a danger to a soldier, drones have effectively taken away that danger.

It's understandable why the dirty war has few critics. Drone attacks and special forces operations are cheap, out of sight, and involve low casualties (none, at least immediately, when drones are used). Politically, the dirty war inoculates Obama against GOP charges that he is "soft on terrorism": not only is he continuing to prosecute a renamed version of Bush's "war on terror", he has significantly escalated it. And now that the dirty war has been launched, it is politically almost impossible to stop it: what president, Democratic or Republican (Ron Paul is the exception, but he is not going to win the election) would dare to stop blowing up alleged militants, knowing that if there was subsequently a successful terrorist attack, he or she would be held responsible?

...It is tempting to see our new way of waging war as having no consequences. A functionary sitting in a mountain in Colorado pushes a button, blows up three people in a field in Pakistan, and then goes to the bathroom. Suppose the brothers of those three guys are mad at America—so what? They're in Pakistan. What are they going to do? If they start to make trouble, we'll blow them up too.

The painful consequences of war can thus be eliminated for one side. Fewer body bags means the wars can continue.

What is it like to live under drones? "Terrifying," says David Rohde, a journalist captured by the Taliban in 2008. "The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death. Drones fire missiles that travel faster than the speed of sound. A drone's victim never hears the missile that kills him."

The number of drone attacks has increased dramatically under Barack Obama, which may be touching off a global drone arms race. Drones are killing civilians. How many is uncertain, but the painstaking work of Noor Behram suggests that for every 10 to 15 people killed, one militant goes down. (The Brookings Institute finds roughly the same proportion, though it encourages the strikes as a way to prevent al Qaeda terrorism.) One report identified 168 children killed in drone strikes as of August 2011. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that at least 50 people had been killed rushing to help the victims of drone strikes, and 20 killed in strikes on funerals for people killed by drone missiles.

The strikes injure countless more and "radicalise" (which I believe means "infuriate to the point of violent retaliation") the locals. There are also certain legal questions regarding drone attacks that have not been resolved (not one of those executed, even American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, has been tried and convicted in court), and unsurprisingly the Barack administration does not seem interested in them.

As a result of all this intervention, Pakistan, a country riddled with Islamic extremism and terrorism, armed with nuclear warheads, is becoming less stable by the day. Anatol Lieven fears not so much the Islamist terrorist threat but that a portion of the Pakistani army will mutiny, and the state of Pakistan will collapse. The US destabilised Cambodia by bombing the hell out of a large swath of it. By weakening the government of Cambodia (even though the US was funding it to the tune of nearly a million dollars a day), and radicalising Cambodians, the US effectively ushered in the Khmer Rouge, probably the most hellish regime of the 20th century. In place of Cold War communists, Pakistan is thick with 21st century Islamists just waiting for their chance to impose a terrifying form of Islam on Pakistanis. Continued bombing and creating of terrorists will hand them power on a plate. Wars and other extremist policies always have unintended consequences, and this is a realistic one.

Another thing the ISAF is inflicting on the locals is the single most corrupt and ineffectual government in the world, the government of Hamid Karzai. I know a Taliban or whoever government would be bad, but I do not see what good the present one is doing anyone. Karzai knows his people see him as a foreign puppet, and has attempted to distance himself from his backers. He accused the US, UK and UN of orchestrating an election fraud, called the ISAF an "army of occupation" and threatened to join the Taliban. Then, the US bailed out a bank Karzai and his cronies had plundered.

Attempts to strengthen the central government will not work, as, according to Professor Paul Staniland, "there is very little evidence that winning hearts and minds through legitimate state-building is a path to victory. Building a strong state is often in direct _opposition_ to the will of the population (or at least a significant part of it)." (That should not surprise anyone reading this book. Governments fail to win hearts and minds not because of lack of money or posters but because they are self-interested, violent and irretrievably rapacious.)

The Afghan state is not likely to retract its hand from poppy money any time soon, however much control the ISAF governments think they have over it. Any government with any hand in Afghanistan is likely to do whatever it can to take the trillion dollars' worth of minerals reportedly lying under the ground, whether the locals like it or not.

Attempts to train locals to join the military or police of a central Afghan state (and the $9b spent on it in 2010) are, needless to say, not going according to plan. More and more "inside attacks" are occurring as Afghans the ISAF trusted turn on the coalition. If the foreign militaries really want to help the people, my suggestion is to help people defend themselves from oppression on the local level and don't try to prop up or take down any kind of government.

Regarding terrorism, I do not think foreign occupation will reduce terrorism anywhere in the world. There are a few things to note here. Though terrorism itself has various motivations in diverse situations, a major cause is perceived foreign occupation. In _Dying to Kill_ and _Cutting the Fuse_ , Robert Pape explains a clear pattern in suicide bombings leading to that conclusion. And on the whole, suicide bombings are deadlier than other forms of terrorism. There were no real terrorist attacks on Western soil until 9/11. After the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, there were a bunch.

Terrorism is designed to send a message. When the recent invasion of Libya began, my parents said, "good: get the guy who orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing." I was initially surprised that they did not realise that Lockerbie had been in retaliation for an attempt on Gaddafi's life. Apparently the news, which my parents watch every night, does little to explain that terrorism has causes.

In 2006, 18 young Muslims were arrested in Toronto for plotting to detonate truck bombs, storm the Canadian parliament and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and behead the PM. According to Mubin Shaikh, one of the two men who infiltrated the group, the ringleader's main point of contention was that "troops are in Afghanistan raping Muslim women".

In 2004, bombs went off in Madrid three days before a general election that were obviously a protest of Spain's involvement in Iraq. With little regard to Spanish politics at the time, some accused the Spanish people of caving in by electing a new government and immediately ending Spain's commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, pre-election polls suggested Spanish voters had been at best lukewarm on the war and the government who had led them to war. For two days following the Madrid bombing, the government tried to manipulate information and blame the Basque militant group, ETA; the public's finding out it was in fact an offshoot of al Qaeda added anger to shock. A few days after the election, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times wrote an article headed "The world must unite against terrorism", in which he called the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq a victory for the terrorists. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. A more important question is, was it the right thing to do? He proceeded to conclude that Britain must not follow suit. A year later, Britain suffered its own terrorist bombing, almost definitely in protest of the UK government's killing and debasement of Muslims in Iraq.

There is no reason to believe foreign interventions will reduce terrorism. In fact, as Lieven points out, "US and British soldiers are in effect dying in Afghanistan in order to make the world more dangerous for American and British peoples." One possible reason for ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on is to increase the foreign terrorist threat that elites can use to take away more of your freedom. It has worked out that way so far.

But there are other, less official but nonetheless very good reasons for being in Afghanistan.

One is that the US military and its political sponsors have come to regard failure as inconceivable, not an option. This is partly due to the fact that a superpower abhors defiance (which was one reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and why a war on Iran may be looming), and partly because the military-civilian establishment of the US sees military power as a solution to everything. The US military is used for flexing muscles in order to menace rival powers, keeping the current party in power by letting it look tough on bad guys, continuing to supply Americans with cheap consumer goods so the government does not have to ask them to lower their standards of living and pay off their credit cards, propping up pliant regimes and taking out recalcitrant ones.

Did you know Unocal was trying to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan in the '90s? It is still being built. It is a long pipeline, about 1700km long, from Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. It is not owned by Unocal but is still expected to supply gas to the US and Europe, bypassing Russia and Iran, the traditional routes. The US and its allies have an interest in protecting the pipeline.

They also operate quite the pipeline for heroin. The CIA spends billions of dollars propping up Afghan warlords who control the enormous poppy trade in Afghanistan, controlling and encouraging drug trafficking, as they have done elsewhere at different times.

Even bigger is Afghanistan's above-mentioned $1 trillion in mineral deposits: "huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world". Do you think ordinary Afghans will benefit from this find? Finding billions worth of diamonds in Sierra Leone didn't help the people. Let's ask Libyans, Algerians and Nigerians how much of their countries' oil revenue they have received. I think fighting over these minerals will make things worse for Afghans.

Finally, Afghanistan, like Iraq, is strategically located for the plans of the US empire. Think where Afghanistan is: at the crossroads of Iran, Pakistan, the Central Asian republics and China. If they can control Afghanistan, perhaps not just through the central government but through warlords, the opium trade and whatever else they can think of, they can pressure all the states around them. This is likely a major part of the plans laid in the Pentagon and NATO. But unless things change drastically, the plans will fail. The grandiose people running the war might continue to think they can salvage what influence they ever had over Afghanistan, but it does not look promising.

It almost seems futile to protest the war, because every few months politicians promise they are about to end the mission and draw down troops. Every year they say that this will be "the decisive year". Then things get more violent, as the opponents of the occupation get more desperate and recruit more people; the politicians say "just a little bit longer", like children begging their parents' permission to stay up late. But the parents are unaware how devious their kids are, and what their kids are doing when the parents' backs are turned.

The generals testify the war is going swimmingly. But independent reports reveal how deceptive the testimony is. Lt. Col. Daniel Davis observed the mission in Afghanistan for a year. He concluded

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.... [If] the public had access to these classified reports they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes.

Barack and his ministers do everything they can to lie and cover things up. There is no reason to believe the occupiers and their sneaky, underhanded attempts to hide the truth from those funding the war. The ISAF has 700 bases in Afghanistan, with a $100m expansion of Special Operations headquarters approved in 2010. The CIA is increasing its presence in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Do you think they are about to leave any time soon? And yet, Barack is praised for having an "exit strategy" by pledging that the troops will leave by 2024. The best we can hope for is enough reporters on the scene who expose the abuses of all sides, as violence by any party in the name of this war is an indictment of it.

Why do you think Afghanistan is the way it is? It is because war has been imposed on it for decades. Desperate people under pressure for so long do not turn out like rich-world people. The most competent NATO general will never understand what it is like to be an Afghani. What hearts-and-minds strategy could he possibly contrive? Now we have these self-important democracy promoters, who could do a little better than to prop up the least effective government in the world, and who seem to think we just need a little bit more war before Afghanistan will be fine again. Governments of the ISAF have no plans that have worked so far. And the heads of state shuffle their national security teams and nothing changes.

The argument that the troops are helping people, even though they are killing others, is akin to the argument that we need government for social programmes, even though it also locks up innocent people. It is in the nature of the beast to kill. Whom are these troops really helping? If foreign troops are there and Afghans who do not like them try to kill them—I know, such ingrates, right?—regular people will get caught in the crossfire. That means the presence of those troops is a cause of the violence. It does not matter who pulled that particular trigger. But these people who think democracy is so important it is worth keeping up this kind of war believe that we have to win and impose our values on these ignorant yokels, and that if some die in the meantime, well, that's the price you pay. Little bit more war, then we'll defeat the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and any other groups that pop up in the meantime, and Afghanistan will be on the road to democracy! Some roads are so bumpy we are better off not driving on them.

Saigon fell to bad guys and the world did not end. Stop trying to control everything. Stop chasing the illusion of stability through dictatorship or military force. It is having the opposite effect.

29 Secrecy

I sat there in agony thinking about all that had led me to this private hell. My idealism, my patriotism, my ambition, my plans to be a good intelligence officer to help my country fight the communist scourge—what in the hell had happened? Why did we have to bomb the people we were trying to save? Why were we napalming young children? Why did the CIA, my employer for 16 years, report lies instead of the truth? I hated my part in the charade of murder and horror. My efforts were contributing to the deaths, to the burning alive of children—especially the children. The photographs of young Vietnamese children burned by napalm destroyed me. – Ralph McGehee, former CIA intelligence analyst

Secrecy makes for thrilling movies but unaccountable government. The unimpeded exercise of power requires those over whom power is exerted do not know the truth. If they want to be our masters, there is some information they must control first. They want you to believe they are good people who win wars for freedom, their policies make everything better, they are incorruptible supermen; the more information we have, the more clearly we can see these are lies. Free flowing information is the only safeguard for people living under the state against tyranny.

Governments are self important. They believe their knowledge is superior to that of us little people, they are wiser and in a position to decide for the rest of us. As such, they are right to take our money, impose their will on us, regulate every aspect of our lives and send us overseas to kill people who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong country. They need secrecy because if other people had the same knowledge, they would learn how poorly government policies actually function, despite the authorities' supposedly superior wisdom. Now governments are being exposed, and people are finding out.

We only ever find out about these secrets thanks to a few intrepid reporters and brave whistleblowers. The scandals keep coming, from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Iran-Contra and now Bradley Manning, who is being held in solitary confinement without charge under order of a president who came into office promising transparency.

Why do you think they do not want you to know what they are doing? Ostensibly, during wartime at least (which has become all the time), it is to prevent the enemy from finding out the secrets that could compromise national security. But who is the state's enemy? Anyone who disagrees with its policies. That is why governments around the world have been conducting a war on journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists counts 929 journalists killed since 1992. 102 were killed in 2011, and at current trends more will have died in 2012. 145 were in prison in 2010 (before the uprisings in Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere). They are particularly under attack in dictatorships, and more since the 9/11 excuse came along. But not only. US forces killed 16 journalists in Iraq, some clearly deliberately. I wonder how much more this is happening than we know about. If journalists are being killed and arrested, how will we have any protection against all the lies we are told?

There is no reason governments have to keep what they do secret from you except to maintain power. Not only does power corrupt but it is proportionally more dangerous when we are uninformed. When people's backs are turned, power becomes a major force of corruption, and the powerful can do whatever they want.

Governments control trillions of dollars of money they stole from taxpayers, and create trillions more in fiat money, which acts as a tax that lowers the value of the money everyone already has. What do they do with that money? Over the past few years, the New York Fed has quietly bailed out large banks all over the world to the tune of about $16t. We never knew about it until an audit of the Fed took place recently. This type of secret remains secret because its revelation could mean serious anger on the streets. This is not a call for more and better auditing. It is a call for the elimination of one group's ability to inflate a currency by endlessly printing it and give it to the already-privileged.

Here are some more things that we were not allowed to know about. Former senior US National Security Agency official Thomas Andrews Drake blew the whistle on his agency's violation of the fourth amendment with the billion-dollar Trailblazer intelligence-gathering project. Of course, like Bradley Manning, like Daniel Ellsberg 40 years ago, Drake was prosecuted. US soldiers nearly got away with killing Afghan civilians for fun because their crimes were covered up. The death of football player Pat Tillman in Iraq was also concealed, originally said to have occurred "in the line of devastating enemy fire", until it was revealed that he was killed by friendly fire (perhaps deliberately). Were people actually surprised that a government covered up an unpopular event? The entire war, like all wars, was a lie. Why believe anything the government ever says?

Then there are the Wikileaks files. When the document dump began, one heard many voices speaking vaguely in support of Wikileaks, but I wondered if they had an understanding of what it all meant. Everyone who is not part of the state should support Wikileaks and its spinoffs.

Statists from all corners attacked Wikileaks with such clichéd accusations as exposing troops to danger. (Viz. Iran-Contra criminal Oliver North: "This is an act of terrorism.") However, they would presumably have been in less danger if they had remained at Fort Worth. If anyone has put them in danger, it is those who voted for and approved of sending them overseas in the first place, and those who lie to keep them there. Naturally, having enemies requires secrecy; but since the enemies are just contrived, all the secrecy had accomplished was to eliminate accountability for the liars who had claimed otherwise.

Joel Hirst of the Council on Foreign Relations attempted to put things in perspective.

For those who applaud Mr. Assange and his particular version of cyber-terrorism, I would ask them how they feel about the rupture of other codes established to govern our relations in society. How would they like to see reports of treatment for their male-pattern baldness in downloadable format; or the details of their divorce settlements in an online database—displayed in vivid technicolor across the worldwide web. While this information may appear benign, and may be explained by cyber-thieves as an attempt to increase transparency, it will likely be viewed by the victims as damagingly intrusive. This is also true in the world of international diplomacy.

Unfortunately, Mr Hirst has missed the point. The treatment of my male-pattern baldness is purely a private matter. The actions and beliefs of influential public servants and the disastrous results of wars fought with our money by our friends in our names are not. Why should we accept the codes established to govern our relations? And to use the word "terrorism" to describe the actions of a man who peacefully exposed acts of state terrorism ironically reveals how this catchall term has come to mean anything the state considers inimical to its interests.

To those who attacked Wikileaks and the act of whistleblowing, let me make clear the position you took. You are in favour of hiding from the public

\--the repeated urging of the despotic (and with relation to the US government, influential) House of Saud and other Middle Eastern governments to start a war between the US and Iran;

\--the US's ally Saudi Arabia's funding of al Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba;

\--the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay prison for no reason;

\--the detention and torture of innocent people around the world and its cover up;

\--the extent of the corruption of the Afghan government, which US, Canadian and other foreign taxpayers are funding;

\--Barack's lying about the US's bombing of Yemen;

\--the intentional killing of reporters (and laughing about it) by helicopter in Iraq;

\--an accurate picture of the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the extent of civilian casualties, such as the shooting in the head of Iraqi children and other things that should have people of conscience up in arms;

\--and perhaps most disturbing of all, US government contractor DynCorp threw a party at which children were prostituted, meaning that US taxpayers paid for sex with minors.

But Wikileaks is just one anti-secrecy activist group. Whistleblowers should be listened to unless it can be proven they are just crying wolf. Misbehaviour in business or government might be harder today because there are more whistleblowers. That said, the Barack administration has spent billions—maybe $13b—classifying millions of documents. Any whistleblowers who uncover the secrets that keep us from realising how corrupt our masters are deserve praise and protection.

Instead, they get called terrorists and get imprisoned. Barack has charged seven whistleblowers with espionage. Prior to the Barack administration, only three people had ever been charged for espionage. Governments will do anything to pinch these guys, from possibly-trumped-up rape charges on Julian Assange to sending an NYPD whistleblower to a psych ward to keeping a loose-lipped journalist in prison in Yemen to indefinite detention for Bradley Manning. If that were an insufficiently heavy blow to justice, he has also refused to prosecute any of the torturers from the Bush era. Why? Because powerful people want to cover up their sins and protect their interests and will break any constitution to do so. Strong, accountable government? Don't make me laugh.

Does the leaking of confidential documents erode public trust in government? That used to be an important question. It is now clear that there was no basis for such trust to begin with. Wikileaks has exposed not only the loose tongues of a few diplomats but the bankruptcy of statist arguments for secrecy. Wikileaks brought us, in stark relief, a more accurate picture of government wheeling and dealing than we were getting from the mass media; or as Slavoj _Žiž_ ek notes, Wikileaks revealed that the emperor truly had no clothes.

The pundits at the top of the security apparatus of the US government spent countless hours devising contingency plans for every possible step the Soviet Union could have made. An air of paranoia and groupthink has influenced most national security decisions made in Washington since WW2, which is why the central planners of the US military believed first in the "bomber gap", that the USSR had far more bombers than the US did (when it didn't), and then the "missile gap", that the USSR had vast quantities of nuclear missiles that it could deploy preemptively to knock out US capabilities (when it didn't), and why they believed flattening Indochina would be necessary to stop the advance of communism.

They spent billions on intelligence and did not predict the detonation of a Soviet atom bomb; the Korean War and China's entry into it; the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion; the size and determination of the Viet Cong, or the Tet Offensive; the Iranian Revolution; the fall of the Soviet Union; the breakup of Yugoslavia; of course 9/11 (though there is a mountain of evidence they knew something was going to happen and did nothing); the Arab world's reaction to the invasion of Iraq (though that one was partly outsourced to the think tanks); the Arab uprisings of 2011; and several intelligence agencies told the world Saddam Hussein had a whole bunch of missiles that did not exist. Sure, it is not fair to expect anyone to predict such black swans. But then, what are intelligence agencies for?

Perhaps they are to make work for spies. An enormous quantity of intelligence has been gathered since 9/11. Because of its sheer volume, only 10% of it has even been analysed. The spies are a bureaucracy and as such, they are an entrenched pressure group. In his excellent book _The Limits of Power_ , Andrew Bacevich explains the role of national security services (e.g. the CIA). "Over the course of their existence, these entities have done far more harm than good.... [I]nstitutions nominally subordinate to executive authority pursue their own agendas, and will privilege their own purposes over whoever happens to occupy the White House." Presidents frequently disregard what the security agencies tell them. But they tell the public the security apparatus is necessary because it provides legitimacy for "political arrangements that are a source of status, influence and considerable wealth."

In the end, government secrecy is little more than immunity for the mafia that poses as your superiors. There is no reason why government knowledge is better than yours, or why governments should impose their will on you. Now that ordinary people have the chance, thanks to anonymous whistleblowers and Wikileaks, to spy on their governments, they may have a better idea of how secrecy destroys accountability. If democrats truly want accountable government, they should embrace Wikileaks.

The good news is most governments have mostly lost their monopoly on information. The Wikileaks dumps, the spread of cell phone cameras and attacks by anonymous hackers have seen to that. Embrace openness and deny the government its monopoly on information. You know, if that is possible when there is a government.
Part 4: Don't fear the free market

\- 30 What the free market is and what it isn't

\- 31 Rich and poor

\- 32 Government knowledge is not superior knowledge

\- 33 Intervention, central banks and planning

\- 34 The armed corporation

30 What the free market is and what it isn't

Many people are certain of what crashed the economy in 2008. They call this culprit "the free market". But what do they think the free market is? How do they think it made the economy collapse? Well, these people will tell you, it's deregulation. If they say that, ask them to point to specific instances of deregulation of the financial sector. In fact, the banking sector was and is highly regulated. They may not be very good regulations, and of course big banks are largely to blame for the meltdown, but there was no free market. What do they think the government did? What do they think it should do? Did these same anti-free-market people applaud the trillion-dollar bailouts and stimulus packages because they thought the government would rescue them and make everything better? Do they think the government will ever rescue them and make everything better? These are people who need to learn what the free market is.

What it is

What is a market? You have probably been to one. Lots of different people come selling all kinds of things, trading for what they want however they decide, going by uncomplicated rules that everyone agrees on. They all have different products you might want. Some have bread, which everyone wants; some have guitars, which only some people want; and others have things you have never seen before that they think people will want to buy. Not everyone makes the same amount in a market, for various reasons. But as long as we can choose how to buy and sell, anyone with any basic abilities or assets has a chance of benefiting from exchange.

Every time someone exchanges something for a price he or she is amenable to (i.e. no one is coerced), every transaction makes two people better off. When I pay for a fish, I give something below the maximum price I would have paid for it, and the seller receives something above the minimum price he or she would sell it for. We both win. This is the creation of wealth.

Cities are the result and means of bringing people together to create wealth. Now, consider the whole world has become the market. We have millions of possible goods and services because we have millions of vendors. Enormous amounts of wealth can be created through innumerable transactions. The higher the number of people free to enter this market, the more widely the benefits of it will spread. Someone who belittles the significance of the market might stop to realise that without free exchange, we would still be making our own bows and arrows.

The free market is when there is no force in the economy. Laws and taxes are force: things you must do if you want to avoid violence. A truly free market would have none of them. It would have no licenses that could be denied without fees or bribes to bureaucrats. It would have no minimum wages that prevent unskilled workers from finding employment. It means no laws protecting corporations, so that business operators could not hide behind legal shields. And it means no backing up of patents or intellectual property by courts. Many statists find the idea of a free market frightening. They see it as a ticket to monopolies, crashes, the concentration of wealth and the spread of poverty. This section explains why the free market works better than government intervention to help the poor and create a more equal society, why it eliminates monopolies and minimises crashes, and why believing a government can fix an economy, or even make a decent pencil, is mistaken.

Walter Block describes the free market as "the concatenation of all voluntary acts in the economy." People often think of the market as meaning he who has more money can grind down him who has less. But the market does not involve violence or coercion. Like all voluntaryism, it means only persuasion. It involves only he who seeks value trading with him who provides it, and both benefiting from the exchange. Charles W. Johnson explains that if family sharing, charity, gifts, peaceful exchange of any kind is voluntary, it is all part of the free (or freed) market. (Find more on alternative economies in part 5.)

What do free markets do better than markets into which the state has the power to intervene? In the words of the Center for a Stateless Society's David D'Amato, free markets

divide and moderate market power by denying special protection and privilege and opening competition to a wide assortment of both entrants and methods. Only where potential threats to corporate monopolization are precluded by force of law—through, among other impediments, 'safety' and 'consumer protection' standards—can today's 'captains of industry' ascend to market dominance.

Speaking on why food prices are high, he continues,

It is too often assumed that the behemoth conglomerates populating the landscape of corporate capitalism wince at regulations supposedly aimed at health and safety. These rules, however, routinely function to outlaw the farm stand down the street, the small, local producer who can't afford to jump through the arbitrary and unjustified hoops put up by the political class.

Why does freedom work? Here is Professor Edward Wayne Younkins:

Progress requires the use of information that exists only as widely dispersed knowledge that each person has with respect to his own circumstances, conditions, and preferences. Such tacit, locationally-specific knowledge is only useful if people are free to act upon it. A free market permits prices to emerge from the use of people's localized knowledge. These prices contain more and better information and result in better decisions than what can be achieved under a regime of central planners. Limited government and decentralized markets permit more freedom and foster more prosperity than do state-dominated and centralized bureaucracies.

The free market is superior to central planning regarding the uses of localized information and in combining those uses into an efficient system of production and consumption. Markets spread ideas, encourage the constant search for improvements, and evolve through trial and error, experimentation, and feedback. Markets produce a positive, emergent order.

And why is it better than government intervention? Adam Smith's invisible hand is about the virtue of human action not to design a better world, not to make the poor better off, not to solve environmental problems, but action that is selfish, but produces outcomes that do build a better world and make the poor better off and solve environmental problems. Harry Browne, former leader of the Libertarian Party of the US, said

the free market will give the best minds in the world an incentive to devise profitable methods (that we can't even imagine today) by which the free market can perform functions we might think now can be performed only by government. That isn't a 'vague anarchism'; it's a reasonable belief that free human beings are much more creative, productive, and efficient than government.

The invisible hand is not some empty metaphor. Experimental economist Vernon L. Smith explains there have been hundreds or thousands of experiments demonstrating the efficiency of markets. "Before my very eyes people with private information, who therefore had no prevision of the ends they were achieving, maximized the gains from exchange and approximated equilibrium outcomes." People need little more than to know the rules (which are simple if they are trading freely) and they all benefit themselves and each other.

I tend to eschew the term "capitalism" because of its variety of meanings. A more precise word for the system we live under today is corporatism. Corporatism is the furthering of select business interests with the help of government force. Economists Edmund Phelps and Saifedean Ammous write

In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals' economic freedom and responsibility.

Like legalistic approaches to crime and punishment, corporatism could be good if it somehow furthered the people's (as opposed to the state's) individual goals. But it does not. Phelps and Ammous give some of the costs of corporatism:

dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.

Free markets are not exclusively about exchange or money. They are about obtaining what one wants without interference backed up by the threat of violence. This is decentralisation: making information and wealth available to all and flattening out power hierarchies. Decentralisation is key to what James Surowiecki wrote about in the Wisdom of Crowds. Just like companies are often far more productive when hierarchies are flattened and units are small and self organising, so is the economy itself. It is key to the spontaneous order that results when people or other things are free.

The trustbuster

There are all kinds of myths about the free market. Critics say that the free market leads to monopolies. The fact is, however, that a free market abhors monopolies.

In 1879, when John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil controlled 90% of the US's refineries (all purchased through more or less ethical means), the remaining oil producers attempted to avoid working with Standard Oil by constructing the first long-distance pipeline. Rockefeller's dream of controlling oil supplies by controlling the railroads did not work, and gave birth to a useful, monopoly-busting innovation. Standard Oil eventually bought a small stake in the pipeline and continued to control most oil transport in the region. Customers did not complain much, however, as Standard Oil kept prices low and quality high. If it had not, oil would not have been the cheap, alternative fuel of its day that it was.

After all, another rule of the free market is that overcharging by any firm gives rise to competitors or substitutes. International competitors soon emerged and began to ship oil more economically to Russian and European markets. The antitrust suit against Standard Oil was not brought by its customers or a concerned public but by its competitors. The rhetoric that alleged a criminal conspiracy worked in the end, but the unethical business practices did not take place on the free market but when competitors demanded the state strongarm a successful business.

Competition from other parts of the world (and other parts of the US) arose when oil was discovered outside Pennsylvania. To break Standard Oil's stranglehold, the new oil men, bankrolled by financiers who knew the venture could be profitable, developed a new, safer type of oil tanker. Because of the risk of spills and explosions, the Suez Canal had been closed to oil tankers. However, with this new innovation, oil could be safely transported around the world, and prices could remain low.

Alternatives to oil exist. We just need more time to understand better how to exploit them. Take the electric car, another great example of a monopoly-breaking innovation that promised to end (well, reduce) dependence on oil, but which was ended by a powerful lobby group and a pliable government. The state intervenes far more now than it did in Standard Oil's time. Groups repeatedly lobby to ban inventions and innovations that will eat into their profits, and it works. "No longer does it make sense for an inventor to ask himself, 'Can I make a better mousetrap?' because the threat is greater that the government might ban his mousetrap, however safe and efficient it is."

Monopolies are made possible when government steps in to protect business. If business is left to itself, anyone else can and will enter the market. Look at Microsoft. Its competitors (also large corporations) induced the US government to charge it with attempting to monopolise the software industry. Such charges seem irrelevant (and hilarious) today: no one could monopolise the software industry.

If a new entrant can provide something cheaper, or something better, or just something different, it might establish a market presence and undercut the larger corporations and thrive in doing so. As far as I know, it has always worked that way in the past when one firm has tried to monopolise a market but there have been no government-imposed barriers to entry.

Government subsidies are more protection and are unnecessary to those with good business sense. James J. Hill grew up in poverty but used his entrepreneurial skill to make the Great Northern Railroad. In 1893, when the government-subsidized railroads went bankrupt, Hill's line was able both to cut rates and turn a substantial profit.

After the government of New York had granted Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton a monopoly on steamboat traffic for thirty years in 1798, Cornelius Vanderbilt ran a steamboat between New Jersey and Manhattan in defiance of that monopoly, undercutting the monopolists by charging only one-quarter the fare. After the steamboat monopoly law was overturned, fares dropped across the board.

During the early days of capitalism, big business and government were comfortably in bed with one another. Laws favoured privately-owned monopolies. Obviously, this was not a free market. But Marx and others began to complain about what they called a free market anyway. I don't know why they thought state coercion made markets free, but that was their mistake. Activists began to argue that government should be used to curb the power of corporations. Let's have more laws, they said, laws that give governments a greater hand in the economy. But the marriage of big business and government did not end. New regulations continued to be written by corporate elites. In 1935, economist and later senator Paul Douglas observed, "Public regulation has proved most ineffective. Instead of the regulatory commissions controlling the private utilities, the utilities have largely controlled the regulatory commissions." He was describing regulatory capture, about which we will read in chapter 32.

Now, we still have monopolies, and we also have people arguing that they are necessary. The market provides a feedback mechanism telling firms what is the right price for something. If their prices are too high, the market will tell them as their sales will drop. Competing firms lower (or raise) prices to levels at which customers are willing to buy. But a monopoly receives no market feedback and can set prices however it wants. Take the post office. We do not know the market price for mail because the post office controls the market by law. We are told that the post office provides mail service cheaply to people in outlying areas, because it provides all such services at the same cost; but how would we know? All we know is that the state sets prices. Perhaps they would be lower if the delivery of mail were opened up to competition.

The mortgage crisis

Imagine the US housing market as a bazaar where the houses are all in rows in one street, with millions of people looking into them. A man is walking down the street, promising to lend you money to help you own your own home and even make money off it. Everyone goes mad with excitement, grabbing up houses while they can, without watching what the man is doing. It is an investment: house prices usually rise in value over time at this bazaar. But then the man, suddenly realising something, turns his head with a start and yells into the street, "These houses aren't worth what you paid for them!" People panic and the selling begins. More homes than ever line the street, and a lot of people who want one do not have the money to buy one. Housing prices cave in. People who paid too much for their homes suddenly remember that the money they got from the man has to be paid back.

What are the causes of this crisis? Risk taking? Speculation? Greed? Do these words actually explain anything? We can be more specific. The Federal Reserve is hardly ever mentioned as a cause of the crisis. Artificially-low interest rates (1%) encouraged artificially-high risk taking for certain sectors, including construction and lending to people who could not afford to buy homes. Fed policy increased the supply of money (look out for inflation) with the result that more dollars were created between 2000 and 2007 than had been created in the rest of the history of the United States. House prices rose.

They rose the most in California, where various laws made it impossible to develop the land, creating artificial scarcity and driving up home prices. But they rose in other localities too, in most cases because of similar restrictive building laws. 90% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, so instead of a free market, the availability of land for building depends on the government's approval of each use of it. Less than 10% of the land in the US is actually developed, but under the guise of preserving nature (a handout to environmentalists), the government protected land near residential areas and thus raised the price of it. As a result, many places saw a housing boom artificially brought on by government, whereas other places saw no boom at all. Thomas Sowell explains.

A fundamental misconception of the housing market existed both during the boom and after the bust. That misconception was that the free market failed to produce affordable housing, and that government intervention was therefore necessary in order to enable ordinary people to find a place to live that was within their means. Yet, the hard evidence points in the opposite direction. It has been precisely where there was massive government intervention, in the form of severe building restrictions, that housing prices skyrocketed. Where the market was more or less left alone, places like Houston and Dallas, for example, housing prices took a smaller share of family income than in the past.

The booms that did result, however, were, like many local problems, misperceived by an officious federal government as a national problem, requiring national-level intervention.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-backed but publicly-traded corporations that would be bailed out if necessary (a formula for moral hazard if ever there was one) also pushed to expand mortgage loans to people with bad credit under Bill Clinton. Democratic Congresspeople were reluctant to demand any oversight of Fannie, a campaign contributor. Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans to people who were bad credit risks. These government-sponsored enterprises held about $5 trillion in mortgages. The Fed lent money to the banks at near 0% interest because, well, it could create money without hurting the people making the decision to do so.

At least as important regarding the subprime mortgage meltdown is the fact that owning homes had become the political cause du jour. Not everyone has to own a house to live; but if people are given houses, whether or not they can afford the mortgages, they might vote for the people who made it possible. The desire to introduce coercion into a market is always for the benefit of the coercer. Sometimes it benefits the constituent, and sometimes it leads to one of the most costly financial crashes in history. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was meant to eliminate racial inequality in availability of credit. If banks did not lend to minorities in high enough numbers to satisfy the authorities, they could be crushed by lawsuits. (Remember, poor people were already being stung by local land use restrictions that raised housing prices. The CRA would enable them to get credit for something they might have been able to afford in a free market.) Instead of leaving interest rates to the market, politicians found it politically expedient to help minorities buy homes. It makes sense: if one can finally buy a home, one's standard of living appears to have risen, and rising living standards get politicians reelected. Lending standards loosened.

Bear Stearns said the mortgages were sound. The three rating agencies (a state-protected oligopoly), you remember, the ones that said the mortgage-backed securities were great when they were garbage, served to reinforce the popular lending-to-everyone policies. Tax codes encouraged overinvestment in housing. To blame lack of government oversight for the crash is to get things backwards. The banks did what the government wanted them to do: hand out more and riskier loans. Those who talk of deregulation as a cause of the crisis fail to point to a single episode of deregulation, aside from the repeal of one clause of the Glass-Steagal act, which did nothing to enable banks to make bad loans. To say the banking sector was deregulated is to ignore or misunderstand the many regulations in place that helped cause the crisis.

One study finds that federal outlays for banking regulation—the laws big banks supposedly fear so much—increased from $190m in 1960 to $1.9b in 2000 and $2.3b in 2008. The US has 115 regulatory agencies. Funding to the Securities and Exchange Commission under George W. increased sizeably, with the result that its staff increased by one quarter. The number of rules businesses needed to follow rose. There may be an ideal regulatory agency or system, but it has nothing to do with what what the agencies actually do. These ones did what the politicians wanted: encouraged banks to make home loans to people who could not afford them, and solved a problem that did not exist, namely a nationwide lack of affordable housing. The result was disaster. Either government cannot be trusted to oversee corporations because it has been corrupted by them, or else it cannot be trusted because it is so incompetent. Either the fox is guarding the henhouse or the headless rooster is. More layers of regulations added to the existing system are not likely to help the public.

Moreover, it may be a mistake to call the crash a failure of regulation. Again, the corporations did what the government told them to, and people responded to incentives that monetary and lending policies created. Whenever we consider a policy a failure, we need to question whether it is indeed a failure or whether the goals and eventual outcomes went just as planned. After all, the crisis has ended up further enriching the rich, through bailouts and stimulus.

And yet, innocent taxpayers are footing the bill. Why do we have to pay for a crisis caused by the banking and political elites? Why do people need to be unemployed or lose their homes because of the actions of a few unrepresentative, uncaring psychopaths? Why are they getting rich despite or because of this economic meltdown? Because of taxation. Taxation means they can and will take whatever they want to pay for whatever misdeeds they get into. They will tax everyone and people will willingly pay because they think they are paying for roads and hospitals. This forcible transfer of enormous wealth shows there is nothing moral about paying taxes at all. Let the elites pay for their own crisis.

The securities and investment industry contributed $53m to congressional and presidential campaigns in 2008. (They have not slowed down since then.) Then, they stood back with their hands out and received more than a trillion dollars for their generosity. The bailout bill was defeated at first, but legislators, in their inimitable way, searched for a new way to pass the bill. They got more Congresspeople on board by sprinkling horsetraded favours in with the bailout money. (Something similar happened when Ronald Reagan bailed out big banks in 1983.) Special interests got what they wanted, legislators got what they wanted—win-win!

The argument the government made at the time was these firms were "too big to fail". In other words, their failure would mean the collapse of many more firms and the economy itself; therefore, they might need to be rescued. But the fate of Lehman Brothers, with more than $600b in assets, is instructive. It seemed too big to fail; yet, when it did fail, its assets that were worth preserving were bought by other firms. Keeping firms on life support discourages investment, encourages wild risk taking and drains money from those firms who are, in fact, productive and allocates it to those who have proven they are not. Promising to bail out failed firms created the moral hazard that enabled this crash.

Along came an enormous (more than 400-page) bailout bill, which anyone who opposed or even wanted to debate would be labeled as wanting the economy to fail. The government now owned hundreds of billions in bad debt, which means instead of letting the companies pay for their own foolish bets, the taxpayers would. The case of the 2008 crisis and the recession was one of socialism for the rich. And democrats, who think they have choices, were presented with two presidential candidates who agreed on the bailout and stimulus bills.

Many people, Occupy Wall Street protesters most vocally, blame the corporations for the crash. But corporations were doing what the government told them to. They blame corporations for accepting the bailout money. But if someone had trillions of dollars to give you, would you say no? That money only existed because it had been stolen from taxpayers in the first place.

And though some people—those who watch the news—think things are getting better, they are not. There will be no economic recovery, as the ruling class has already stolen it. The developed economies will stagnate for reasons that would have been avoidable and avoided in a free market. The crash will be followed by a prolonged slump, in which the poor will suffer and millions of people will become the new poor. There will be a lost generation of students in debt up to their eyeballs, struggling to survive. There will be a new generation of homeless people kicked out of their houses by an uncaring bank. Well-meaning democrats will attempt to use the seats of government to engage in class warfare, attempting to redistribute wealth, only to get burned by a system that offers power only to the elite.

Contrast the deepening of the current recession to the recession of 1920 to 21. The government barely did anything—in fact, it decreased spending—and the recession lasted 18 months. So why would we think the free market brought on all these troubles? How could anyone think we live in a free market? Mainly because everyone says we do. It is the same reason we believe the government represents the collective will of the people: because they say they do. We have been hoodwinked.

The free-market boogeyman is always blamed for economic ills, when, as Austrian school economists (most of whom predicted the 1929 stock market crash, the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the subprime mortgage meltdown) can tell you, crashes become more likely and more painful when government meddling in the economy runs wild. When George W. blamed the subprime mortgage crash on Wall Street, he said Wall Street had been drunk. Well, where did they get the liquor? Regulatory and Federal-Reserve meddling.

The economy sends signals, and at the turn of the 21st century, the signals were clear: time for a downturn. But politicians want the good times to continue rolling, so they fix interest rates (instead of letting supply and demand determine them) and play with the market to produce widespread short-term benefits that go against the signals. People invest and take jobs that are based not on sound economic principles but the artificial propping up of the economy. The more the government intervenes, the harder the economy will inevitably crash.

The free market should be given a chance before it can be blamed for anything. It should be considered when applying remedies as well. When something goes wrong, like a stockmarket crash, most people, who do not understand its causes, make the following equation. Something happened. Something must be done. The government understands what happened. The government will do what needs to be done. After all, they work for us. This thinking is obviously riddled with logical fallacies. Here are some government solutions.

The effects of meddling

First, why do we suppose there was a lack of affordable housing that lawmakers felt it necessary to rectify? We have mentioned restrictions on where people could build as one reason for the inflation of house prices. Add in zoning laws, building codes and price controls, and housing prices will rise.

Corporate taxes just make sense to us, right? But big businesses have little to fear: they can acquire new businesses, shift profits overseas and so on, making their balance sheets register zero profit. Small and medium sized enterprises pay the bulk of corporate taxes, making entrepreneurship harder, employment lower and barriers to entry higher. Regulatory protection of big, powerful business interests crowd out smaller competitors in every industry.

Take the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal and failure. The Act made accounting more complicated. Implementing it costs a firm millions of dollars. Millions of dollars is pocket change for a big corporation, but prohibitively expensive for new and small businesses that could otherwise rival them. As a result, fewer businesses are created, and wealth and power are concentrated in the larger firms.

You see, the US and many other governments regulate everything. Some people believe this is a good thing, because it means someone is imposing standards and controlling for quality. But those standards usually come through the market. For instance, de facto health standards rose as society got richer, and eventually the law entrenched them. But to have put very high legal health standards in place when there was not enough wealth to achieve them would have killed every business except for the richest who could afford to comply. In fact, that is what these regulations do today. The real reason the government wants control over every aspect of commerce is so that it can protect the existing or best-connected players in each industry from competitors, denying society the benefits of a free market and impoverishing everyone except those with legal protection. Politicians make money from protected companies and the state gains power over more aspects of our lives. And that is why we are told we need legal regulations.

Now imagine we had a simple (or even better, non-existent) tax code. Businesses would still employ accountants, but they would not need large teams of accountants, each member with specialised knowledge of the code. Firms would not have to spend nearly as much money on compliance, freeing up resources they could invest in productivity, raising salaries, hiring other employees or lowering prices. Imagine, if we could do the same with the law, how much would be saved on lawyers. Major constraints to small and growing business would be swept away.

The state regulates not to protect people but a minority of market participants. Most people, particularly the modern left wing, do not understand this point. I will explain with examples. Environmentalists applauded constraints on greenhouse-gas emissions. Did anyone else? As a matter of fact, BP, GE, Duke Energy and Nike did, too. They helped write the bills that got passed. They knew that restricting emissions or paying for offsets was something they, as rich corporations, could easily afford. New market entrants, however, could not. The same is true of anti-smoking legislation signed into law in 2009, supported by Philip Morris, who, in the decade leading up to the signing, spent more on lobbying than all other tobacco companies combined. Walmart receives benefits in the form of publicly-funded roads for shipping, but to further grind down Mom and Pop, it proposed raising the federal minimum wage. The rise in minimum wage would still be less than Walmart paid its own employees, but more than small stores pay theirs, meaning Mom and Pop would not be able to hire as many people. Likewise, it lobbied for a federal mandate that employers pay for employees' health insurance. How many small businesses would be able to afford that? How many people will go out of business as a result of federally-mandated insurance? These examples teach a larger lesson: laws are not public services but arbitrary favours to the powerful.

Freeing the market for taxis would enable anyone to enter the market, and would lower the prices for consumers. But starting a business anywhere in the US means jumping through numerous bureaucratic hoops. Or, it could be impossible. All kinds of people, from companies of any size to small-time independent operators, could provide taxi services. But laws in various parts of the US force taxis to acquire expensive licenses. As a result, only large firms can afford to have taxis at all. These laws came from lobbyists that wanted legal protection for large taxi firms against aspiring taxi entrepreneurs. Aside from the owners of the taxi oligopoly and the politicians who gain a campaign contributor, everyone loses. Think how many people are unemployed, or work at jobs that pay less or are less attractive than the jobs destroyed by such laws. If we need regulations to help the poor, well, we had better at least scrap the ones we have now.

Not much different is the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was, said its sponsors, to prevent another financial crisis (written by people who do not know what caused the original one). The law is 848 pages; and as the Economist explains, "every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the 'Volcker rule', which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions." Like Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank will require prohibitively-expensive implementation. State regulation almost always favours the big players because the big players have the regulators in their back pocket. Like voters, small businesses have no leverage over the state. Free markets would make small businesses more competitive.

There are also many myths around deregulation. When libertarians talk about deregulation, they do not mean rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. Deregulation should mean ending government monopolies, including on the making and enforcement of rules, because it tends to concentrate wealth rather than redistribute it, which in turn creates elites that can control the government.

It is sad that so many people view regulations as largely good when they usually prevent competition, block people's freedom to trade with each other and raise prices. The airlines are but one example. Until 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board controlled entry, exit and prices in the airline industry. Prices were high, and flights were less efficient in the sense that fewer seats were being filled. Now that airlines can compete on price, and new airlines can enter the market, fares are much lower and more seats are filled on each flight. That is true deregulation: taking the power away from a few big corporations and giving it to the market. There are still many regulations standing in the way of a free market for air travel, such as barriers to foreign competition, protection of Boeing and Airbus and laws that govern how much airports can charge. But the process that began in the late 1970s has made it possible for the rigid and inefficient controlled market to give way to improvements in several areas of the industry, with consumers benefiting most.

Eliminating _state_ regulations does not mean not regulating our behaviour. Our beliefs, along with customs, regulate our behaviour every day. We are market forces. "Bureaucrats, who necessarily have limited knowledge and perverse incentives, regulate by threat of physical force. In contrast, market forces operate peacefully through millions of participants, each with intimate knowledge of his or her own personal circumstances, looking out for their own well-being. Bureaucratic regulation is likely to be irrelevant or inimical to what people in the market care about. Not so regulation by market forces. If this is correct, there can be no unregulated, or unfettered, markets." If employers are cruel or callous, they may be subject to strikes, boycotts, divestiture and competition from kinder companies—and yes, kinder companies exist.

The endless pages of tax codes, regulations and intellectual property laws are not designed to create a level playing field. Their purpose is to tip it. And in many markets where a monopoly regulator exists it creates monopolies and oligopolies. The rich have always used the state to protect their property and use this monopoly to control the people. Today, they do it through the corporation.

The legal corporation is itself a product of government, a legal fiction, like borders or government itself. One of the greatest threats to a free market is the legal treating of a corporation as a person. It is not a person; it is made up of people. If a CEO orders a person that works for him to dump chemicals into a river, the people harmed by that dumping should have the right to defend themselves against the person who made the order. Law does not have to end without a state; it can be made better. (See chapter 40.) People like the idea of putting sanctions on people who commit crimes, so there is no reason to believe it would not happen without a state. As it stands, they cannot stop the behaviour. The state relieves those under its aegis of irresponsibility. People can only hope the government will make the corporation pay. But when corporations pay, whose pocket is lighter? The employees might be forced to accept lower salaries, the customers higher prices. Is it any consolation that perhaps some of the executives will lose some of their bonuses? The legal corporation is thus a shield, a way for people to avoid responsibility for their crimes. Corporate personhood protects people who should not be protected. It should end.

Then there is market failure. Market failure is basically when the free market produces inefficiencies in the allocation of goods and services. Market failure is sometimes followed by public overreaction and a call for government to intervene, again, to "do something". Politicians see every such incidence as a way to win votes by appearing to do something big, while not necessarily addressing the root of the problem, and provide a handout to a special interest or two. Because government responses are usually far more inefficient than market failures, they are government failures (though they are frequently disguised as market failures).

But even when government could do something about a problem, it is wrong to assume that the private sector could not. Spontaneous order decentralises decision making, and people with common interests find each other when they are free to do so. In fact, a lot of market failure is government failure, as many supposed market failures such as externalities and non-competitive markets could be solved by a reduction in government regulation. (Find more on government failure in chapter 32.) Many economists see market failure as an untapped market. Plastic bags are bad for the environment? How could you make money off that? The potential is usually there with a little imagination and a (less realistic) ceding of government power.

There is still no free market. Like before the crash, the government is interfering with the economy in all kinds of ways, and is of course not bringing about the recovery it promises to. I do not know if constant intervention into every area of economic life is simply a way to reward the big players who contribute the most money to political campaigns, or if it is based on delusions that people like Ben Bernanke have that they can somehow save the economy. There is no evidence they can.

But politicians love to make themselves feel important while finding a way to please an interest group. That is why, instead of surrounding themselves with Austrian or even Chicagoan economists, they find people like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, people who ignore the enormous government hand in the financial crisis and have the nerve to fault the free market. Such people, like government scientists, are essential to the modern state, because they clothe the actions of the state in jargon about multiplier effects and quantitative easing, making economic growth seem more complicated than it is, and concealing the truth from the average person.

These are the experts who tell politicians to stimulate the economy through massive spending, so that politicians can decide to whom, across the whole country, to give hundreds of billions of dollars someone else created. I question the thinking behind that for three reasons. First, I do not trust a politician to fix the economy. Second, every time the state gives money to interest groups it makes the playing field less level. Third and perhaps most significant, governments at the moment are so far in debt they are beginning to bow under its weight.

They suggest controlling interest rates, instead of letting the market do so. Then, they tinker with the rules of the economy by introducing all kinds of new laws to make it more competitive or more equal or smarter or whatever promises central planners think they can fulfill toward an economy that no clutch of elites could possibly run. They might make things more complicated or more expensive, which could be fatal to a new business. If they want to help small businesses, lawmakers should reduce the size of the tax code and number of regulations, and eliminate operating licenses and fees. They are a government's way of retaining the power to deny a business, any business, from operating without a fee, or as it is called in a dictatorship, a bribe. The result is to keep small businesses out of markets where they could pose a threat to the big businesses that provide generous retirement funds for politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

No business is "too big to fail". The trillion-dollar bank and insurance bailouts of 2008 and onward indefinitely are justified by the excuse that, if the banks fail, credit markets freeze and no one will be able to borrow to invest. That is unlikely. Banks are merely intermediaries between those who have money to lend and those who want to borrow. There is always some other way to get money if you need it, such as venture capitalists and angel investors. And if the large banks collapse, small banks will arise to meet the demand for loans.

The government also gave $85b to "rescue" "the auto industry". But the death of two companies (not an entire industry) is a response to those companies' lack of competitiveness. If they do not offer what potential customers want, they will collapse. Why would it be good to prop them up? To protect jobs that were not productive? In a free market, jobs are destroyed and created every day. Those out of work who still have something to offer will find work elsewhere. This $85b will probably not all be paid back, and if it is the dollar will be worth less than it was when the money was loaned. But more to the point, the money was given to an unproductive, uncompetitive special interest when it could have remained with people who would have made wiser choices. At any rate, letting big companies fail does not send markets into turmoil: Enron's collapse sent barely a ripple through the stockmarket.

In fact, government intervention for the (ostensible) purpose of stability makes things less stable. Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Blyth wrote in _Foreign Affairs_ that continual interventions and bailouts had made the US banking system "very fragile". Alan Greenspan attempted to iron out the business cycle by reducing interest rates the minute he read disheartening economic data. His policy guaranteed bank rescues (the "Greenspan put"). Policymakers believed "something" was better than "nothing", presumably because their kind had long persuaded the public of it, and thus stepped in to heal the economy, instead of letting it heal by itself, as it does without force. Instead of healing, we got massive wounding. Their conclusion? "Humans must try to resist the illusion of control".

Inflation

We can safely abolish the Federal Reserve System. Not only has it contributed to most of the bubbles and financial crises of the past century, it is the basic cause of inflation. Its origins should tip us off as to who benefits from its existence. The Fed was created in 1913 behind closed doors by bankers and their political sponsors. It has, ever since, served to enrich bankers and impoverish the people. How? A central bank cannot create _value_ , or _goods_ that are worth buying, but it can put money into bank balance sheets. The bankers now have more money to spend. When they spend it, the wider economy gradually adjusts to the greater supply of dollars and inflation sets in.

Inflation eats away at savings. Since the inception of the Fed, the US has gone from a nation of savers to one of consumers awash in debt. The existence of the Fed and the consumer debt crisis is not a coincidence. Now our dollars are worth less than they were, we feel forced to spend. Some people say that is good because spending keeps the economy going. I say you should be allowed to decide when to spend your own money. Moreover, it is not spending but production that grows the economy. If the economy does not produce but only consumes, it is not growing, whatever the GDP figures say. I also think the public's mind should reel at the revelations that the Fed secretly lent trillions of dollars to American and foreign banks. How many trillions, we are not sure. But the Fed is not accountable to any of the people who are are hurt by it.

We are so afraid of deflation that we are willing to put up with inflation as a lesser evil. It has become part of the hegemony, the accepted wisdom: inflation a necessary evil; deflation a nightmare. And yet, falling prices can just as easily be a sign of prosperity. Prices fell in the US between its independence from Britain and 1896 or as late as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the period when the economy went from agrarian to the greatest industrial power in the world. Tom Mullen explains

While wages increased less in the 19th century than in the 20th, purchasing power for the average worker rose dramatically. This is the natural result of society becoming more productive. As the supply of goods goes up, all things being equal, the price of goods goes down.... The Fed is the reason that average Americans have worked harder and become more productive over the past century yet have not experienced a corresponding increase in wealth. It is why two people in the average family have to hold jobs just to provide the lifestyle formerly provided by one. The Fed is behind the widening gap between rich and poor.

Higher wages are therefore not necessarily a sign of greater wealth. When prices decrease, as long as they do not spiral out of control, even if nominal wages remain the same, people can buy more. They only spin out of control when they were far too high in the first place, as in the case of Japan. The argument that deflation makes people defer spending is only true in such a situation. In normal times, in fact, deflation encourages spending, as we would not have as many cell phones or laptops had prices not fallen from their original highs. We buy them because prices have come down.

Stimulus

Economists, of course, do not agree on the effects of government stimuluses on the economy. The underlying logic seems to favour the state. Politicians who have people convinced they are forced to do what is in the public interest use the stimulus pretext to steal billions of dollars from the productive sector and give it to friends. Remember Solyndra? Remember "green jobs"? GE and China have both received US taxpayer funds for them. Anyone sufficiently well connected to those who control the public purse can make money without earning it. Economist Jeffrey Miron, who looks more favourably on the notion of stimulus spending than I, argues nevertheless that "the administration used the recession and the financial crisis to redistribute resources to favored interest groups (unions, the green lobby, and public education) and to increase the size and scope of government."

When not siphoned off into the pockets of the well connected, stimulus money goes to large-scale infrastructure projects that benefit local politicians because they get to cut a big, red ribbon. The money would be better spent if it went to repairing the old roads and highways that people use; but they do not have ribbons for newly-fixed potholes. The Barack Stimulus is estimated to have created 450,000 public sector jobs and wiped out one million in the private sector.

Profit

If we want an economy at all, we need to stop being afraid of profit. Profit is the incentive that starts and grows businesses. When people profit, they create goods and services we like, they create jobs, they bring themselves out of poverty and into wealth. People who make their money, however many billions, by giving us what we want do not have an obligation to "give back", as they have already given. There is nothing greedy or immoral about profit. It is only immoral if you take it without the consent of the other party (like taxes). Starting a business is hard, hard work, and the risk of failure is high. And yet, the wonderful people who succeed are the people who have given us all the amazing things we take for granted. Entrepreneurs are vastly unappreciated and overpunished in our world.

Furthermore, it is because businesses need to profit that the most powerful check against corporations is the power of the dollar. The only place the people truly rule is in the free market. If a company is considered ethical and offers value, people will buy from it. If you believe that a corporation is bad, you do not have to buy from it. When enough people stop buying from a business, either it changes or it goes bankrupt. The sum total of purchases makes and breaks businesses. The government, on the other hand, is a monopoly you are forced to obey. It cannot go out of business because it does not rely on market forces but violent forces. If government were a firm operating in a free market, it would have been hurled out of business long ago by firms doing what their customers want more effectively and efficiently.

Some people fear that corporations, as they too have lots of money, would develop their own weapons. But why would they? There is no instance in history of a corporation whose product is legal growing in size and taking on the coercive properties of a state, only ones where it has used existing state apparatus of violence to coerce. Business cannot use force. It can only persuade. And of course, no organisation or social system could ever completely do away with fraud, trickery and stealing. But the government not only allows those things to continue, it engages in them on a massive scale. I think we are better off without its protection.

31 Rich and poor

Redistribute wealth?

_What's 'just' has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well, then tell me how much of what I earn 'belongs' to you—and why?_ – Walter Williams

We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them. – William L. Comer

My neighbour has far more money than I do. Should I be allowed to go over there with a gun and force him to pay me? No. When I do that, it is called robbery. But why is it okay for the government to do so? Is it no longer robbery? No, because calling it "law" makes it legitimate. Is it altruistic to force others to give someone else their money? Does anyone else deserve that money? Is taking it from people who earned it justified? Is that the only way to help the poor?

The problem with many statist arguments is they confuse the ideals of government, which vary depending on the person, but which may well include a major redistribution of wealth and opportunities, with the reality, that government does not make us more free, more wealthy, more educated or more equal. The desire to redistribute wealth is an excellent example of this flawed thinking. We need to take more from the rich and give it to the poor. Not only does that rarely happen in practice; such policies do not make things much better for the poor.

If a man acquired his wealth ethically, which means that he provided goods and services that people were willing to pay for, then any so-called transfer or redistribution of that wealth is theft. It punishes the people who contribute most to the general prosperity and provides a disincentive to do more. Because it makes it harder for those people to do what they do best, which is create jobs, wealth, products and services, the argument that redistribution of wealth adds to social welfare falls on its face. It is giving a man a fish. Letting the captains of industry strengthen the economy raises social welfare. If people want to raise their individual welfare, they can upgrade their education, learn new skills and start their own businesses, provide what people want and get paid for it, relying on themselves rather than on force. Alternatively, they can live how they want outside the state and monetary systems.

Why can people not pay for their own insurance and pensions? Perhaps not everyone could, but at the moment everyone pays for everyone else, with the usual bureaucratic administration of an enormous amount of money. And why would it be preferable to organise such things on a national level, rather than a local level? The national government is, of course, delighted to make people think it should be nationalised, but it makes little sense to us on the ground. A good education system would teach people how to manage their finances, rather than expecting the state to come along when in any kind of trouble, and debt and personal bankruptcy would be far less common.

But a redistribution of wealth is not really a redistribution anyway. Even if you believe it is good to use violence to take money from people who have made it legitimately, most of that money does not go to the poor. It goes into the enormous pool of the government revenues, which pay for the generous salaries and pensions of politicians and bureaucrats, subsidies to large farms and airlines, and making war on weaker countries. Does any of it go to the poor? Sure. But not much of it. And the poor are still poor, even after decades of welfare.

Besides, along with their providing jobs, goods and services, wealthy people give to charity. Facts about who gives and how much can be difficult to come by, as many donate anonymously. Nonetheless, we know Bill Gates, who brought the world Windows and revolutionised software, has given some $28b to charity. Warren Buffett, who has financed many successful companies, has given about $40b. Look at what Chuck Feeney does. The Waltons, the Dells and the Rockefellers have all given in the hundreds of millions. And if you get rich, probably making others rich in the process, you can too.

The rich do not want to keep the poor poor. They have not for at least a hundred years, when industrialists like Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller began paying their employees more, in part so that they could buy from the corporations for which they worked. (Also because if they wanted the best workers, they needed to offer more. That is how the labour market works.) No one who is not simply cruel wants the poor to stay poor. The more buying power the people have, the better off the rich, as well as the poor, are.

In a stateless society, equality of wealth is a problem mostly just because of jealousy. It does indeed cause serious problems, such as, to an extent, the riots in the UK during August 2011. But taking from others is not the way to solve those problems. Government is not making the poor any richer. The poor are taxed, just like the rest of us; not necessarily through their income, but through taxes on food, housing, and cell phone plan activation fees to name a few. They are taxed by central bank policies that encourage inflation. One way to make money is to buy assets, something you own that makes you money. Sometimes you need to save to buy assets. Inflation eats away at savings. People with weak skills are kept out of the labour market by minimum wages, which discourage hiring. They cannot start art stands at the side of the road without a permit and government stamps. They might be forced into jobs at big box stores and fast food chains instead of having the freedom to pursue what they are better suited for.

With all that said, how does the state promote equality? Surely, giving one class of people control of the means of violence over a population inevitably results in inequality. It does not follow that, simply because a government builds schools or hospitals, it is necessary for those things. It takes the money to fund them from the same people it gives access to. Why would we think a freer market for such things would not make them cheaper? Freedom from coercion makes everything else cheaper.

Instead of resenting the rich and using violence to take their property, we could either learn how to become rich ourselves, which would benefit everyone, or we could learn to move beyond our base emotion of envy and be content.

Protect us from the rich?

Unfettered market competition—which destroys monopoly, destroys large concentrations of wealth and causes scarcity rents to evaporate—is the greatest weapon of class warfare ever created. – Kevin Carson

A lot of people believe that we need government to protect us from the rich and powerful. I think people who think that way do not understand the nature of government very well, and have it backwards. The rich and powerful use government to become richer and more powerful.

Whatever party comes to power will be the powerful people of your country. They will have control of a big chunk of the money and the ability to make whatever laws they want. The rich will ally with them, they will take their share, as they always do, and the government will continue to protect them, as it always has; or else a new elite will emerge, as after a revolution. I know of no historical precedent for fundamentally changing that situation by getting more people out to vote, or getting the right person in power. That seems like something some people would want us to believe, though. There is no reason to believe a new government results in a diffusion of power.

To think the rich would be more powerful in a voluntary society I believe is wrong, because in fact they would not have any political power, and they would not have state protection. That means no more riot police protecting world-government-G8-WTO-IMF-whatever-you-don't-like meetings—there could be security guards, but the people at the meetings would have to pay for them out of their own pockets. In fact, no more of those billion-dollar photo ops at all; or at least, again, the people eating the escargots would be the ones paying. No government means no more lucrative, insider, no-bid government contracts. It means no subsidies for the well-connected, just the people deciding whom to give their money to. It means no government protection and bailouts for the corporations no one likes, only the whims of the market. It means no more soldiers going to fight for private control of resources overseas and coming back in body bags, or coming back as nervous wrecks who do not get treatment. It means more money for the productive sector, which means more and better-paying jobs. And sure, it might mean the rich go to better schools and get better health care, but I think it is fair to say they already do now.

Some people believe the rich are subsidising the rest of the citizens where they are taxed. They believe that we can only afford "free" education, health care and so on because the rich are being taxed at higher rates than everyone else. True, not all rich people take advantage of all the loopholes in the tax code. However, the question here is not "do the rich pay more in taxes than I do?", but "do the rich receive more from the state than they pay to it?"

The rich would have the most to lose from a stateless society, because they would no longer receive all the various handouts they get in the form of bailouts, subsidies, government contracts, and laws that create barriers to entry and monopolies. There would be no limited liability, so people would be accountable for what they do, rather than hiding behind a legal corporation. And though a bit simplistic, it is basically true that managers of public corporations are legally bound to pursue profit. If there were no laws, that would not be necessary. If there is someone with power, which by definition is unaccountable, and he has the power to tax and pass laws, he will pass laws that favour rich people so that he can get some of that wealth for himself. The very existence of government is why the elites can concentrate both money and power in their hands and not have to listen to the voters on the bottom. If you are afraid of the rich, let us cut off the money they make from taxpayers. How about eliminating bailouts and stimuluses that take trillions of dollars from the productive sector and hand it to any lobby group from failed banks to the wives of failed bankers?

The system is gamed toward the rich. As much as technology and the globalisation of markets has aided the rich in getting richer, it is wrong to miss out the role of the government in widening wealth and income inequality. Tax rates on the rich are cut repeatedly and barely touched for the poor and middle classes. More to the point, the enormous tax code, which ordinary people struggle with, is full of loopholes. Labour policies have made it harder for private-sector workers to unionise. All of this is made possible when the rich use their wealth to gain control of the levers of power to make themselves richer. If money could somehow be separated from politics, great; I find that proposal thoroughly unrealistic. The ruling class takes the arguments of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and promotes them, and then everyone thinks the economy is a level playing field when it is not. The free market gets the blame for inequality. While a free market would certainly lead to inequality, without the means of violence it would never get so wide. Anthropologist David Graeber explains.

History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants.

So where does all this talk of "the free market" we supposedly live under come from? From those introducing the violence of law and making it unfree. The more policymakers can claim a free market is the problem, the more they are arguing for power in their own hands. Look at Joseph Stiglitz, one of the most respected economists working today, Nobel Prize winner and baldfaced liar when discussing the free market. But the belief is, a Nobel-Prize-winning economist who worked in the highest levels of government must know what's going on. The more state involvement in the economy, the more opportunity it has to transfer wealth to the rich.

The more wealth is concentrated in the hands of one person, the more others will attempt to rob that person. As such, he or she needs greater and greater security. At the moment, the rich outsource their security to the state, which means they get the taxpayers to pay for the defense of their property. The police protect the rich and beat the poor, and yet everyone is paying for them.

Then there is this perpetual fear that voluntaryism would mean that the rich would have their own private militias to take from everyone else. Well, what do you think the government is? It is a tool of the elites to take from everyone else. But it is also a professional marketing team, selling the illusion that it works, or maybe that it can work, for the people, so that people keep showing up on election day, and the elites keep going to the bank. At least in a free market, rich people would need to pay for their own militias. But I do not know why they would want them. Everyone can pay private security firms for protection, but obviously rich people would not need to use militias to steal from others if they already have money. Of course, voting for a party promising to redistribute wealth is similar to using a militia to steal from others. Left-wing government is not a tool for revolution.

If you really resent the rich that much, do not give them your business. It is as simple as that. If Sam Walton is a bad person, do not shop at Walmart. If Ray Kroc spent money to finance wars in South America (I'm pretty sure he doesn't, by the way), you could stop going to McDonald's and shame those who do.

Having no state, no concentrated political power, would probably mean a more egalitarian society, not less.

With all this said, the influence of money can be just as corrupting as having power over the means of violence. Violence is used to gain money; money is used to gain power. Even wealth acquired legitimately according to the NAP can corrupt a person. I used to scoff at the idea that money was power, because power is about forcing people. But money can be used to buy the means of violence. In a stateless society, this would mean things like security guards, but it could conceivably mean private armies. As this book explains in several places, there are ways to minimise and eliminate the power private individuals can accumulate over others. Nonetheless, the ideal is not simply hoping our options help us avoid violence but vigilantly pursuing them. Democratic societies face a greater challenge in that the ambitious have a ready-made vehicle for doing taking power. But stateless societies are not immune to coercion.

Save the poor?

"If there were no government, what would be done about poverty?" What is the government doing about poverty now? Governments have had anti-poverty policies for decades and poverty has not gone away. If anything, it has become entrenched. Welfare, in fact, pays people to fail; and if they succeed, the money is taken away from them. On welfare, the incentive is to stay poor and unproductive. The same goes for unemployment insurance. Free people, on the other hand, prosper.

The more people depend on the state, the more people there are to defend it. About half of American households now receive direct monetary benefits from the federal government (not including corporate welfare). One out of every seven Americans, and one out of every four American children, is on food stamps, 14m more than 2008. In 2011, around 55m Americans received $727b in Social Security benefits. That figure is likely to leap skyward as the baby boomers retire. One out of six Americans is on Medicaid, another figure set to rise as the economy declines and Obamacare sets in. Before the so-called War on Poverty of Lyndon Johnson, poverty was declining in the US. LBJ had other plans. Now, more Americans depend on the state than ever before.

It must be laid bare that I do not oppose welfare as such. I oppose the welfare state. If welfare as we know it were eliminated, members of communities would give each other a hand. Friends and neighbours naturally help each other out. Networks of mutual aid would develop, as they have for centuries (see chapter 42). But the question remains, would we even need welfare in the absence of the state?

Many anarchists and others charge voluntaryists with being willing to let poor people starve in the street. However, there is no reason they should. Aside from those who choose poverty (such as Buddhist monks or hermits), it is not necessary that anyone in a voluntary society be poor. First, poverty is not inevitable. There is no necessary, minimum amount of poverty. Second, those who are involuntarily poor can avail themselves of charity and mutual aid. Both are widespread even in statist societies; in societies free of states claiming to help the poor, they would most likely spread. Moreover, we will have access to a wider range of work than we do today, as whole industries that were once highly-regulated, monopolised or criminalised open up to everyone. They can become self employed, start businesses or start cooperatives. Finally, with no taxes of any kind, no one is forced into a monetary system. Anyone has the option to build one's own property and grow one's own food in one's apartment or on a farm. As such, we are not forced to compete, either. We might need to work hard and save to acquire luxuries such as cars and computers, but the basics of life would be available to all.

The more people depend on anti-poverty programmes, the more poverty there is. Governments set arbitrary measures for what they deem the poverty line, and they do not want to see numbers of poor people go down. They do not want to save money. They want to legitimise taking more of it. By government figures, millions of people are below the poverty line, due to a financial downturn the government caused, then exacerbated and prolonged. We need to spend more, pass more legislation, create new departments, so that we can get people out of poverty. It has not worked. We still have poor people, and government has done nothing to change that. And why would it? The incentives are stacked against it.

The state is not a humanitarian organisation. It is not a conference on how to get things done and make the world better. It is a vehicle for concentrating and expanding power. Do you think it wants to get people off welfare? The more people depend on the state, the more are committed to the parties and the politicians who promise them more money; the more justification there is for expanding the bureaucracy and the power and scope of government; the more opportunities there are to give money or favourable legislation to pressure groups. That is how government works. More spending for any reason, even ostensibly to help the poor, will not solve any of society's problems.

Welfare has existed before and beyond the welfare state. The welfare state as we know it emerged during World War Two. Governments wanted to maintain the massive spending they had begun, as reducing spending means reducing government power, and governments hate relinquishing an inch of territory they have grabbed.

There are ways in which government can alleviate poverty, but simply channeling tax money to the poor is not one of them. Property rights and legal contracts help, though those things are part of the reciprocal nature of normal human trade and interaction; a state that takes away your property through taxation is not a guarantor of it. (Does the state confiscate property and give it to the rich? Yes.) Businesses operating in a free market end poverty. Look at China, or any of the middle income Asian economies. Walmart alone has brought millions of people out of poverty. People complain about sweatshop labour, but how else do they think hundreds of millions of people could have sent their children to school? Conditions are terrible, but if they were better, they would be more expensive and the corporations would hire fewer workers, be less productive and have less profit to invest back into their operations.

Although I believe the perspective I have just outlined is basically true, there is more to the story. One does not have to be a bleeding heart to see the flaws in sweatshops and the exploitation of the poor. If the poor are able to own their own land, they could use it as collateral to take out a loan and build their own factory on their own terms. They could still engage in international trade, but they would be a cooperative, rather than a multinational corporation. They would have ownership, always preferable to dependence or coercion. They would have dignity. Predatory governments and corporations do not give the poor independence, which is why they have so much trouble climbing out of poverty.

Poverty is beaten with economic growth. That was true during Europe's development, America's development, the development of the Asian tigers, and it will hold anywhere. Economic growth means clean drinking water, better nutrition, reduced child mortality, more access to electricity (which replaces burning much dirtier coal, wood and dung), and the freedom to take care of yourself and do what you want with your life. But economic growth takes time. It is not something that the government can fix in a few months with stimulus packages, regulations, makework projects and redistribution of wealth. People need to be able to start their own businesses and operate them without knowing thousands of pages of regulations and tax codes or paying dozens of bribes. It takes many years of free enterprise for people to understand, adjust to and plan according to a set of rules, which cannot happen when the government keeps adding to and changing them.

Not only does government hamper growth: as we saw when we discussed the 2008 meltdown, cooperation between big government and big business tore down the economy, and those who caused the crash got rich off it. Responsibility is possible, but under a state system only the poor and middle classes are expected to be responsible. Debt is always negotiable for the powerful, but for the powerless masses it is a duty, a moral obligation. Bankers who ran to the government for bailouts for mismanaging their businesses are now foreclosing on people. The irony is staggering. The latter are now slaves to their personal debts and slaves to their governments' debts.

Who are the poorest people in North America? Native Americans. The indigenous people. Why is that? It is obviously not for lack of government assistance. In fact, it is _because of_ government assistance, and other regulations (like Canada's "Indian Act"), that they are poor. It is because handouts called "help" are not actually help. The US government spends an average of $7000 per native on health care, in contrast to $2000 for other Americans; and yet natives still do not get good health care. The problem is with the incentives. Natives who pull themselves up by their bootstraps do just as well as anyone else; those who remain under government stewardship are crippled by dependence. They do not own their resources, meaning they do not have property rights. As Hernando de Soto explains in _The Mystery of Capital_ , the right to own property is a major factor in enabling people to increase their earning power, because if they own their land and house and what they make, they can put it up as collateral for a loan, which means they have credit, which enables them to expand their farms or businesses and make more money off them. It is the same principle as that of microloans. Government bones do not help; property rights might.

In fact, the poor can prosper in spite of government by working in the black market. The black market has a bad name; after all, the black market for drugs is in part a violent one. But not all black markets are marked by violence. A self-starting entrepreneur who does not use violence, does not ask for help from the state and does not register with it is a counter-economist (see chapter 41). Close to 1.8b people—about half the workers in the world—are living off the books, making a living with no help from the state. As regulation increasingly chokes the legal market, the black market is thriving, very roughly estimated at $10t worldwide. They are selling every kind of product and service, from fruit to medicine to electronics to jewelry to utilities like water and electricity. No less significantly, the black market is bridging the digital divide and bringing technology to poor people at prices even they can afford.

If the people think something is a good idea, it will get done. And if they are not willing to pay for it, how could it be all right to force them to? That one is lost on me. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is okay to force people to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and the fire department. I can understand that, although I still think people would pay for those things themselves, and save money by purchasing from a competitive market rather than a sclerotic public sector. I really do not see why they would not. We help those in need because we are sympathetic, we take time and money to improve our neighbourhoods because everybody gains, especially people who are recognised as putting their time and effort into doing so.

In fact, if you really want to help others here are two suggestions. First, get rich. You can start a business, hire people, create wealth and spread it around by investing and spending it. Second, buy from small business. Small businesses are started and operated by people who would rather take major risks and create value than be dependent on others. Every time you buy from your local grocer or newsstand, you are working to prevent poverty. Shopping at Walmart and giving your savings to charity is backwards. Third, engage in mutual aid.

Why do you think every culture and every religion has some tradition and institution for dealing with poverty? It is because the desire to help others is universal. Try it out some time: if you feel bad, do not try to get more for yourself; do something for others. Give something of yours away. Spread love to other people. As you shed your selfishness, you will feel better. It is a universal of human nature.

32 Government knowledge is not superior knowledge

You're gouging on your prices if  
You charge more than the rest.   
But it's unfair competition   
If you think you can charge less.

A second point that we would make   
To help avoid confusion:  
Don't try to charge the same amount:   
That would be collusion!

You must compete. But not too much,  
For if you do, you see,   
Then the market would be yours   
And that's monopoly

The inventive state

The government has done good things, right? Well, how do we know what would have got done if the people paying for those things had not had all that money? Admittedly, we would not have as many space ships or nuclear weapons as we do today, but we might have found cures for various diseases, new technologies that consume less energy, and other things people want. Nearly all discoveries and innovations that have helped ordinary people have come from private individuals and businesses, without government subsidy.

Modern science is sometimes cited as an outcome of government funding, but a mere glance at history reveals governments prosecuting scientists like Galileo with controversial views, while scientists have worked since the beginning of science without government support. There seems to be a modern belief that the reason for all progress since the beginning of the state system is the state, and that we could not have evolved the good life without it. But that proposition begs the question, assuming that the progress society has made is the right kind of progress, and relies on the counterfactual that there would have been less "progress", however defined, without the state. This chapter aims to challenge those beliefs.

The state was an early adopter of the computer, and made it more powerful (though to say the state invented it is not accurate). But imagine if it had been kept the exclusive property of the state. First, the innovations that have taken place on the relatively free, competitive market have made computers far better and cheaper than they would have been under government. In a competitive market, the demand from consumers drives innovation as one company attempts to outsell its rivals. When government is the only buyer, as of fighter jets for example, the bidding process is not competitive. The benefits go to those connected to the people with power over the budget. We would only have a few "supercomputers", instead of millions of them.

Second, it would be used against the people as a tool of enormous power (when backed up by force) over someone without one. Power should be decentralised, so that people who want to be free can defend themselves against those who want to use and control them. The more people have computers, the better.

Now think of the internet. The government did not invent it to help people share and collaborate all around the world, make available to everyone an incalculable amount of information or open up vast new world of market space for business. But because the internet has been decentralised, the power, or freedom, that it affords has spread far and wide.

The nanny state

Some statists seem to expect government to protect them from any and all dangers. Never mind that it cannot; it will not even try. Take the issue of child car seats. As Steven Levitt explains, the facts on child car seats were available, but government did what was popular and would feed a special interest—creating a law forcing children under 2 to use car seats—instead of reading them. How many children died for votes?

Another example of the backfiring of the call for government to save the day (the Nanny State) relates to the law governing the use of cell phones when driving. The law said that cell phones could not be used while driving unless using a hands-free device. But as explained in the book _the Invisible Gorilla_ , the problem is not with our hands. Studies found that people talking on the phone while driving were far more likely to have crashes than those who were not, regardless of where their hands were. The problem is that any talking on a phone (as distinct from talking to someone else in the car) is a major distraction. Now, we have a law that does not protect anyone except the people who make hands-free devices, a new special interest group that will fight like stray dogs to keep the law in place.

And protection of big business is the only reason I can conceive why the US government would outlaw the sale of raw milk.  But because we are told we need the government to protect us, and that it does, people presume that is the purpose of this law. Government protects corporations far more than it protects us from them. Democrats who call for legal action against companies like Monsanto do not seem to understand how many laws there are behind Monsanto already, and how many Monsanto employees are well-positioned government insiders. Asking the government to take down Monsanto, or GE, or the defense contractors, is like asking a man to shoot himself in the foot for your benefit.

Not all recycling saves resources. Sometimes throwing something away is better than recycling. Yet, in San Francisco, you can get fined up to $500 for not sorting your garbage properly. UK citizens are getting hit with big fines littering, putting too much trash in their bins, leaving their bins on the road at the wrong time of day and not sorting their recycling properly. "These days, a householder must know whether a tea bag is considered to be 'food' or 'non-recyclable'." Quite right, for as we all know, ignorance of every single tiny law is no excuse. A city in California requires a permit to hold a Bible study group. A church in Louisiana was ordered to stop giving out water because they did not have a permit for that. Does the water need to be inspected? Do the Bibles? Is all this government control really necessary? In fact, is any?

The monopoly creator

If you want government action to take down big corporations, how about getting rid of the intellectual property laws that create monopolies? Intellectual property enables the owner to mark prices up far beyond what they would be were they subjected to competition. Today, we even have corporations owning strains of rice! How ridiculous. This is a fine example of the bankruptcy of the argument that corporations are too powerful because the government is too weak. Governments could easily break this monopoly if they wanted to. They have a monopoly on the legal use of force. But they are unwilling. Patenting rice is impossible without the collusion of government.

How many people will die because a "free trade" agreement between India and the EU hobbles Indian firms developing generic drugs? This law, this distortion of the market masquerading as free trade, will render almost impossible the buying of cheap drugs for diseases such as HIV for those most vulnerable to them. Kevin Carson explains that drug patents are unnecessary to recoup expenses and develop the most effective drugs.

First of all, there has been a dramatic shift away from fundamentally new kinds of blockbuster drugs, because it's much more cost-effective to put money into tweaking the formulas of drugs whose patents are about to expire just enough to qualify for repatenting them—so-called 'me, too drugs.' Second, a great deal of the basic research on which drug development is based is carried out at government expense in publicly-funded universities. Around half of the overall cost of drug R&D is taxpayer-funded. And in the United States, under the terms of legislation passed in the 1980s, the patents on drugs developed entirely at taxpayer expense are given away—free of charge—to the drug companies that produce and market them. Third, most of the actual R&D cost for developing drugs comes, not from testing the version of a drug actually marketed, but from securing patent lockdown on all the other major possible variants.

Generic drugs do not get developed, or get banned as soon as they are, because they are competition. The poor people who need them most do not get them. Intellectual property, Carson concludes, is murder.

Government failure

The state's protecting big business is largely to blame for these problems. Though the unintended consequences of incompetence and grandiose schemes are dangerous, at least as harmful is government failure. Like market failure, government failure leads to an inefficient allocation of resources. However, while market failure leads to resolvable problems like negative externalities and private problems like the principal-agent problem, government failure is predictable and avoidable, and leads to massive destruction of wealth.

Here are some examples of government failure.

\--Monopolies. Monopolies tend to lead to inefficiency and abuse. In _Markets Not Capitalism_ , Charles W. Johnson explains that the state has a monopoly on huge swathes of the economy. It has a monopoly on security, and trillions of dollars' worth of security apparatus to use as it likes. It owns land and natural resources, fabricating land titles, instituting complex land-use and construction codes, and the capture of others' property by use of eminent domain. It controls the money supply, enriching bankers and criminalising alternative forms of currency that people could use to avoid inflation. It grants monopoly privilege to patent and copyright holders. It has a monopoly on the building of infrastructure, artificially lowering fees of transportation at the taxpayers' expense, instead of turning it over to the private sector where it can save money and save lives. It has a monopoly on regulation, which largely protects big business at the expense of small, creating new monopolies. Finally, it decides everything that crosses its borders, from the amount of goods and the fees for them to the movement of people.

Milton Friedman called a situation which seems like it needs to be a monopoly, such as of plumbing or power lines, a technical monopoly. There are three ways to deal with a monopoly: private monopoly, government monopoly and government regulation. Friedman argued that, in a world of rapid technological change, a private monopoly was preferable. If government has a monopoly, there is no chance for competition and its benefits (lower prices, greater efficiency, wealth creation, innovation). If one business has a monopoly, there may be some way around it, and other people might be able to find a solution.

\--Regulatory capture. State regulatory agencies claim to level the playing field, or help small business, or uphold health, environmental and labour standards. What frequently ends up happening, however, is that the private interests of one or a few industry players come to dominate the agencies, turning the state to their advantage and to the disadvantage of most firms and customers of the industry. In modern states, every industry is regulated, and most or all industries have become captive or rigged markets in this way. The revolving door is one type of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is perhaps the main thing holding back a free market.

\--Political or regulatory risk. Regulatory risk is the chance that regulations or the tax code will change. Adjusting to changes makes trouble for businesses, especially when the change was deliberate to benefit one or a few companies at the expense of the industry. Political risk may be synonymous with regulatory risk, or it might mean greater problems caused by legislators. Shutting down a firm or seizing its assets is a major risk. The examples of Gibson Guitars and marijuana dispensaries in previous chapters demonstrate this problem is alive and well in the US.

Political risk holds back investment. The term was once used only for places like Africa and Latin America where it was feared that a wayward government would nationalise or seize the assets of foreign investors, or just arbitrarily raise corporate taxes by 50%. But with their enormous debts, their trillion-dollar handouts to giant corporations and their seemingly-endless, arbitrary regulations, the US and EU have become political risks.

New political teams like to try new, untested ideas. The Barack administration introduced a raft of new regulations, and continues to do so, as for some reason it believes more government control over business and market forces will help the economy. New and arbitrary rules inhibit business. Robert Higgs calls this endless tinkering and micromanaging "regime uncertainty", and cites it as a reason the Great Depression went on so long. Lee Doren of BureauCrash suggests that the reason why businesses are not investing and hiring right now is "they are scared. They have no idea what politicians in Washington are going to do. They are treating the economy like a little kid's chemistry set." Most businesses benefit most from stable political climates where inflation is low or non existent, the market feedback mechanism provides the regulatory framework and the government's moves are predictable.

Regulate us safe from corporations

When the government promises to protect consumers, watch out. There are already laws and market mechanisms to deal with things like collusion and price gouging. If the government or the market were doing their jobs, we would not need extra government "protection". When the government promises it will tackle these things, it uses vague language to widen its scope and take arbitrary actions. Economics professor Gary Galles describes this dangerous situation.

Effective social cooperation can only be built upon clear rules that constrain government arbitrariness as well as abuses by others. But potential government prosecution for violating an essentially undefined law leaves every decision's legality subject to the whim of a judge or executive-agency functionary, exercised after the fact. No one can know what actions are safe from prosecution. And combining arbitrariness with huge potential punishments is an open invitation to government abuse.

The government can selectively punish businesses, and is unlikely to find any of its campaign contributors guilty. "Why would the president make a public show of toughness using an approach and terms that fail basic standards of logic, fairness, and constitutionality? Because it gives him power without responsibility." How could oil companies counter the accusation that they are charging too much? How could the government prove that oil companies' prices are "too high"?

The tough stance on the supposed Big Oil robber barons buys votes from citizens who think gas prices are high because oil companies are gouging them. Oil prices are influenced by many factors, including the wars in Iraq and Libya; the OPEC cartel (governments of oil-producing countries colluding to limit supply and thus raise prices); government restrictions on oil exploration and drilling; conflict between the Nigerian government and indigenous people in the Niger Delta; rising consumption and the expectation of even more; central-bank-induced inflation, which pumps liquidity into the market, making the dollars go searching for something of value and inevitably finding oil, and which pushes down the exchange value of the dollar and thus raises the price of imported oil; and not least gas taxes. But when Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama blame others ("speculators" and the evil Arab are often the culprits), consumers eat it up.

Market power

We do not need government to protect us from corporations when free markets provide the best incentive to behave responsibly. The example of the Tylenol recall of 1982 is instructive to any business hoping to remain successful over time. Someone had laced some bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide, killing seven people. Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of the manufacturer, had a very clear belief system, the main component of which was that customers came first. There was no debate in the office, no need to weigh short-term gain against customers' dying. Johnson and Johnson spent $100m recalling and replacing all Extra-Strength Tylenol. They have been profitable since then. Where was government? Not only was it superfluous; it never found out who spiked the pills.

It is good that we have some kind of organisation that examines food and drugs to keep the public safe, but why does it have to be governmental? There are no medical researchers and consumer watchdogs anymore? Why does there have to be only one, controlled by the fickle hand of government? What if they miss something, accidentally or deliberately?

It is wrong to believe that corporations do literally anything they can to increase their bottom lines. They do what their shareholders want, and shareholders can and do introduce policies, voted on at shareholder meetings, that curb the power of the corporation to, say, pollute the environment. At least as importantly, corporations have to do what their customers want. If customers want the corporation to stop polluting, and boycott the corporation until it does, the corporation will either change or lose business, and maybe go out of business. Consumer activism works. Corporations have got the message already, which is why many of them have become more ethical in the past few decades.

I have friends who believe in the stereotype that big corporations are bad, but they own laptops, fly in planes, use Google 50 times a day, drink Bacardi and Coke and wash with ten different Procter and Gamble products. What, specifically, is wrong about any of the companies that provide you with the services you live by? Corporations provide what people want, and they create wealth. Some of them, of course, do terrible things. Look how often they connive with the state to start wars, force indigenous people off their land or overthrow elected governments. The vice chairman of Walmart is in trouble for allegedly giving $24m in bribes to Mexican officials to open Walmarts. Why did they need to bribe? Because that way, even though it could hurt or even kill the local economy, the people who lived there did not have the power to stop them. They know they face the wrath of the state if they try to stop it from doing what benefits the powerful. But not all corporations are a net loss to the world.

If people who buy from big corporations think they are evil, they should stop buying. Have a complaint? Tell Consumer Reports, Epinions.com and RipoffReport.com. Get the word out. Buy from their competitors. But why resort to the violence of the state to take down a corporation whose actions you disagree with? If corporations get away with murder, it is only because unprincipled consumers do not know or do not care.

Perhaps they do not like big corporations for using the state to pass favourable laws and give them subsidies. But what is the root of this problem? That corporate types are greedy? That the state can be taken over by special interests? Or that a single organisation has the power to do these things in the first place?

Therefore, if you do have a problem with a company, try a boycott. A boycott is a market mechanism for action against businesses if ever there was one. And there are plenty of success stories. Other forms of activism can accompany boycotts. One might try to blacklist someone who owns, works for or buys from a corporation that acts immorally; in other words, do not let them in your stores and clubs. Segregation in the southern US was exposed as immoral not when the national guard was called in, but before that, when students in Nashville sat quietly at segregated lunch counters where they were not allowed. The violence perpetrated against them by racists and the state worked in their favour, and they captured enough hearts and minds to win desegregation. Simple acts of civil disobedience frequently go much further than calling on the state to impose our goals on others by force.

The government has no role in a free market. Economist Dani Rodrik argues

Modern markets need an infrastructure of transport, logistics, and communication, much of it the result of public investments. They need systems of contract enforcement and property-rights protection. They need regulations to ensure that consumers make informed decisions, externalities are internalised, and market power is not abused. They need central banks and fiscal institutions to avert financial panics and moderate business cycles. They need social protections and safety nets to legitimise distributional outcomes.

Let us consider what he seems to take as given.

Much public investment has been made in infrastructure, but now investors and businesses are large enough that they do not need governments to invest in those things anymore. Communities can pool their wealth. Do we really need government to start logistics companies and own ports when there are a dozen large and many more small international logistics companies? Contracts and property rights might be better protected by private, polycentric law. Regulations do not ensure that consumers make informed decisions, that externalities are internalised and that market power is not abused. Expecting them to goes against all history.

In fact, negative externalities, which seem to be the reason people beg the government to get involved in the market, are easily externalised in a statist society. The same big corporations pollute and break the law repeatedly. They are sued by the government, they pay the government, which means it gets another legal donation from an interest group, and then they are allowed to continue business as usual. The lawsuits are a bone thrown to voters and the corporations shake them off like lice. But they give the appearance that justice has been done. The corporations nonetheless retain all the benefits they get from the state in the form of legal personhood, subsidies, tax loopholes, intellectual property and regulatory barriers to competition. The state does not protect us against negative externalities.

Consumer information does not come from government: it comes from consumers' own research, sharing of information through forums and word of mouth. That is how it has always spread, and there is no reason to believe government knowledge of the current state and future direction of a market is superior to those of the people on the ground, or that it can more effectively get the word out than the people on the ground. Central banks and other fiscal institutions (Freddie and Fannie perhaps?) obviously do not avert financial panics and moderate business cycles; in fact, they contributed significantly to the most recent market meltdown, and to a number of the previous ones as well. Governments create moral hazard by being the lender of last resort to everyone from people who cannot pay their mortgage to the biggest banks in the system, which received hundreds of billions in tax dollars (and whose executives still got their bonuses) because they were well connected. Talk about a major externality!

And I don't know what Professor Rodrik means by "legitimise distributional outcomes", but if people were not taxed so much (or even when they are) they could create their own safety nets. I do not see the advantage of charging everyone to relieve all people of responsibility when only a small percentage are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Then, in the same article, he says that democracies "are still our best safeguard against arbitrary rule." Democracy does not protect against arbitrary rule: all government is arbitrary rule. The best way to avoid arbitrary rule by others is to protect oneself from force.

A free market may, in fact, make an existing government worse. A free market economy is likely to be very wealthy, far wealthier than we have today, and less prone to crashes. As such, a government in power could appropriate that wealth and make itself more powerful in other ways. Furthermore, the technological revolution would not slow down. Governments use existing technologies to make police and militaries tougher, airport screeners more invasive, spy services better at domestic surveillance (i.e. spying on its own citizens), and so on. If we have a free market, we can neither trust the government to regulate it, nor refrain from stealing from it.

Where our money goes

But perhaps it is not stealing if the money is spent in ways that improve the economy over the long term. Taxpayers like to believe their money is being spent wisely on projects that will benefit everyone. Is it?

One estimate finds the US federal government has 55,000 under-utilised or not-utilised office buildings. Another states it costs $25b to maintain unused or vacant federal properties. The US federal government spends $60,000 an hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in front of national landmarks.

A Government Accountability Office audit found nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards to be improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Taxpayers funded gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Over 18 months, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars on entertainment, including gambling, cruises, dance clubs and prostitutes.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year because nearly 20% of government employee travel charge cards are delinquent. $146m a year would be saved if all federal employees flew coach like most of the people they are believed to represent. And the Department of Defense wasted $100m on unused flight tickets that were refundable. The Government Accountability Office finds out some of the darndest things.

Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines, along with $24,730 to lease a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on personalized calendars. Why worry about bribery when the people at the top have access to so much money for practically anything?

The Securities and Exchange Commission spent nearly $4m to rearrange its offices in Washington, DC. High-ranking officials get their offices painted for $50,000 apiece.

In 2008, while the housing and financial markets were crashing, the federal government spent $200,000 on a tattoo removal programme in California and $350,000 to sponsor a NASCAR driver. Was there nothing better the government could spent that money on?

Sure, there was. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends $175m every year to maintain hundreds of buildings it does not use (while veterans sleep on the streets). The Department of Energy spends $190m a year on electricity, while that bill could go down by more than $2m with efficient lighting alone. The Department of Agriculture spent $8.6m marketing alcohol abroad. Taxpayers treated the Federal Aviation Administration to a $5m "conference" that amounted to a three-week Christmas party. And presidents apparently take multimillion-dollar vacations while talking about why they need more money to help people.

If taxpayer money were for funding smart investments, why would the US government have spent $615,000 digitising Grateful Dead memorabilia or $3m on research into playing World of Warcraft? Why would it pay $800,000 to construct an IHOP? Or $500,000 to paint a chinook salmon on a Boeing 737? Where did the $120m it paid in 2011 alone in pensions to dead federal employees go? What was it thinking when it spent $3b re-sanding American beaches when the sand just washed back into the ocean? And for its own inscrutable reasons, it spent $175,587 to fund a study into the effects of cocaine on the sexual behaviour of Japanese quail and $500m to find a solution to the problem of 5-year-old children who cannot sit still. Can I guess the solution lies with pharmaceuticals? Are you angry yet? Or are you sticking your fingers in your ears and rationalising all these things?

Why do governments believe it legitimate to take money from people and spend it on frivolities? That money would be spent far more efficiently by the people who earned it. They could spend it on themselves or others, helping each other out, investing, producing, trading with one another and saving for the future. Do you not think you should have more money to spend, and be forced to give less of it to the state, who will waste most of it? Do you not think others should be offered the same respect? But being in government is not about finding wise uses for the people's money. It is for gaining the benefits of power.

Governments did not predict the financial downturn; in fact, they created and exacerbated it. The same governments who think digging deeper into the same hole will get you out of it do not listen to the Austrian school of economics, however, the school that predicted not only the 2008 meltdown but the Dotcom and 1929 crashes as well. Why would they not listen to them? Because governments do not seek wisdom; they seek shovels.

33 Intervention, central banks and planning

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. – Friedrich Hayek

We can be so clueless when it comes to what governments are capable of. Never mind that the state has only token incentive to do what its constituents want. Regarding many of their demands, it simply cannot. Citizens want governments that create wealth (or prevent its destruction). How do they think wealth is created? Governments cannot fix the economy, as if it were a motorcycle. They cannot grow the economy, as if it were a garden. An economy is a complex mass of interactions that no one person, organisation or clique could oversee with any dependability. Attempts to intervene into the economy by a few technocrats is to presume they somehow know what is right (and will actually do what is right) better than the people performing all those interactions. Complex systems are most stable when power is widely distributed, not when government-created oligopolies control the commanding heights of the economy and busybodies tell us what we cannot do.

Friedrich Hayek pointed out an economic order is not constructed from above because the knowledge required to make the right decisions about what people want and for what price is "dispersed, contextual and often tacit."

[His explanation was] the price system enables us to make use of the knowledge possessed by others, even when those others cannot articulate or put into statistics exactly what it is that they know. Without directly accessing others' minds, we are able to have some knowledge about what they value that, in turn, enables us to allocate resources in ways that match those valuations.

Government planners, or any other individuals or small groups, could never accumulate and synthesise all the information necessary to control the never-ending process of creative destruction in a modern economy.

Commentators who are slightly more realistic call governments "stewards" of the economy. When they praise the stewards of the economy, they usually mean that the government's policies have not wrecked the economy, or at least that their most deleterious effects have not yet struck enough people to give the press an obvious candidate for blame. Let us first examine inflation.

John Maynard Keynes once said "[t]he best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." Since central banks have positioned themselves as the saviours of the economy, inflation has eaten away at savings with painful results. The only reason we would need the state to guarantee our retirement accounts (aside from our own irresponsibility) is that it has spent our entire lives destroying the value of the currency through the printing of money, and whatever we saved over our lives will only be worth a fraction by the time we retire.

Inflation is caused chiefly by an increase in the money supply. As the supply of money increases, demand for it falls and more money is needed to buy fewer goods. Central banks increase the money supply. Inflation is not automatic, nor is it inevitable. It is a response to a realisation that there is more money in circulation. So prices rise over time. But the people who get the money when it is first circulated will be able to spend or invest it before it trickles down and lowers the cost of money overall. In the US, because of the Federal Reserve System, the people who get the money first when the central bank prints more of it are bankers, those banks that make up the Fed. The Fed creates money but not _value_ , which is the true measure of economic growth. Since its inception in 1913, the Federal Reserve's inflationary policy has left the US dollar at 2 cents of its previous value. And yet, its apologists claim that the Fed _fights_ inflation. Printing money is always done in the name of "the greater good", that statist chimera, but really it benefits the banks who are the first recipients of the money before prices begin to rise and catch up to the money supply. When the state prints money, bankers win, and everyone else loses.

Others say that inflation is good policy because if the value of people's money is decreasing, they have an incentive to spend, which keeps the economy growing. Deflation can be a huge problem (though not necessarily) but a constant money supply means the value doesn't change (or at least would probably change only gradually). That makes it easier for everyone to know what to expect. They can allocate their resources accordingly. Inflation might get out of control, and it sometimes does. A little government intervention goes a long way–almost always in the wrong direction. How could anyone advocate consumption over savings in these days of unsustainable retirement funds? People will need to learn how to save again if they want their standards of living to rise; but saving is meaningless if inflation will consume your nest egg. But the best argument against inflation is that the government has no wisdom or right to reduce the value of your savings or tell you what to do with your money and when.

Governments also like to plan. Many statists who consider the Soviet Union a foolish project bound to fail nonetheless advocate some form of economic planning. Economist James K. Galbraith wrote in Harper's a few years ago that the government needs once again to plan.

What the government needs most today is to regain an _independent_ capacity to think. The government needs a way to imagine the future that is not dominated by lobbies or even by Congress so long as Congress is dominated by lobbies. Planning is a process: thinking, coordination, action. What is the long-term national interest? What specific targets must be met? What is the best way to do it, and who plays what role?

This argument contains several questionable premises. First, it makes the old assumption that government information and wisdom is superior to that of people on the ground, you know, the ones actually doing the work. Hayek has already blown this argument apart. We can only imagine how people's potential would be liberated in a free market.

Second, governments have little capacity or desire to escape the clutches of lobbies. Not only do they provide the money politicians need to get elected, and are thus heavily rewarded after the election, but many lobbyists or big-business types become politicians or high-ranking bureaucrats, and vice versa. Lobbies are not just in bed with the government; they _are_ the government. Any appearance of detachment from lobbies is an illusion.

Third, we need to get beyond this thinking about "the national interest". There is no national interest. Every nation is made up of people who disagree about the right policies and will all be affected differently by them. All policies produce winners and losers, with special interests taking home most of the prizes. We do not need nations, or national economies, or national governments. These things are inventions that only benefit those who exploit nationalism for their own gain. All people have self interest, which could easily be at odds with national interest, that they are not allowed to pursue if their money and labour is going toward the national interest. The national interest is how politicians paint themselves as selfless.

The national interest is in fact a codeword for the national government's interest, which could easily be at odds with that of the people themselves. The people might want to spend their money on a wide array of electronic devices, the treatment of a variety of diseases, and their startup businesses. What if the government says we should be spending it on desktop PCs, AIDS and state-run monopolies? It will take away people's money to pay for those things, thus taking away their freedom to get what they really want. If we do not like the plan, we still have to follow and pay for it. How could that be right?

As such, planning according to a national interest is yet another state illusion. Thomas Sowell in Economic Facts and Fallacies wrote "What is called 'planning' in political rhetoric is the government's suppression of other people's plans by superimposing on them a collective plan created by third parties armed with the power of government and exempted from paying the costs that these plans impose on others."

Planning is fine on a low level. We each have specific knowledge that we can use to make our lives richer. It involves cost-benefit analysis conducted by the people the plan involves. A politician's cost-benefit analysis is purely related to the perceived popularity of the rhetoric he or she uses to sell the plan or policy (and what he or she will personally gain from it). A free market permits prices to emerge from the sum of people's localised knowledge. Government does not have that knowledge, so it cannot take personal situations into account when planning. Governments suffer from what Hayek called the economic calculation problem. There is no way any bureaucrat or collection of them could possibly have the knowledge to make sound decisions for the entire economy. Planning thus sacrifices the individual on the altar of "progress" or "the public good". Many small plans work to further the greater good; one big plan does not. Trying to steer markets would only work if those on the bottom were not individuals with individual ideas and plans for their own lives. It would also be necessary to predict changes. That was hard enough during the Great Depression; now the pace of change and the number of black swans out there is unprecedented.

Families, kibbutzim and monasteries live according to "from him according to his abilities to each according to her needs". Cooperatives do so to a lesser extent as well. Planning can work when it is done voluntarily. Forced equality, or coercive communism, like in the USSR, does not work. It is not the communal nature of things that fails but a) the very wide scope of attempted planning and b) the coercive side of planning. And all government is coercive.

A free market, free of government plans, would mean everyone is pursuing his or her self interest. Many people who do not understand economics or Adam Smith's invisible hand metaphor see self interest as detrimental. We should let the government decide what our common goals are, they say. But this view is misguided. A market that allocates resources efficiently works on self interest, competition and supply and demand. Economies grow when people trade independently of force. Why a politician's or bureaucrat's self interest would be more enlightened than the average person's is a mystery.

The evidence of the magic of the market (the invisible hand) is all around us in the rich world. Everywhere you look, you see people pursuing their self interest, working at jobs or their own businesses for other people's money. When we buy things from each other, from a pack of gum to the sweat off our brows, we both win. Few people cheat, even when they would lose nothing from doing so.

Government "investment", or deficit spending, is meant to kickstart a lethargic economy. Does it really work that way? Keynesians seem to believe that whatever enormous spending the government undertakes is investment, which is superior to consumption, at least if done strategically. But if the people have their own money, they can consume and invest, and consumption itself is buying from people who invest. Why is government investment better than private investment? It isn't. Government spending is so terribly inefficient that I am surprised there are any Keynesians left in the world. But of course, any group of economists that give governments a reason to spend will win friends in national capitals. One reason it is so inefficient is moral hazard: I don't care what happens to money that isn't mine. Private investors, on the other hand, are scrupulously careful with their money because it is _their own_.

Paul Krugman is an interesting example of such thinking. I agree with some of his analysis of the problems he discusses, but do not understand his prescriptions. They seem naïve, as if he is not listening to himself. For instance, when he argued in May 2011 that foolish and self-interested elites caused the economic problems we have with us now, he seems to believe that we need better elites on the ballot paper. How would that help? The new elites would have the same incentives and pressure groups because they would occupy the same seats. Paul Krugman does not advocate crony capitalism, of course; in fact, he abhors it. But he argues for a system that enables it. What we need is not new elites, or more people voting for them (I do not understand what difference that would make), but the complete demolition of the system. If no one has coercive power over the entire economy, there will be no one to wreak havoc on it, only people working in their own small spheres of influence, who generally help economies grow by acting in their self interest.

One problem with modern economies is the people are so used to government intervention, to calling for help every time things go downhill, which of course can mean painful losses of jobs, savings, houses, and so on, they will call on the government to save them. The government persuades them it is the economy itself that needs saving, which might mean bailing out banks and automakers; they know nothing about economics and take the bait. But government intervention into large, modern economies tends to enrich the already-rich, and future generations are saddled with ever more debt. When the time comes to wean the people off government life support, such as in economies experiencing hyperinflation or post-communist states, the most effective method is "shock therapy", the forcing of discipline on a government so that it cannot borrow or print more money. But people are impatient, and the immediate effects of shock therapy are painful. Such is the way, too, when someone living beyond his means finds out he cannot pay his credit card bill.

If some economists had their way, the government would spend and spend until it created the next bubble, because "in the long term we are all dead". There is no mercy in this statement, as our children and their children will either benefit from our wisdom or pay for our mistakes. Bubbles have much to do with government manipulation of interest rates and printing money, and the boom-bust cycle is nearly always exacerbated by government intervention. Indeed, this latest financial crisis may be the result of 100 years of election-cycle-fueled short-term thinking.

The government does not create jobs: it destroys them. Through taxation, the government takes from and thus weakens the part of the economy that is actually making money, which must mean people want what it is producing. The signals of what people want come from how they spend. (That said, it is possible they would like to patch up roads or schools, but they are supposed to wait until the government gets round to that.) The productive sector should be encouraged, especially in a recession. It will create the jobs if it is given back the money it created. Instead, it is punished, and employs fewer people. Its success is confiscated and used, in part, to create jobs that are based on no economic indicators whatsoever. Jobs are created because they are politically popular. If politicians think voters (or special interests) will like the shine on an overvalued infrastructure project, that is what will get done. Politicians get to pretend they have created, rather than destroyed, jobs and people get a shiny new building for storing paper clips.

What are some more public goods we "need" central planning and massive investment for? Do you think universities and libraries could not exist without government? Tell that to Andrew Carnegie, a private industrialist who, after single-handedly reducing the price of steel by 90%, donated millions of dollars of his own money to universities and libraries. Tell it to John D. Rockefeller who, after reducing the price of heating oil by nearly 90%, established colleges in the American South for freed slaves, and donated money for public health, science and the arts. James J. Hill and Cornelius Vanderbilt not only built railroads all over the US but reduced fares considerably, and Henry Ford reduced the price of automobiles enormously. (These people all contributed to a period of deflationary expansion, which some people will tell you is impossible.) These and many more such men are known today as the robber barons, while people who take your money without asking are called democratically-elected leaders. Look up the philanthropy of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and the Waltons, too, and then tell me they are bad people.

But even so, why is it inconceivable that we should pay market prices for universities and libraries? We do for a lot of other government services, like recreational facilities, which can and do operate for profit too. If we got back the money in taxes we used to pay for these things, we could pay for them. And at least then we would have the choice. And sure, we are not completely rational actors, but that is an argument against the intervention of elites. Free markets are flexible and robust and do not collapse due to a few bad decisions. Instead, they tend to provide us with enough choices that prices go down and quality goes up over time. If it is true of food, clothing, housing and other essentials, why is it inconceivable for health care, education and security?

What else does government pay for? Over to you, Professor McMaken.

Take, for example, taxpayer-funded convention centers. The business lobbyists claim that these meeting centers benefit everyone, using the tried and untrue argument that what's good for General Motors is good for America.

It would be far more accurate to describe new tax-funded convention centers as subsidies for the business community. They provide meeting and exhibition space for business groups while adding prestige for business lobbyists and local politicians who can then attend junkets and brag about their new buildings constructed at the public's expense.

The same is true of course about other prestige projects like sports stadiums, Olympic villages, and public-transportation projects like light rail. They are all constructed at massive public expense yet often provide little to nothing in the way of advancing the standard of living of local residents. Studies proving that sports stadiums add nothing to regional wealth, for example, have become so numerous as to be almost cliché.

...If the money were not taxed, it would be left in the hands of private citizens to be spent on what the private citizens have concluded it should be spent on. Some might invest the money, and some might spend those funds on groceries, some on education, some on automobiles, and so on in a nearly infinite number of possible combinations. Each transaction of voluntary exchange would in turn increase the wealth of each participant in the exchange.

On the other hand, if the money were taxed and spent on the correct things (as defined by those who are politically well connected), there would be no net increase in wealth above and beyond what would have occurred in the private market. In fact, the net wealth would go down, because the government would have to take its cut for administering the funds while producing nothing. All that has occurred is a transfer of wealth from one place to another.

In spite of all the trouble stemming from this self-important tinkering with the economy, we continue to believe government intervention is necessary. I can see two reasons for that. First is the illusion of control. We want to feel that someone (preferably ourselves, and if not us, someone who represents our best interest) is in control and can do what is necessary to prevent crises and smooth them out when they do occur. The second is the action bias—the idea that something, anything, must be done, because doing something is better than doing nothing. High-level fiddling with a complex system does not reduce volatility: it aggravates it. But in a democracy, the incentive for a politician is to promise a better outcome, irrespective of the calamity that may ensue.

We do not need government intervention into the economy. Freeing markets entirely of the encumbrances of laws designed either to help the poor or benefit interest groups will free the people's creative energies and their potential in ways we can only begin to imagine.

34 The armed corporation

An understandable fear statists have of a free society is that a corporation, a rich man's militia or some other large entity would one day take up arms and attack and control people. In effect, this fear is identical to the fear of a government: that a small group will get together to take money and freedom away from a larger population. I agree we must remain vigilant about such things, which is why free communities have many options for dealing with such a scenario. There are two major reasons corporations are unlikely to start wars and run around killing: a) The beneficiaries of corporate aggression would need to pay for it themselves; b) their customers could opt out of funding the corporation altogether. These are the differences between business and the state. The hypothetical armed corporation can help to illustrate how a free market protects against any entity that might be used to use violence and concentrate power. Before we go into the options available to people in a voluntary society, let us consider hierarchy.

Traditional anarchist thought is more hostile to hierarchy than voluntaryism. One might say there is hierarchy and authority when one goes to the doctor, or flies in a plane, as there is one person at the top telling those who contract his or her services what to do. But that is not the kind of hierarchy anarchists oppose. Coercive hierarchies centralise control over entire organisations, when they could be owned and controlled cooperatively. Such organisations have some kind of authority, and when they band together, the people at the tops of pyramidal organisations can become corrupt, or people who are already corrupt can rise to the top. If tolerated, that could eventually lead to something resembling the state. At the extreme, some suggest not letting any hierarchical organisation arise because of its coercive nature, and so that no one can use that organisation to gain power over others. Perhaps it is indeed the ideal. Anarchists point out that hierarchy is not necessarily the natural order of things, as some would have us believe. The burden of proof is on those wielding authority to explain why we should accept it, and thus we should be free to reject it. A man or woman at the top of an organisation with sufficient funding has the potential to cause great mischief. Though any organisation, even one run as a cooperative, has that power in theory, the corrupting influence of control of people and money is less likely to affect large groups where no one has power over others than hierarchical organisations the employees of which are scared to deviate from the word of the guy at the top. I sympathise with this point of view and do not necessarily reject it. It may be the ideal. The reason I advocate voluntaryism over anarchism is I do not how we would eliminate any and all coercive hierarchy without butting our noses into other people's contractually-agreed affairs, making trouble for people who form clubs with presidents and vice-presidents and using violence to stop others from following leaders. I would much rather work for cooperatives and live with people who opposed hierarchy than authoritarians who ran hierarchical businesses, but that is my choice as an individual. A voluntaryist would not attempt to destroy a business or an estate owned by people who followed the NAP.

Accordingly, hierarchical business and other organisations would probably continue to exist in a voluntary society. However, if enough people believed in non-aggression, anyone's ability to cause harm would be minimal.

Humans have a sense of reciprocity: you help me and I will help you. The good guys, and good businesses that provide value to their customers, are the ones that succeed over time. Moreover, companies often cooperate in freed markets, to everyone's benefit. That is why the image of the free market as the "law of the jungle" is erroneous. The law of the jungle is where the powerful come to dominate others, which is what a state enables. A free market means businesses would need to provide value, or they would not make money.

There are some psychopaths out there. We do not want to give psychopaths the means of violence, which is the main reason we should deny them access to the levers of the state. But they may also have access to large amounts of money through a corporation on the free market. They will lose from any customers who consider their actions illegitimate, but it is possible those customers will not know. That is why we have the media.

The huge variety of media in our society, from Democracy Now to Fox News to whistleblowers to our friends and family, are one way to tackle organisations that act immorally, because consumers will withhold their dollars if they are deeply opposed to a business's actions. Most consumers make choices based in part on their impressions of the companies they buy from. There have been a number of successful boycotts, which give more credence to the fact that businesses a) are beholden to the market and b) can be pressured by small numbers of ordinary people into changing for the better. Business groups such as the Better Business Bureau ensure that ethical businesses get certain benefits of belonging to clubs and the unethical ones get shunned.

All manner of organisation can use boycotts, along with public shaming of people involved, if their rules for ethical behaviour are broken. Shaming can be a powerful weapon, as we see when we see a man's bad cheque on the side of a cash register. It can be used against those who violate the non-aggression principle, as has been suggested regarding police who use attack unarmed protesters. We need good reputations in life to be able to sign contracts, and we sign many of them over the course of our lives.

Since the people who own and run corporations would no longer have limited liability or other legal protections, the same rules apply to them as to corporations themselves, and anything I say about corporations must apply to the people who make them up. Through private law, people would be able to sue individuals working in the businesses who perform acts of aggression, rather than just suing the corporation. No corporate personhood, no bailouts and other transfers from taxpayers to corporate executives, no regulations preventing small businesses from entering the market: corporations would be far weaker without the state.

They would also have no legal mandate to make a profit, though it is more accurate to say that at the moment they must do what their shareholders want. As not all shareholders of all corporations are purely interested in making money, and others believe ethical behaviour is a way to make money, some of them have taken to shareholder activism, and have made positive changes in the corporations they own that way. Here we have yet another check on corporate power, and I see no reason to believe it would disappear without a government.

The fear of private armies is valid, but thinking we need a government to prevent them is misplaced. Whom does the national military serve? The elite control the state. The state and all its institutions serve the elite. A national military is the private army of the elite. It is paid for by the taxpayers, rather than the elite. In fact, the elite would probably not make money if they needed to pay for their wars themselves.

Some businesses benefit when a state goes to war, but not many. It is usually only the select businesses whose executives and shareholders belligerent governments are beholden to. But the question people who fear a corporation might go to war fail to ask is, who pays for modern war? Taxpayers gain nothing from war; they only lose. Businesses only profit when they get someone else (i.e. taxpayers) to pay for it. If Halliburton had armed itself and gone into Iraq for oil, the costs would have outweighed the benefits. It could have just traded with free people for it and saved millions on weapons.

At the moment, some big corporations, usually oil companies, do attack people indirectly. They move into an area of people with no means to defend their land and the local government defends them against unrest. It is possible to blame the corporations that bribe the state to use violence against these innocent people. However, if the state did not exist, the means of violence would not be paid for by the taxpayer. It would be paid for by customers, who would pay higher prices, and employees, whose wages would be lower. In effect, the tax would shift from individuals who do not benefit to those who do, and the prices might be exorbitant.

Moreover, bad PR costs a lot. People of conscience who find out corporations are employing violence can boycott those corporations. All these things hurt sales. But we cannot force the people in the state who use violence to pay for it themselves, nor can we boycott the state. Thus, the argument that if the state no longer existed, corporations would be just as able to commit violence does not follow. If a corporation stops caring about making money in the marketplace and only extracts it by force, it has become a government. One way or another, voluntaryists oppose the initiation of force by anyone, be it a government, corporation, gang or otherwise.

But even with all this evidence corporations would not have unchecked and indomitable power, it is still possible that corporations would commit overt violence, as if they were a government or a mafia, because they would probably still be disproportionately commanded by psychopaths, have lots of money and struggle for dominance. That is why the problem is not the state per se, but the initiation of force. I do not care if it was a government or a corporation or just one person who killed 100 peaceful people; the problem is that they were killed. It could be hard to check corporations, like it is hard to check them and governments and other groups today. Not all information would reach everyone affected; not everyone would join in every boycott; not everyone would change due to public disgrace. So we need more ideas.

A stateless society would not be a completely peaceful utopia. How could it? When will we end aggressive behaviour? Few voluntaryists I know would even try. A lot of them believe that individuals and communities should separate from the state and become autonomous. Suffice to say, communities of free people would defend themselves against an aggressive corporation in the same way that they would defend themselves from any state or empire. That is something they have been doing for thousands of years.

A stateless society would need some kind of protection. That protection could come from the free market, as companies competing for business would provide their customers with the protection they need. I understand the worry that those corporations could just turn on their customers and steal from them. However, businesses in a free market will provide enough customers with what they want that their owners will not want executives to start killing people. As Robert Murphy explains in detail, there is a market for security, and it could work very well against a corporation or any other organisation that wishes to harm people.

If a security company (or any other company that depends on repeat customers and good reputations, which is all successful ones not receiving state protection) kills or steals from or even enslaves a bunch of people, there are two problems. First, they will have less profit. I do not think greed is necessarily bad; it depends how it is channeled. If you want to maximise profit, the rational solution might be to be a highly ethical corporation. In theory, and usually in practice, to the extent that free markets exist (today's markets are not very free), people are far wealthier, partly because they can pursue their self interest, partly because their motivation and creativity are higher, partly because they compete with others if they wish to remain profitable. If corporations want money, they are better off being good businesses and providing what the customers want. If they do, customers will come back.

Likewise, most corporations find that being good to their employees pays dividends in employee loyalty and motivation. If they start killing employees, or even just thwarting their attempts to unionise, employees must make a decision: stay here and risk getting bullied or murdered by this corporation, or quit and find another way to make a living. That is their decision. But as competition for workers grows, corporations need to provide better wages and working conditions. A major reason the vast majority of businesses do not regularly cheat customers and shoot employees is that it is not in the interest of their owners to do so.

Communities would still have rules (see chapter 43), just like all societies have rules, and they could decide one of those rules would be no Walmart. That could mean no Walmart stores, no Walmart goods, and even no Walmart employees if they felt that strongly, would be allowed in the town. Every community that shunned Walmart in this fashion would mean that much less money for Walmart. Of course, we might not be able to get every community to push away our hypothetical violent or otherwise unethical corporation, but surely we should not force them to believe what we believe. If we are right, people might see it in time; and if they do not, they probably cannot be saved anyway.

Moreover, a particularly unethical corporation, or a gang or other violator of the NAP, would be subject to other difficulties. Water companies and electricity providers could stop supplying them. Banks could freeze their assets. True, that might not stop them, or they might just pay off the water and electricity people. Media, again, can keep us informed as to whether the banks and utilities are complying. Robert Murphy again:

Of course, it is _theoretically possible_ that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be rulers would have to _start from scratch_. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.

The second mode of protection against a violent corporation is for people to defend themselves. Attempting violence against free people would probably lead to anyone sympathetic's helping them out in the name of ending injustice, just as abolitionists used to attack slave owners in attempts to free slaves. People should really be able defend themselves anyway, at all times, whether there is a government or not, because violence can be committed whether there are 1000 police on the street or none. People band together in times of crisis, which include villages or cities allying and forming confederations to repel aggressors. If they did so and had any chance of winning, where would this leave the business? It would need to reconsider any kind of violent campaign, and if a business is supposed to make money, waging its own war is clearly not the answer.

People could defend themselves, of course, but they could also have competing private defense agencies. If there is no central authority with a monopoly on the means of violence, a variety of organisations would have those means. They already exist to provide security guards, cameras, and so on. If one of them tried to attack people, the people could hire one or more of the many other organisations to defend themselves. If for some reason one turned belligerent, people could call another, or several others. And if worst came to worst, they would take up arms themselves.

In sum, it does not follow that corporations would make things much worse without the state. Corporations would have far fewer unearned benefits. Oversight is provided by journalists and consumers, and is spread by the innumerable media we have at our disposal and by word of mouth. There are already rules of ethics that would continue to govern the actions of consumers and executives, and when the people make rules for themselves and their communities, they can back them up by defending themselves with force if they need to.

Part 5: The sovereign community

\- 35 Has anarchy existed before?

\- 36 Roads

\- 37 Education

\- 38 Health

\- 39 The environment

\- 40 Polycentric law

\- 41 Agorism and counter-economics

\- 42 Mutual aid

\- 43 Contract-based communities

\- 44 Breaking free

35 Has anarchy existed before?

Anarchists endlessly get asked if anarchy has ever existed, and if it has ever worked. On one level, the question seems ironic. When do they think the state has "worked" before? These people who think we can somehow reform the state and turn it into a tool for social justice are, unlike anarchists, as this chapter will show, the ones who have no history to back up their claims.

Everyday anarchy

It has been argued anarchy is wherever people do things without being forced to. Consider Butler Shaffer's argument.

I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver's license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

Anarchy works every day as we interact with the people around us. But, admittedly, it does not get to the heart of the question: can a society exist without a state?

Before answering that question, however, another arises. Where has the state worked? I do not mean, where has the state maintained order and created a national health-care system. The state has done lots of things. But at what cost? Given what we know about the state, a huge one. "The list of state failures is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof of the benefits of considering anarchy and opposing the state really be on the proponent of anarchy?"  We will go into the state failures that statists consider successes in the coming chapters. Now, let us return to anarchy.

If you are looking for an example of a modern nation state that has gone anarchist, you will not find one. The very idea that a nation state could somehow eliminate its government and retain its territorial integrity is fatuous. It would almost inevitably become a number of self-governing communities. They might develop a confederation based on perceived shared values, but they would not force policies on millions of people through representatives, bureaucrats and police. A large country can only be held together by force. Somalia is not fully anarchic; however, to the extent that it is, it is doing pretty well. Other societies throughout history, however, have done far better.

Everywhere anarchy

Anthropologist David Graeber says anarchy has existed in thousands of places before. Anarchy means no initiation of force; or at least, no rulers with the ability to initiate force over an entire population. Anarchy is an ideal condition of humanity. It is not something that will be accomplished in six months of reading books. But in one way or another, at different times, there are opportunities to throw off the state and work and cooperate freely. As such, there have been a number of relatively or completely anarchic societies throughout history. They may have been small communities defending themselves from encroaching empires, confederations with skeletal local governments, or other voluntary, self-governing collectives. Anarchy has existed. It is simply democracy without the state.

In fact, it was the norm for a long time. Yale professor James C. Scott explains. "Until shortly before the common era, the very last 1 percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary self-governing kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading, and peacemaking. It did not contain anything one could call a state. In other words, living in the absence of state structures has been the standard human condition."

Thus, to say the state is necessary due to human nature is erroneous. The era of statelessness was the longest era of human governance, and the first states that arose were trivial compared to those of today. "To an eye not yet hypnotized by archaeological remains and state-centric histories, the landscape would have seemed virtually all periphery and no centers. Nearly all the population and territory were outside their ambit." People sought refuge in places out of the way, such as the Amazon, where today indigenous people are losing their ancestral homes to agricultural and industrial expansion, aided by state muscle; highland Latin America and Africa; the Balkans and the Caucasus. Living outside the state was a realistic option until only a few hundred years ago.

Zomia

Scott's book is called _the Art of Not Being Governed:_ An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. In it, he explains the history of the politically autonomous region of different ethnic groups in the highlands of Southeast Asia (dubbed Zomia in 2002), who descended from groups that left the lowland state. The people of the whole region reorganised their social structures, folklore and agriculture to be inaccessible to the state.

When the state attempts to incorporate stateless people, it clothes its actions in the language of civilising the barbarians: development, economic progress, literacy, and so on. However, it inevitably does so by force. Those escaping predatory states were runaway conscripts and slaves, war refugees, religious minorities and those fleeing taxes, and others who predicted the same fate for themselves.

Their social structures presented no hierarchy that encroaching states could have used as agents of control. "Their subsistence routines, their social organization, their physical dispersal, and many elements of their culture, far from being the archaic traits of a people left behind, are purposefully crafted both to thwart incorporation into nearby states and to minimize the likelihood that statelike concentrations of power will arise among them. State evasion and state prevention permeate their practices and, often, their ideology as well." The long existence of Zomia disproves the hypotheses that we require some form of coercive hierarchy to function as societies and that an elite with coercive authority will always emerge over time.

The Apaches

When the Spanish came to Central America, they made short work of Montezuma and Tenochtitlan, along with Atahualpa and Incan civilisation. Why? Because if you cut off their head of a hierarchical organisation, which the Spanish did by killing its chief, you incapacitate it. Then they went to the Apaches. The Apaches did not have rulers. Instead, they had spiritual leaders called a Nant'an (eg. Geronimo), who led only by example and not coercion. "You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn't want to follow him? Then you didn't. The power lay with each individual—you were free to do what you wanted. The phrase 'you should' doesn't even exist in the Apache language. Coercion is a foreign concept." They were free people, most of whom resisted the Conquistadors' attempts to adopt an agrarian life and convert to Christianity. They fought back and won and held back the Spanish for centuries. The Apaches succeeded so long because of the decentralised way they organised their society.

There was no capital or central command, so decisions were made all over. "A raid on a Spanish settlement, for example, could be conceived in one place, organised in another, and carried out in yet another. You never knew where the Apaches would be coming from. In one sense, there was no place where important decisions were made, and in another sense, decisions were made by everybody everywhere."

Apache society was not disorganised. It was in fact very advanced and complex. But it was decentralised—very differently from a hierarchical society. A decentralised society is characterised by flexibility, shared power and ambiguity, which "made the Apaches immune to attacks that would have destroyed a centralised society."

The Spanish would try to kill the leaders but leaders kept emerging. Likewise, you could kill people participating in the Egyptian Revolution but it would not stop the Revolution. In fact, when you attacked the Apaches, they survived and got stronger as a result. They decentralised even more. "This is the first major principle of decentralisation: when attacked, a decentralised organisation tends to become even more open and decentralised."

Ireland

Ireland was also effectively anarchic until conquered by England. It functioned as a number of confederations (called tuatha) composed of independent political units that came together annually to vote on common policies. People were free to, and did, secede from their confederation and join another. Association was voluntary.

Laws were not changed at the whim of rulers (because Ireland was not ruled) but when people voted in an assembly to change them. Laws were not created by a clique, as in our time; nor was justice dispensed by a monopoly provider. Parties to disputes selected from a number of professional jurists chosen for their wisdom, integrity and knowledge of customary law. Several schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the business of dispensing justice. Other people, in effect insurance providers, were independent from the jurists and joined with the party that won the case to exact punishment on the loser. If the loser did not pay, the entire community considered him an outlaw and would no longer engage in contracts with him.

Ireland suffered small-scale conflicts, but without a central state that taxes and conscripts, these were negligible compared to the bloodbaths of the rest of Europe. Ireland may not have been the ideal anarchy, but in the absence of Enlightenment ideas of freedom, justice and equality, it did well.

Revolution

Opportunities to escape the state arise during revolutions and wars. During Egypt's recent revolutionary uprising, every neighbourhood in Cairo formed—within 48 hours— _lagaan shaabiyya_ , or popular committees. When the police suddenly left the streets, they opened up the jails, letting out thugs who, they intended, would terrorise the people into begging the police to come back. Instead, despite thousands of years of dictatorship, the people organised and substituted for the police, protecting the people in their communities and even cleaning the streets. They made decisions as communities and demonstrated amply that they could replace the state if necessary.

During the Spanish Civil War, the state was in crisis and lost its ability to govern large parts of the country. Workers controlled factories, peasants collectivised farms, people used barter instead of money, started libraries, schools and cultural centers, and organised militias to fight in the civil war. Spain's brief experiment with anarchy was by no means utopian, as war imposes a variety of constraints on people. But it could be replicated and improved on.

In Ukraine in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1917, a free state emerged comprising millions of people. Throughout the Russian Empire, as imperial authority collapsed, workers, soldiers and peasants began to reject any outside authority and establish self-governing cooperatives. They began by arresting state officials, occupying government buildings and disarming police. They were eventually ruthlessly crushed by the central government, much as the communities in Spain were. But they demonstrated, as the did the Southeast Asians, the Irish, the Spanish, the Egyptians and, as we shall see next, the French, that anarchy is desirable and practical—if it can be maintained in the face of state aggression.

In the wake of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, the Paris Commune was established. The Commune was independent of the French state and self-regulating. The armed workers defended Paris against German soldiers and for some time French government aggression, but were eventually overwhelmed and murdered in droves. Like some of the other examples, the Commune was not the ideal picture of anarchy, but it nonetheless comprised free people in community warding off oppression. They did well in the time (less than a year) they had. As Mikhail Bakunin said at the time,

Contrary to the belief of authoritarian communists—which I deem completely wrong—that a social revolution must be decreed and organized either by a dictatorship or by a constituent assembly emerging from a political revolution, our friends, the Paris socialists, believed that revolution could neither be made nor brought to its full development except by the spontaneous and continued action of the masses, the groups and the associations of the people. Our Paris friends were right a thousand times over.

This list is not exhaustive; again, there have been thousands of cases, only a few of which have been recorded.

Many people will read these examples and reject them because they do not conform in every way to the ideals of a stateless society. They are presumably the same people who would dismiss all anarchist or voluntaryist thinking by saying it is utopian. The societies that have existed without the state are evidence the state is not necessary, and people who want to can live free. It is also evidence utopia is difficult or impossible to achieve. So what? One does not need utopia to be free of the state. The coming chapters outline the theory and methods for achieving a stateless society even more successful than these ones. The point is, freedom works for the people wherever it is tried, whether in a community wishing to free itself from oppression, or simply to the extent it is allowed in a state system.

But even though anarchy has been attempted and has worked, an equally reasonable answer is it does not matter. New ideas work if they make sense and enough people agree to put them into practice. When John F. Kennedy said the US would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, nobody asked if it had been done before. When slavery was abolished, it was not important to ask if there had been historical precedents. The abolition of slavery was an idea whose time had come. Many people thought that it was impossible to get rid of slavery—after all, that would be extremism—and slaves were better off in captivity than free. It turned out they were wrong. Anti-abolitionists used to ask "but how will the cotton get picked?" But if the cause is moral, it does not matter how the cotton will get picked or the roads will get built. People who need a historical precedent for anything before they consider it have not attempted to use their imaginations. Whether it has existed or not is irrelevant when considering if it could work in the future.

36 Roads

How is your imagination? Has it been squeezed out of you by school, or do you still have some left? Are you open to new and better ways of doing things, or are you comfortable in the old ways? This section of the book gives you the opportunity to answer those questions for yourself.

In the days before automobiles, people used horses to get around. When the much faster and much more environmentally friendly car came along, people naturally flocked to the great new idea. But only a few people had imagined this invention before it came along. Presumably, there were plenty of people who said the idea of replacing the horse with something made of metal was silly. How could it work without a horse to pull it? Now, we take it for granted, and we are better off as a result. All it took was a little imagination. The same is true with the state. We can replace all of its functions with non-violent alternatives if people simply open their minds and learn.

I do not know how to make money off every need we have. However, the opportunity to make money should be there, since some people can figure out how to make money, and will provide excellent service doing so. At the same time, since none of them will be able to monopolise the market, the possibility will always be there for mutual aid, which simply means working together to help each other without needing to pay.

"What about the roads??" they ask desperately. Statists seem to think that, because the government has always built the roads (actually only in recent memory) only the government could ever build roads. I find the assumptions behind this question ironic. The roads are a striking example of a utility that should logically be privatised. What roads should the government pay to build and maintain? The roads to a residential neighbourhood? Why should people from the entire city or country pay for these roads? Let the residents pay. How about the road to an office, shopping district or mall? Let the business owners pay, perhaps through a local business association. Getting the government to do it means forcing everyone to subsidise the people who benefit.

Is the problem of the roads irresolvable? Think about it. How could we get roads built without the state? I bet you can come up with some ideas. There are all kinds of ways to make roads profitable or affordable, from electronic or cash tolls, GPS charges, roads maintained by the businesses they lead to, communal organisations that own the roads, and so on. "And if none of those work?" asks Stefan Molyneux. "Why, then personal flying machines will hit the market!"

Besides, it is already happening. Private contractors who build roads do so far more efficiently than governments (believe it or not). A private road in Paris saves commuters time and the company that built it clears the road quickly when there is an obstruction. A company added two lanes to a highway in California, making them toll roads, thus giving people the option to go faster for a fee. Companies have implemented electronic tolls, obviating the slow and inefficient toll booth.

Thanks to a wonderful group of people who continually make it easier for us to do the things we want to do known as engineers, people can buy themselves a road-paving machine. But then, what if we could not afford the machine? Surely, citizens could never be expected to just build and maintain their own roads, could they? Oh, wait: that's already happening too.

To those who believe a competitive road system makes no sense, think again. There is nothing about roads, or for that matter water or electricity, that requires a monopoly. After all, the first roads in the US were private; and no, the government did not take them over because the public demanded it or they knew they could do so more efficiently. People in command economies do not even consider how the market could be trusted to distribute food to everyone. But where the market for food is relatively free, prices are low, lines are short and most people are getting fed. We know from experience that people are willing to pay more for a faster or safer commute. Shouldn't they be given that option?

Economist Walter Block has written extensively on the privatisation of roads. Like many libertarians, Block has some ideas for how to make competition in formerly-public services work. Governments rarely innovate, except in methods of killing. But private-sector solutions, such as airbags and snow chains, have saved lives. If there were competition among road providers, people would be able to choose which one they drove on. They might have the choice to drive on the road with the heater underneath it to melt the ice, making it safer, the highway with the rubber dividers that are safer in a crash, and the routes with the lower death rate. We do not know what life-saving (or money-saving) innovations could come from people with an incentive to think of them. Release something into the private sphere and see what happens.

Is the logic of privatising all roads and highways becoming clearer? Zachary Slayback has more to say.

Privatization would ensure that the project would be finished in a timely manner, would remove the moral hazard of building a possibly unnecessary highway with public funds, and would not force every individual to fund the project, whether they wish to use it or not.

...Should a company decide that any highway is a viable venture for their ownership and stockholders, then it would be on that company to build a product that consumers would wish to use. If several companies wished to build a highway, then whichever company offered the best product (i.e., the best-maintained, cheapest, fastest highway) would be chosen by consumers to deliver that product via the price system.

...In a free-market system, the signals sent via the price mechanism allow the market to adjust to any changes much more quickly and efficiently than the current centrally planned model under which we operate.

Knowledge is not something that can be aggregated and centrally planned by a Department of Transportation. Knowledge is something that must be acquired in small bits throughout the market. Risks must be taken to acquire knowledge; and no one man, nor any group of men for that matter, can possess the knowledge necessary to perfectly plan any specific endeavor.

So why leave this, what Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist and Nobel laureate, called the 'knowledge problem', to a group of individuals who are insulated from the signs and information of price signals? Major investments—especially those that require a large amount of information to properly operate, such as highways—should be left to the system that best responds to market signals and the price mechanism: the free market.

Moreover, there is a major moral issue at play when building any public-works project, but especially highways: Who pays for the highway and with what money? Under the current system, public-works projects are paid for by 'the public.' But what gives central planners the moral authority to determine that all taxpayers in a given population should be forced to pay for the planners' project?

...[O]ne thing is for sure: the free market would not force consumers who do not wish to use the product to pay for it.

Roads could be owned by the people who live or work around them. Perhaps electronic tolls (which already exist) could charge people on roads one-tenth of a penny to pass by each person's house or business (Block's idea again) without slowing them down. Highways can be profitable for their owners through tolls, billboards and other things clever businesspeople can think of that I have not. Roads could be owned by one man or group who charges you for driving on them, and you could build your own roads or go round if you did not want to pay. People always find alternatives when there is an incentive to do so.

Free-market roads and highways would reflect the true costs of building them. Their being built by the state tends to result in millions of dollars in waste because, as Slayback says above, the state is insulated from the effects of that waste; profiting, in fact, when it gets favours from the companies to whom it rewarded such lucrative contracts. It is fatuous to say it is wrong that we should have to pay for roads when we already do through taxation. And it is unfair to argue that something different could not work when you have not considered it.

But what if someone built a road around your property and said you could not get out unless you paid him a million dollars? Well, my initial impulse might be to shoot him, but there is almost always a peaceful, preventive solution. Perhaps when buying the house, along with fire insurance, one could also purchase access insurance, to insure against such possibilities. Or perhaps one would buy the stretch of road outside one's own house. One would probably let other people in the neighbourhood through free of charge, in the name of maintaining friendly relations; otherwise, their property values would drop and the shaming and ostracism that could result would be devastating. The sovereign community will need no government roads when it saves money with better ones.

37 Education

I've never let schooling interfere with my education. – Mark Twain

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all. It is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardised citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. – H. L. Mencken

Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. – Joseph Stalin

How well do public education systems around the world really educate us? What, indeed, is the purpose of education? Of school? We are entering the 21st century, a time that proves to be full of unforeseen risks, challenges and opportunities. We are getting schooled with a curriculum for the 20th century in a system created for the 19th century. A good education can bring out one's true potential, but we are being held back by a lack of accountability to students and parents and a lack of ideas.

I've been asked, Chris, you are a teacher and a voluntaryist: how would you organise education (or health care) without a government? I am not qualified to answer that question authoritatively. I am just one guy. A free market achieves the best outcomes precisely because there is not someone at the top organising and directing it, and everyone's ideas can be put to the test. A free market for education would mean families and communities and schools working together to decide what is right for their children, learning from different schools and teachers what works and what does not, and letting education evolve with society. State education provides no incentive to offer that freedom. Parents and teachers do not have those choices.

I find it hard to understand why people believe others to be so disorganised or uncaring that they would not want to take a more active role in what government does. At the moment, they have no role. All they can do is vote for the politician who promises the kind of thing that they want. What if their politician does not win? What if he or she has some policies the person likes but some others that are bad? What if he or she does not implement any of the policies promised on the campaign trail? What if he or she tries to implement the policies but they get stymied by pressure groups or watered down by the bureaucracy? What is the voter's recourse? And yet, we are talking about education, health care, security and where millions of dollars of a family's money is going over the course of their lives. Do you really think they do not want to be or should not be involved?

The ironic tragedy of modern schooling is that the state does such a poor job of educating people that the people believe they need the state to educate them. And education is not getting any better. Accepting the New York Teacher of the Year Award in 1990, John Taylor Gatto said "The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions."

He might as well have been talking about most schools around the world. Totalitarian regimes knew education was the key to teaching obedience, nationalism and state ideology. It is no coincidence the Cultural Revolution came a generation into Mao's rule over China. A hundred million children were programmed to believe Mao was a demigod and his brand of socialism was the future. Now, the regime pushes nationalism, and it does not push as hard; nonetheless, the vitriol with which the post-Mao generation hates the Japanese is startling. Today's democracies may not teach children to run a cultural revolution, but they are not helping the children become wise, critically-thinking masters of themselves.

A parent gives his or her children over to strangers for a good proportion of their lives, hoping they will be taught to become thinking people. In many or most cases, those strangers will never know the children enough to teach them as individuals. Parents, students and teachers complain schools are like prisons designed to produce conformists unable to question authority. We have to trust the state will teach the truth, which it often does not, and accept it will leave its mark of nationalism, ethnocentrism and blind submission to authority. We are not taught to embrace our individual talents but to suppress them, because the state wants a homogeneous group of people who do not question the status quo. The fewer questions, the fewer rebels.

It gets worse. In the shadow of 9/11, Boy Scouts are being taught to combat terrorism and with it are learning the lie that the terrorists, who you remember hate us for our freedom, are everywhere. Some students are learning "homeland security" and how to fight Islamic jihadists in high school. While being told such activities serve their country (while being told this is the highest calling), students also find them attractive because they will get security clearance at elite crimefighting organisations like the FBI and DHS when they get older. The FBI and the CIA are recruiting thousands of young people as informants. And you are paying for it.

When governments get their hands on education policy, it becomes a tool for indoctrinating obedience. Education may have been better off before there was a policy. Now we have the wealth and knowledge of the 21st century (including advances in teaching methods), many, many schools can help students understand the world around them and learn the skills for navigating that world. So why do we not have them yet? Like all problems the state causes, the root is a moral one. The initiation of force is the reason Johnny can't read.

Special interests

Everything the state does is subject to politics—force, as opposed to markets. Harry Browne explains. "Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue—to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I. Politicians don't weigh their votes on the basis of ideology or social good. They think in terms of political power." Education policy is subject to all the same lobbying as other policies.

Public sector unions and business associations spend millions to induce policymakers to shape education policy the way they think it should be. These are the people who have convinced everyone we always need more money for schools. Schools that spend more do not necessarily teach better and more important things. Schools that spend less sometimes do better by the students. And why not? Any economist or private-sector manager could tell you competition among firms and employees generally increases everyone's performance and improves efficiency. Why would the education sector be different? In fact, it is not. The lack of incentive in highly-regulated public and private schools to do better makes improvement almost impossible. Of course, we could ask parents and even students what they think is right, but they do not have a lobby.

Good teachers have nothing to fear from a free market in education services. They may well get paid better. It is the poor teachers, the ones paid more than they are worth, and who cannot get fired, who benefit from the status quo. At present, there is no correlation between teacher performance and teacher pay. That means the good teachers are being treated the same as the bad, there is little incentive to be a great teacher (beyond the spiritual rewards) and teachers' unions have an incentive to fight against merit-based pay. There is no market mechanism to offer consumers (in this case, students and parents) the choice to find new and better suppliers (teachers and schools).

Teachers' lobbies are also vehemently opposed to closing schools. But businesses close when they do not serve their customers (or cannot afford to comply with thousands of pages of regulations). Let schools close when they do not serve their students. Let the students go to other schools that are actually performing. Or let neighbourhoods and communities start their own learning centers and teach their own children what they think is right. Let them have full control over hiring and firing of teachers. Or do you think bureaucrats know and will do what is best for your children? Fortunately, some parents are taking over failing schools because they are so tired of bad teachers.

And yet, the unions say they need more money. What do schools need more public money for? Where would it go? Is all we need more computers in the classroom? Do teachers need more money? Why can we not let the market decide? Surely, if parents like their kids' teachers enough to want to keep them, they will pay them well; if they think their kids are not learning, let the parents stop paying for them. Or do I not understand education?

Then there is the university. One argument often made in favour of subsidising higher education is education has positive knock-on effects. If you are better educated, you will contribute more to society. Well, maybe. Engineers usually contribute more to society, which is why I would consider giving money to scholarship funds for engineers. (That said, I would like to have a contract stipulating that I get that money back if they end up working for a manufacturer of fighter jets.) But how do society or I benefit from having someone with tens of thousands of dollars of education in gender studies or acting class? What if I feel that a particular business programme merely reproduces the elite and does not benefit society? Shouldn't I be allowed to withhold my funding of that programme? But if there is demand for it, the classes will exist regardless of subsidy.

What happens when we subsidise something? Consumption of it goes up. Subsidise corn, and we find high-fructose corn syrup in many of the foods we eat. It means more corn fed to animals, making meat cheaper, when we should be eating more vegetables (not just corn). Subsidise universities and guarantee student loans, and more people will attend university. But not everyone needs to go to university. The more people have a degree, the lower the value of a degree becomes. Just ask thousands of Occupiers if their degrees and average $25,250 of student loan debts have helped them find meaningful careers. The unemployment rate for college graduates is higher than it has been since 1992, when records date back to. The alternative is to return people the millions they have paid in taxes to subsidise education and let them decide what to do with it.

The public good

"How will we educate the poor?" Great question. Here is mine: Are we educating them so well now? Are schools in poor neighbourhoods just as good as schools in rich neighbourhoods? Why would they be? Schools' main function is to turn people into tax-paying, authority-following, patriotic soldiers, and no one makes better AK-47 fodder than the poor. But even in poor places, for-profit schools have educated people. The same people who worry about the poor tend to think we cannot afford schools that are not run by government. But as I do not tire of pointing out, if governments did not take our money and give it to schools (and keep some for their retirement funds, and give some to their friends, and spend some of it making war), we would have that much more to spend on education. There is nothing efficient about the tax-and-spend system under which we live; therefore, any claim government does efficiently what the private sector can do is unconvincing.

The desire to educate the poor also brings up the question of why people are poor to begin with. Sticking people in bad schools and taxing them for it will not help. Poverty is not inevitable. If schools taught financial literacy, we would almost certainly have less poverty. At present the poor, who are taxed on income, consumption and savings, just like everyone else, are paying for everyone's education (and roads). If they would prefer to become an apprentice or go to a private school, in other words, if they do not want a university education, well, they still have to pay for one. Should they not be allowed to keep their money if they do not want to get a degree? No, says the socialised-education statist, they should not. I would wager all the money even poor people pay in taxes would easily pay for an education for their children. And what do they think they should learn? Should they be charged to learn Latin, algebra and European history? What if they would rather learn metalwork and mechanics? They can make a better living that way than in a career as, well, whatever one does with Latin, algebra and European history.

The state's takeover of education was, like all state ventures, shrouded in language of the public good. State education would improve access and improve quality of education. It hasn't. Why not? It might be because the model most widely used for school is the old Prussian one: inculcate obedience, subordination and uniformity of opinion. Politicians, bureaucrats and other elites like this design, because it facilitates controlling people and keeping them in line. Why are so many so sure that putting everyone into a classroom and treating them the same produces good learning outcomes? That the amount of time spent on schoolwork is optimal? That they are learning what they should be learning? Because of studies confirming the superiority of the school system? No. There are no such studies. The structure of the school needs to be completely rethought.

At the least, ending the state's monopoly on education would give people a chance to consider alternatives to centralised control of everything. Instead of creating people who lash out at the very suggestion of anarchism, we could have people of open minds who can say, "You're a mutualist? I read some Proudhon and Carson in high school."

But we do not have that chance. Think about what most schooling really is. At the height of our curiosity and energy, we are forced to sit quietly for hours at a time and do what we are told. And when we do not contain ourselves and act like children, we are hit, humiliated or given drugs to force our compliance. This process continues five days a week until we have fully absorbed the messages the powerful want us to absorb: pay taxes, vote, shut up and trust your masters. I think we can find an alternative.

Free education

Competition works in education, just like it works in every other market. This is not some libertarian hypothesis; it is well-documented fact. End the monopoly and give the consumers the power, and quality of education rises.

Would tuition rise? How do we know? How could we know what the price of anything would be if it hit the free market? Where it is heavily subsidised it would go up initially, but markets have a way of diversifying products for people of different wants and means. I could teach at a university, but I would not make as much as someone with a PhD (unless, perhaps, I was a better teacher), just like someone who just got his or her PhD one would expect to make less than someone with tenure. If that was the case, more people, like me, would be able to work at universities, or even start our own. I might get good experience and move to one I liked better. Maybe academic careers would be more flexible and you would not necessarily advance in the same way—in some places it might be more about how your students think of you and less about how many papers and books you have written. People who did not have as much money could be taught by people with less experience for less.

There are scholarships. Individuals, foundations, corporations all give scholarships now; they would have more money if there were less taxation. Professors and anyone else who believes the poor should have an education could pay for them. Students could save what they spend on alcohol and bring a boy from the Congo to go to their school—if what they believe is based on principles as opposed to words.

If people believe education should be free, why don't they volunteer? Everyone has something to teach. Professors have plenty to teach, and could provide it to poor people or refugees for free. Most students could probably teach people younger than them as well. I would love to live somewhere I could send my children to classes with a wide variety of people, the different people around me. They would have far more options as to what they would like to do. Teaching is an activity that too many people seem to think is hard and should be relegated to the experts. If you want to be a leader, or if you want your community to grow, teach. Volunteering feels good, like all selfless acts do. Then, education becomes free in the sense of providing something without exchanging it for something else, rather than free in the sense that a third party is forced to pay for it.

Frankly, if professors or other qualified people are not willing to volunteer, how are they serious that education should be free? Why is it right to steal from other people to pay for something they haven't agreed to and call that free when there are peaceful alternatives? Otherwise, the result is one group that is powerful enough, however many people it comprises, using the government to impose its will on everyone else. If they want free education, if they believe in it, they will offer or pay for it.

How about an apprenticeship programme where a business will pay for your education if you sign a contract saying you will work there? How about you do like other people who want money do and advertise for others? I am sure there are other things I have not thought of that others can.

Non-school education

Many people who have gone through the conventional school system approve of it because they are unaware there are options. They think, well, I'm smart, and I went to public school, so it must work. Some of the same people will be those who brought up their children in a certain way, and therefore that is the right way to bring up children. But did they reach their potential? And if so, did they do so using the tools with which school provided them? They may have had one or two superstar teachers, of course. But other modes of education work far better to unlock a human's skills and interests and make them complete persons. Some of them are Montessori, anarchistic education (nothing to do with the philosophy of liberty), democratic education, Waldorf or Steiner education, and unschooling. These are only "radical" ideas because education ministries are not interested in them. They do not want independent freethinkers.

Summerhill School in the UK and Sudbury Valley School in the US are examples of schools that foster democracy (the non-violent kind), give students intellectual freedom, encourage spontaneous creativity and ensure students are responsible for themselves. These are schools that understand spontaneous order and the value of avoiding authoritarian methods.

People in Philadelphia who were tired of a curriculum designed to make life simple for bureaucrats have begun a more cooperative education system. Neighbours and the wider community are getting involved in teaching and funding it. The students are more motivated than ever because they are learning things that are relevant to them, and a much greater part of the community has a stake in their learning.

Homeschooling is an option. When homeschooling, parents might teach but tutors might instead, whether at home or online. It can be carried out in homeschooling cooperatives, where a group of families teach the children according to their skills. Curricula come from the library, the internet, a homeschool specialist or another educator. Either way, if the parents approve it, the kids can learn it. The results are in: Home-schooled children are at least as socially aware as other children, and they outperform their publicly-schooled peers on standardised tests.

Here is a question that is not being asked: how will we encourage rebels? Anti-authoritarianism (or even questioning) is sometimes noted and squashed by teachers who think students have to listen to everything they say to know anything. They are under pressure to achieve certain target grades, rather than teaching students useful life skills. Their idea is to force students into certain ways of thinking. Hence the proliferation of cases of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Since the disorder was invented, teachers can fill their quotas by giving children drugs to calm them, instead of tailoring their teaching and treating children as individuals. The child gets blamed, instead of the teacher. However, as we all know from Mr Miyagi in the Karate Kid, there is no such thing as bad students, only bad teachers. Kids are going to jail for harmless drugs like marijuana, and are being filled up with Ritalin and Adderall with their terrible side effects, including increased rates of suicide.

People who do not understand the positive side of rebelliousness, and who have had it sucked out of them, naturally have a problem with it.

Americans have been increasingly socialized to equate inattention, anger, anxiety, and immobilizing despair with a medical condition, and to seek medical treatment rather than political remedies. What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society? ...So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their 'cure.'

Anti-authoritarianism has, in effect, been deemed a psychiatric disorder, when, in my opinion, it should be fostered. People should learn to think for themselves, not to obey.

What do parents think should be taught in schools? Wait, never mind: they are not consulted. The mandarins will decide what should be taught. Shouldn't we teach students their legal rights, how to manage their money, the scientific method, logic, how to think critically, how to start a business, how to defend themselves and even how to be happy? Teachers exist for all those subjects. But the political will does not. The initiation of force, with its pressure group-written laws and policies, fails us all.

38 Health

###### If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. – P.J. O'Rourke

Are we as healthy as we could be? Do we have the best health-care system in the world? What would the best health-care system look like? Would it look anything like the current system? This chapter will consider the dangers of subjecting health care to law and regulation, why we are still sick, and what health freedom looks like.

Recently, Americans were treated to political theatre in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Obamacare. Like most political discourse, it was distracting. Does it matter anymore if something is constitutional? Is wiretapping constitutional? Is indefinite detention without trial constitutional? The question this chapter asks is, do we need a top-down health-care system at all?

Canadians and Europeans love their health-care system. It's so great. You get decent care at a low price. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Let's first consider the fact that, in almost every case (certainly every one I can think of) where free markets are adopted, they successfully lower prices and increase quality of services. Surely, food is more important than health care. And yet no one is starving in the streets of the developed world, even despite the higher prices caused by subsidy of large farms. The argument that something needs to be done, therefore it needs to be done by government, does not follow. Government does everything less efficiently than business because its agents are relieved of responsibility. It subjects everything to politics, meaning the amount of resources allocated to it will depend on the strength of the groups pushing hardest to control those resources. A complex, top-down system is a door wide open to abuse. A voluntaryist's argument is that if something needs to be done, the people will make it happen; let the people find a non-coercive way to do it themselves.

The optimal systems, from an economy to the body of an organism, are those built from the bottom up, through trial and error. They are the sum of millions of incremental steps undertaken by millions of dispersed actors. Complex systems are strong systems when they evolve through the actions of everyone that makes them up. Trial and error enables people to fail and accept responsibility, but also to reap the rewards of success. Voluntary systems are thus healthy, robust and produce optimal outcomes.

The governments that give their subjects "free" health care are drowning in debt, and health care is a major liability. Yet, it is a sacred cow of statists. We have all heard the arguments: We should take care of each other; socialised medicine is the only way to ensure equality of treatment; without universal health care, who will take care of the poor? People talk about it as if the costs were irrelevant. They are always relevant. Every dollar spent on health care (and "administration") is a dollar not spent on something else. Given what we know about government inefficiency, how much of that money is getting wasted?

Waste and inefficiency need to be considered, because they mean we are losing our money for no good reason. But we knew about government inefficiency already. What is less well known is that the government promotes unhealthy eating. The US government subsidises animal-fed crops, which means it is subsidising meat. Meat is not healthy, especially factory-farmed meat. (That does not stop the government from feeding it to children.) We should be eating more fruit and vegetables. But meat is cheaper, thanks to bad policies, so people will overconsume it. Obesity and disease rates will rise. The meat producers will lobby for greater subsidies and greater legal protection of their industry, and force out competitors as best they can. They use the state to shut down small farmers all the time.

Health care is getting more expensive because of several factors, including ageing populations; rising costs of technology for the best care available, which everybody wants; an enormous number of laws and regulations controlling what we purchase and ingest; and the fact that whenever the government subsidises something, it rises in cost. With something as important as our health, can we really risk letting the government meddle with it?

They say fearfully, "Look at the US. It's a free market and not everyone has health care." Sorry, did you say it's a free market? In the US? Where the government spends trillions of dollars every year on Medicare and Medicaid? Where the American Medical Association uses the law to limit the supply of doctors, allowing them to charge more for doctor care? Where the state decides how much doctors can charge? Where doctors have a monopoly on dispensing medicine? Where the FDA allows and disallows foods and drugs based on political concerns? Where strong intellectual property rights make it impossible for cheaper, generic drugs to make it to the market? Where government regulations enable these things called health maintenance organisations to control who gets care and how much it will cost? This is your idea of a free market?

And if government health care is so good, why do we have multimillion-dollar cancer societies that are actually doing something when government claims to need trillions of dollars to take care of all our ills? Organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are at the forefront of medical breakthroughs and governments are there taking credit for the people's health, as if thousands of pages of regulations have ever cured anything. The US spends more than any OECD country on health care. How much money, how many bureaucrats and how many laws does the government need before it starts solving problems?

It is also ominously pointed out that if we didn't have health care for literally everyone, people who couldn't afford it would be dying in the street. Canada, the US and Europe are very prosperous societies. This supposition implies a few things for our discussion of a free market in health care. First, since health care would probably consist of various businesses and individual doctors competing with one another, it is likely that some or most private health-care providers or insurers would compete for the business of people on the bottom of society. They would want the business of as many customers as possible. The success of the "bottom of the pyramid" model can be found all over the world, and it works in medical services and insurance. Of course, it is also possible that doctors could live in communities and focus on treating the people of their communities, start clinics that are based on paying whatever you can pay, depending who you are, something like that. Or perhaps businesses that are large enough could have hospitals and clinics just for their employees (and admit others in desperate need). Anything is possible when there is no coercion.

The second reason people probably would not be dying in the street is the Hippocratic oath. Doctors have to give care to people who are in immediate need of it if there is no one around who is more qualified. They might be working and not in the street where someone is dying, so maybe you could take people to the hospital to see the doctor, which brings us to the third reason people would not die in the street: human sympathy.

The whole reason people believe in health care for everyone is that they believe people are valuable in and of themselves. (Well, people believe our compatriots should have health care; there are few proposals in Europe for paying for the health-care needs of the poor in Kolkata.) People could start charities for poor people who cannot afford health insurance. We would presumably have more money to do that if we were not subsidising literally everybody, rich or poor, for their doctor's visits. Of course, those charities already exist. There is no reason to believe that if we had more money their funding would dry up.

A system that takes care of everyone indiscriminately has lead to self-righteous discrimination. Reasonable people do not resent paying for victims of circumstance, like cancer patients who have never smoked in their lives, but question the compulsion to pay for pack-a-day people with the same ailment. As such, they tell others not to smoke, drink, eat trans fats and sit for more than a few hours. Because many statists believe in a legal approach to changing others, they have erected a nanny state that forces us to conform to the norms of what we are allowed to eat, prohibitions on driving without seatbelts, wear helmets while cycling, and so on. If healthy people were not forced to pay for the health care of the health-unconscious, they would have nothing to complain about. This self-righteous indignation relates to every free-rider problem. If no one were forced to pay, the free riders, from special-interest rich to state-dependent poor, would lose out. Those who produce would keep the value of what they produce and give away what they want to whom they want.

A system that treats everyone equally demands conformity. Conformity takes away individual choice and replaces it with collective choice. Like democratic elections, I am not allowed to do what I think is right, only what _we_ think is right. I cannot opt out if a candidate I do not like was chosen; I have wasted my vote. I cannot opt out if I do not want to take other people's money; that's the way the system works. We are even faulted with greed or selfishness if we do not go along with the collective. Thus, we are all individual hostages to the collective will, which endorses democracy and thus legitimises everything the government does because it is in the name of "the people", "the public" or "the greater good". Instead, we should treat people as individuals, letting them pay their own way if they are able, and helping them out when they need a hand up.

As it stands, in Canada, Europe and the US, a patient's health-care costs are mostly borne by a third party. Rather than covering accidents, injuries that were not the fault of the patient or major operations, so-called health insurance covers everything the patient sees the doctor for. Do we not see the potential for abuse of a doctor's time under this system? Indeed, it is abused, as patients tend to visit far more frequently than necessary, just like they eat more meat when it is subsidised.

Waiting lists in Canada and Britain are growing. Thousands are in need of various types of surgery. But why should they? Is it for lack of money? No. How would giving the same doctors more money change the fact that there are not enough of them? But wait. There are plenty of doctors in the country. Unfortunately, many of them are driving taxis (at least, so they say), and there are plenty more willing to come. Patients are not permitted to pay more for more prompt treatment, because waiting lists are based on other considerations. Physicians have no right to charge patients based on the market costs of their services and must bill the government for patient visits based on fixed-fee schedules with little regard for the depth of service provided. And since they are restricted in what they charge, they are likely to try to make money in other ways. Because they are limited in what they are offered, it is not surprising Canadians often go to the US to escape the long waiting times. A free market would provide most or all of what people want without the government failure that characterises the current models.

If universal health care is good, why does no one talk about the Soviet model? In 1918, the Soviet Union was the first country to offer cradle-to-grave medical care for all citizens. Or is that ridiculous? Most people believe "we" (rather, the state) should make sure no one who cannot afford medical care should nonetheless get it. Then, they say the only way to make that happen is by force.

Why would a free market for health care be worse? What are we so afraid of? A free market usually provides public goods for everyone, as services of varying price and quality are offered to different income groups, and at far lower costs than the government pays. It is possible, of course, that the quality of care the poor receive would decline, but for the considerations above. Surely, people willing to pay more money for more health care should be allowed. Well, they are not. As Pierre Lemieux puts it, "Opponents of private health care...morally oppose the idea that some individuals may use money to purchase better health care. They prefer that everybody has less, provided it is equal." Let us look more closely at the statist system.

What are the politics of the vaunted Barack health-care bill? The bill's history is suspicious, riddled with backroom deals with large insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and the possibility that no one who voted on it actually read it. How could they? It is 906 pages long. Instead of the efficiency that would benefit taxpayers and users, we get complexity. Though praising Barack's attempt to give everyone health insurance, the Economist said this.

Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally-mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis....The government's drive to micromanage so many activities creates a huge incentive for interest groups to push for special favours. When a bill is hundreds of pages long, it is not hard for congressmen to slip in clauses that benefit their chums and campaign donors. The health-care bill included tons of favours for the pushy.

The illusion is that somehow government could work without dispensing any favours to the powerful. But how? It is beholden to special interests. Everything it bestows on the powerful makes those people more powerful, making it harder for meaningful legislation to get passed. Now, nearly all Americans will have health insurance, but at what cost?

To say no money is too much to give everyone something is reckless. Money can always be better spent on something more efficient. Efficiency, one hallmark of a free market, is much misunderstood and maligned. Efficiency saves money that could be spent on important things. For every thousand dollars in value wasted, we take away a thousand dollars of treatment to another person. It is the same reason we should be skeptical of spending trillions of dollars to fight climate change when there are cheaper ways to tackle the problems it is likely to engender.

Another reason inefficiency and waste are so prevalent in government is to benefit the state. It is erroneous to believe that the state would like to save money on its programmes. In fact, the more money the state spends, the greater number of or greater the extent people depend on the state. That is why all the wonderful proposals for how to streamline or eliminate a government department fall on deaf ears. Here is an example of such a proposal. To cut health-care costs, suggest the authors, "Congress and the Supreme Court would be well advised to take additional action to reform health care by limiting the patentability of medical processes and diagnostic methods." But what incentive do lawmakers have to limit the patentability of something that makes a few people rich? Patent laws are strong because special interests want them to remain strong. Politicians are not interested in saving other people's money but spending as much of it as they can to please everyone they need to to achieve their goals. Of course the Barack health plan could be cheaper than it is; but then how would he dole out billions of other people's money to corporate lobbies?

It is often said that health care is a right. The same people might say that education, a job, a house and a cushy retirement are all rights as well. While those things may be rights of a sort, a voluntaryist would say that it is wrong to force everyone else to pay for and provide those things, and can point to the disastrous effects this "give it to me or I won't vote for you" entitlement mentality have had. If Paul has the right to free health care, is it Peter's obligation to pay for it? The right to education has led to a steady devaluing of it and a massive debt bubble; the right to a house turned into the mortgage meltdown; and the right to a pension underlies the largest and most intractable long-term government liabilities all over the rich world. I have a right to good health in the same way I have a right to walk around shouting racial slurs; either way, I should pay the price myself.

Senator Bernie Sanders once said that getting the best possible health care the system can provide is a right for all Americans. I wonder how many millions of dollars per person that would cost, and how much the price of health care would rise if it were not seriously deregulated first, but I do not suggest attempting it. But Bernie derives his popularity from the entitlement mentality. Politicians are always happy to feed the people's illusion that it can provide them with everything they want by telling them they deserve it. So politicians come up with "ideas", usually in the form of laws and spending increases and never dare to suggest people should take responsibility for themselves.

One idea that keeps raising its head is to increase the amount of money for Medicare and Medicaid. But Medicare and Medicaid are government-run programs. Do we really trust the government to do what's best with our money for our health? Why do we not just let the people who get sick pay for themselves? Stop taxing people half their earnings and they might have enough to cover a lifetime of illness. The government does not exactly create economies of scale. It spends more than $100m of that money on drugs people do not need. But instead, we prefer to shovel money into bottomless pits.

Medicare and other state health-care funds are going bankrupt, like all Ponzi schemes do eventually. The estimated size of unfunded health-care liabilities in the US ranges from $50 trillion to over $100 trillion. The money is simply not there, and unless we catch a leprechaun, it is not about to appear. Problems regarding unfunded liabilities of popular programmes never get touched until it is far too late, because politicians have their own agendas and taking the initiative to solve a political problem is rarely on them. If such a problem can be put off until after the next election, it is; and when the inevitable collapse comes, it will be someone else's fault.

Criminalising medicine

You know herbs, those plants that you can take to heal yourself? Health Canada has criminalised them. (I wonder if a certain pharmaceutical lobby influenced their decision.) Dr Gabor Mate knows of a treatment for drug addiction: a traditional Amazonian tea called ayahuasca. However, because the plant is officially a "drug", Health Canada has ordered him to stop using it. Of course, it may, in fact, be quackery; but it does not follow that we should use violence to stop it. The same may go for iboga and even LSD.

Man is a natural scientist. That is how we got all these delicious fruits and vegetables we have today. From the beginning of agriculture, farmers selected the best vegetation and bred them. Through trial and error, the testing phase of the scientific method, we ended up with foods that are tastier than those growing wild. The same is true for why we have different breeds of horses and dogs. It is called artificial selection. People have been growing plants for medicine for a long time, too. Perhaps if they had had more money and the freedom to grow whatever they wanted, we would have better medicines today. As it stands, we are prohibited from growing all kinds of things—hemp, the wonder plant with a thousand uses, leaps to mind.

If we are free to try things, we might find a cure for our problems. No freedom means no cure, or an unnecessarily expensive cure. We thus see the danger of letting any government office "regulate", which just means using violence to prevent people from deciding on their own, any substance at all. They tell the people what they can and cannot put in their bodies, which means they own and control our bodies, which means we could not possibly consider ourselves free. And the idea that government needs that power because it knows or should decide what is right for peaceful, sentient beings is ridiculous.

The FDA, or any regulatory body, as a government agency, is beholden to the whims of politicians. If politicians say, for instance, marijuana must remain illegal, the FDA will kowtow. It has released all manner of dangerous pharmaceuticals on to the market, while continuing to lie that marijuana has no medicinal properties. It has broad scope to stop whatever it defines as a drug. (That said, a different law prohibits the FDA from saying anything about "dietary supplements", also broadly defined. More laws do not make more sense.) It should thus not be surprising to anyone that the main food safety guy at the FDA, Michael Taylor, was formerly an executive of Monsanto. Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto and now is an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Linda Fisher worked for 10 years in the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, next headed Monsanto's Washington lobbying efforts, then went back to the EPA. They are not the only ones taking advantage of the revolving door.

The FDA does not protect anyone's health. It works for the pharmaceutical industry, which wants us to take drugs. The idea that the state is a good judge of what is right to put in your body is a joke. In spite of all its well-documented benefits, the Supreme Court has said the US government can prosecute people who smoke marijuana, whether for medicinal purposes, whether given them by a doctor, whether the state has decriminalised the drug, or not. The FDA kept silent on arsenic fed to chickens and consumed by Americans for some time, while sending US marshals to raid a distributor of elderberry juice because it was an "unapproved drug". Another feature of all bureaucracies is their unceasing need to justify their existence by issuing directives that are supposed to be good for the public. If you are still not convinced, I suggest watching _The World According to Monsanto_ to see the symbiotic relationship between the FDA and a corporation that would be considered criminal in a healthy society. The FDA is not good for the public. If it opened up food and drug certification to competition, the FDA would be irrelevant.

In the US, the selling of kidneys is illegal. But if you have two kidneys, you have one extra. What if someone on dialysis, which I am led to understand is horrible, is willing to buy your extra kidney? 400,000 Americans are on kidney waiting lists. Let's trade kidneys. Sorry. You are not allowed. In fact, there is a market for organs, because people are suffering and dying for lack of them, and there are organs that can be transplanted, such as those from a teenager who dies in a motorcycle accident. It is only the intervention of the state that prevents this life-saving transaction from taking place. Given what we know about the effects of drug criminalisation, it should not be surprising that the black market for kidneys is lucrative and bloody.

What else must we do and not do? Police in helmets with guns drawn recently took down Rawesome, a raw food store in California, and seized the unpasteurised milk and organic coconuts they were selling. The government of California, deeply in debt, spent taxpayer dollars protecting big agribusiness by destroying its small competitors. Plenty more have been raided since Rawesome. The government has moved beyond the business of suggesting what we should eat to forcing us to shop for food where its campaign contributors demand. The businesses we must shop from pump their food full of antibiotics in factory farms. If the government was concerned about our safety, it would shut down those farms (or at least warn the public about the dangers). Instead, it takes away our freedom and health because it is controlled by people who care more about your money.

Do we need to tax 100% of the people to take care of the 5 or 10% who have no one to take care of them and who cannot take care of themselves? I have friends who make $40,000 a year who say that they need socialised medicine or else how could they afford it if something went wrong. Why don't they save up money to take care of themselves or buy insurance? You would save up and buy insurance to take care of your car. And what is the role of private charity? We humans have shown we can take care of each other—even people we will never meet—by giving or volunteering to help the less fortunate. Government not only does not solve social problems; it tends to prolong them. Let us see how the free market would and does handle health.

Free-market health care

It is appropriate to consider not only what is wrong with the present system, but how we could be healthier in a stateless society. I have been asked "so how would you organise health care?" The answer that leaps to mind is, I would not. For the same reason top-down, hierarchically-imposed solutions tend to work poorly, it does not matter how good my own ideas are; the people can decide these things for themselves. Free markets and free people have a way of sorting things out that makes sense, which is why we do not have triangular ATM cards and square DVDs, even though the government did not tell us what shape to make them. Second, if people think health care is a good idea, they will find a way to make it happen. Take away the force, give people their freedom and see what happens.

The answer is not so much a system of health care as empowering people to make their own health decisions. It is likely that, as in all relatively free markets, the market for health would develop tiers of care. The lowest tier would be for common illnesses. How will the poor get healthy? You mean aside from diet and exercise, right? Perhaps they could pay for insurance. Or is that unreasonable? Insurance is only for the rich? Perhaps low-cost health care will arise. Wait. It already has.

Walmart offers walk-in health services by leasing store space to private clinics. It costs a flat $45 per visit, meaning there is price transparency. This competition ends the monopoly doctors once had, and they will need to lower their prices.

The (relatively) free market is helping improve our health every day. Look at what intrepid entrepreneurs are doing. They provide venture capital for health-care startups; help people save money on doctors and dentists; provide online platforms for doctors to communicate and for people to fundraise for individual patients who need it.

But the free market is not just about making money. The Patch Adams Clinic in Philadelphia offers, for a small, annual fee, doctors and nurses to perform all the basic functions of a health clinic. The fact that people operating outside the formal channels are providing affordable care indicates a free market for health care would indeed lower costs to consumers.

A stateless society might still want something that protects the people from bad drugs and food. We should not trust a government monopoly that bans low-cost drugs and foods just because they compete with powerful corporations. We already have other people testing these things—let them publish reliable findings or damage their reputations as scientists.

It is quite possible we will want to continue to subsidise each other (after all, such health-care systems are popular), though why they might choose to do it on a national level is beyond me. I would never say we have to become atoms, or isolated communities. I see little benefit in such a scheme. If you do not like business, fine. The free market is not about business but free people's solutions. How about mutual aid through health cooperatives?

Forcing others to pay for something you believe in, whether you call something a right or not, is not virtuous. Compassion is virtuous and better for your health than pills. All I think is that we should have the choice.

39 The environment

Among fears of a stateless society is concern for the environment. If we get rid of government, what will happen to the environment? We need to be sure we are not fooling ourselves into thinking government is doing something positive about it at the moment. What is happening to it now, under the auspices of democratic governments, that protects the environment? Why would a change necessarily be worse?

This chapter looks at the government's role in harming the environment. Then, it provides solutions to environmental problems in the absence of government, touching on resources, pollution, endangered animals and land. It concludes with an opinion (of someone much more experienced that me) on so-called green jobs and environmentalist entrepreneurship. It goes through each briefly because it is partly a summary of information on subjects that is available elsewhere.

Sure, a government could fix the environment. Enough force could "solve" almost any problem (except the initiation of force, which is the biggest problem). Throwing anyone who drives a car, burns coal or eats beef in jail would clean up our air pretty quickly, notwithstanding any hamburger terrorist movements that might arise. But is a society that trusts all its freedom to an omnipotent clique one worth inhabiting? We live somewhere in between the totalitarian state and the free society, and the results are not good for the environment.

Do I blame the government for the poor state of the environment? Is the government the cause of all problems everywhere? Of course not. But it does not help much. Let us be specific.

Where governments supply something like oil or electricity, there is little or no market mechanism that sets the price. It could simply be a waste of public money, or it could mean such things are being subsidised, likely leading to overconsumption. A free market has price fluctuations but does not suffer from the market distortions of regulations and subsidies that precipitate crashes and prolong slumps.

The state subsidises other wasteful practices. For instance, it builds logging roads that enable logging companies to pay for less than the real cost of cutting down the trees. Moreover, since they are logging public land (in other words, land owned by nobody), they have no incentive to log sustainably. Other firms in a variety of industries receive similar benefits that make their business easier.

Americans cannot farm hemp. A crop with literally tens of thousands of uses, that farmers could be farming, cannot be farmed. More plants means cleaner air—especially with hemp, as it grows much faster than most trees. But because it can, the government does not allow us to grow natural fibers. In fact, the police and associated paramilitary (like the DEA) burn hemp and marijuana crops they find. They also poison coca plants and poppies in South America and Afghanistan. People still do drugs, of course, so the government is not protecting our health in that way. It is merely adding to the toxins in the air.

Consider how the government insures the giant oil firms it sleeps with. The Cheney energy bill, for instance, as discussed in chapter 15, is about subsidising oil drilling and otherwise protecting the industry. Then, because it has so much money to hand out, the government subsidises coal. Coal! How dirty can you get? And why coal? Because of the coal lobby. As usual, a lobby and a government go hand in hand to take your money and use it to make the world worse off.

Or consider how the law blocks the development of fuel-efficient automobiles. There is no reason a free market would not come up with fuel-efficient cars. In fact, it does. But they are not allowed. And what happens when the state funds green jobs? Quite simply, cronyism. We will come back to this subject later. Those who thank the state for developing green technology do not know what they are talking about.

Monsanto writes various government policies. In the US, where the revolving door has ensured over a dozen Monsanto employees have become lobbyists and policy makers, Monsanto has patented all kinds of seeds that destroy the market, destroy the capacity of people to grow their own food and destroy the soil in which the seeds are grown. The US government promotes Monsanto products around the world. The Canadian government is promoting the testing of Monsanto's killer technology in the wild.

Then there are the effects of war. In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the US federal government to clean up 17 weapons plants that were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals—an estimated $100b—and nothing happened. No bureaucrat got fired, no government department was disbanded, and nothing got cleaned up. A nuclear weapons plant in Colorado contaminated air, water and soil with toxic, radioactive chemicals, without, of course, the consent of the people down the road. Depleted uranium leads to birth defects and cancers and has been fired all over Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The destruction of ecosystems, War on Drugs defoliation schemes, the effects of nuclear weapons testing, the increased cancer rates–all are products of an institution that wages a never-ending war on non-existent enemies and cannot be trusted to care for something as important as the planet.

It is important to remain skeptical that the government (including the EPA) ever actually tries to protect nature. Thomas Sowell, in The Housing Boom and Bust, details how land-use restrictions, often a bone thrown to environmental groups (even though more than 90% of the land in the US is not developed), did little more than inflate the housing bubble of the past decade. Other policies appear, on the surface, to protect the environment, but in fact have left it wide open to abuse. Aside from direct results of government malfeasance, indirect results need to be taken into account when considering whether to retain or reject government power over something.

The main reason we have polluted air and water they are in the commons. When something is unowned, no one has enough incentive to preserve it; at least, not if there is no agreement among them to develop and own it collectively. If I do not use it for my own benefit, someone else will, so I might as well extract what benefits I can as fast as I can. But since everyone thinks that way, everyone might do so and might exhaust the resource. Following the law of ownership by homesteading, if a man transforms land into something useful, he owns it. And if a number of people enter into an agreement to use land together, they own that land as per their contract. But humans have not developed the land everywhere. At the moment, much of the environment is the commons.

Governments have done nothing to stop climate change and the pollution of the oceans, and little to prevent air pollution without businesses having voluntarily adopted measures. Likewise, no one owns most wild animals, and as a result, people can hunt them (with no regard to endangered animal laws) wherever they want for little cost. A government that does not allow private ownership of the air, water and fauna has allowed those things to remain common. So what is the market anarchist solution? Privatise them.

Privatisation has traditionally meant selling partial or whole stakes in government-run enterprises on the stock market. It has never meant a reduction of the government's power over a section of society, but simply a transfer of the wealth generated by former state assets. I do not advocate this kind of rearrangement of power under the guise of freeing the market. Rather, this chapter is about why a stateless society could protect the environment far better than the state.

As I explain in section 4, ownership in a stateless society has nothing to do with business or who has the most money. People can own things collectively, as a community (broadly-defined), an NGO, a cooperative, as a business or as individuals. Free people usually think more long term than politicians. A politician's incentive is to survive until the next election, and he cannot commit future politicians to a course of action. Voting and demonstrating cannot force otherwise. It is well documented that businesses that think long term benefit their shareholders long term; businesses that focus only on the short term often crash and burn. (Of course, they might get bailed out by the government; I guess that is the corruption democrats always work in vain to eliminate.) Let us look at the economics of privately-run resources.

Wheat exists because there is demand for it. The government does not need to supply wheat or ensure a certain quantity of bread is being made. If we all decided to stop eating wheat, we would stop growing it and it would disappear. The same is true for fish, trees and whatever else. Maybe we should start eating tigers. (More on endangered animals later.)

A rise in prices means that more farming (of plants) or exploration (of minerals) will take place, and supply might even go up (and push prices back down). That is what has been happening since the 1968 book The Population Bomb and the 1972 book Limits to Growth. Another possibility, some might say inevitability, is alternatives to expensive materials will be found, hence the current push for research into alternatives to oil. And the research does not need to be subsidised because the potential for profit is huge. Just imagine if you discovered or produced a viable substitute for oil or copper or iron. You would get investors lining up around the block and become a millionaire. So what does the state need to protect?

An owner of a copper mine needs to balance expectations of future prices with concerns about current ones. If he completely strips an area of copper, the supply will be higher in the present, which implies lower prices, and he will have nothing for the future, when prices might be higher. Likewise, the owner of an acre of forest who wants to profit from that forest might strip it bare for now but will probably only cut down some of the trees, then reseed, to ensure the land's viability as a source of revenue for the future. That is long-term thinking.

In fact, when it protects resources against "greedy capitalist exploitation", government does not actually destroy the market for those resources; it does one of two things. If it continues to allow producers to exist, prices go up and their profits go up. Then, they become an interest group with a stake in the status quo. If no one can legally produce the resource, but there is still demand for, government protection still drives the price up but drives the production underground. Hence the lucrative trade in endangered animals, for instance. Governments have done nothing to protect the elephant. How could they? Could they get police to follow elephants around the bush all the time to make sure no one hunts them? Some have called for worldwide bans on ivory. But a worldwide ban on drugs has not done much to the drug trade—quite the contrary. Drugs and ivory are still both big business. A government solution is not a solution. It is just violence.

Am I saying we should not protect endangered animals? Not at all. We can protect them through private ownership. NGOs, communities or even individuals could own and protect land. Of course, we could force everyone to pay for it through government action; though sometimes even then governments sell off land to businesses. If you really want to protect it, buy or protect it. It is yours. You can preserve it however you like. Banning the elephant trade depleted their numbers; privatising the elephant helped them flourish. The main reason we are running out of things people want, like seals, is their hunting takes place in the commons. Everyone can do it (well, they need a license, but that does not have to stop anyone), and so overhunting is likely. But if people own the land or sea where the hunting takes place, they will breed the animals more conservatively, for the long term, because they can make money off it.

Let us make barnyards out of oceans. Farms protect animals—when was the last time anyone said we had to save endangered cows? So let us own sections of ocean and the whales within them. It is possible that the new owner would kill all the whales in his part of the ocean and sell them, but there is nothing to stop anyone doing that right now. Well, except Greenpeace. Let Greenpeace buy up the ocean too. Because of the different incentives at play, it is illogical to think private owners would not protect the environment and the government would. Take these things out of the commons, let someone own them and they might flourish like the elephant.

Is privatising the environment purely theoretical? A publicly-traded company named Earth Sanctuaries, Ltd. saved several species from extinction and brought many back to their pre-colonial levels by owning about 90,000 hectares of land in Australia. Unfortunately, this company went bankrupt. Nonetheless, it did its job while it existed. Like other failed ventures, it provides a model for what not to do. One failure does not mean it could never work: it means another try might get it right. The same goes for such practices as fish farming. Privatising oyster beds has brought oysters back from the brink of extinction. Fish farming is a potential solution to both the extinction of fish stocks and the satisfaction of our craving for fish. Some fish farming is unsustainable, but again, if we keep trying, we can get it right. We're a smart bunch that way.

But even if we decide not to privatise animals, we can still use private courts to advocate for them. I could take the owner of a factory whose actions have poisoned sea turtles to court and sue him or her on behalf of the turtles. Of course, there would need to be a consensus that non-humans could be defended this way.

Privatisation of land and waste disposal would likely reflect the true costs of dumping garbage. Say you want to dump your plastic bags somewhere. If they are very bad for the soil, the people on whose land you dump them will expect you to pay a proportionally high price for dumping them, because that land would not be useful for a long time to come. The waste disposal companies would pass those costs onto the people who use and buy plastic bags, who would thus consume fewer in favour of less environmentally-damaging alternatives such as paper. Another market solution to an environmental problem.

Oil spills often upset indigenous people because oil companies do not care about those people. The oil companies move in, protected by the government, and anything they leave, they do not bother to clean up. Property rights—nothing more than people protecting the land they live on—would enable the people of those areas to decide if they want the companies to enter or not, and hold them to account for everything they do. They would have contracts, regulated by dispute-resolution organisations (see the next chapter). And the people would no longer be called terrorists for wanting to protect their holy land.

One way to deal with parasitic businesses is the boycott. More and more corporations, either in reaction to consumer pressure or proactively, are pursuing green strategies. And before you say "that's just greenwashing", bear in mind that if you can recognise a company that is harming the environment, you can recognise when its actions are only superficial. Companies know we know, and that is why so many are going beyond the superficial to real attempts to make their businesses sustainable. Unfortunately, consumer boycotts work far less well on corporations that produce for the government, because the chance of their being punished by their customers is almost zero.

The entrepreneurs who developed most of the "green technologies" we have today were not funded or directed by governments. Julian Morris gives the examples of the transistor, which enabled the mass production of high-tech electronics; the integrated circuit, which enabled mass production of personal computers, and the automation of all kinds of things; the fiber optic cable, which revolutionised high speed telecommunications and enabled the internet. "Why do I give these three examples?" he asks. "These are green technologies. They weren't developed as green technologies, though. And this is important. No government official started a programme in the 1920s saying, 'We've gotta develop some green technologies, let's invest in green jobs. I'm going to invest in the transistor, the integrated circuit and low-loss fiber optic cable.' This is not how innovation takes place."

Innovation relies on local, independent knowledge, and specific understanding of the gizmo. The innovators did not know when they started what problem they would end up solving. Through innovations, products have become more efficient, which might mean smaller, using fewer resources to make and dispose of; consuming less energy for greater output; or simply costing less. Morris also points out that cars are lighter, cheaper, safer and pollute less than they did 20 years ago; pop cans have much less than half the metal they had in the 1970s thanks to aiming to reduce costs and raise profits. And when you raise profits, you raise productivity, making innovation possible, growing the economy and reducing poverty. Sustainability is ever more possible every day. When the economy grows, we have more wealth to spend to reduce environmental damage further. Some venture capitalists and angel investors are always on the prowl for new green technologies, and if you can show you can make them money, you can get funding.

The state's record of environmental stewardship is not encouraging. The free market, on the other hand, the fair and accountable system, has potential for sustainability the world under centralised authority does not.

40 Polycentric law

Wouldn't it be great if we did not have to follow every law the state passes over us? But then, how would we enforce contracts? How would we enforce property rights? What if someone attacked us? If these concerns could be answered, if we could still have contracts and property and security without following the laws of the state, would you be interested?

Advocates of a minimal state (minarchists) spend considerable time debating which government functions can or should be handed over to the private sector. They may say the state should contract out utilities, social security or the military. However, under such an arrangement, the state would retain ultimate control of all those things, because it would have the prerogative of the law. The law is, in fact, the source of the state's power.

But as I keep asking, why would we want to give the power to make and enforce laws to a small group of people? Is it that we can trust these people because "we" "elected" them, or threaten not to do so? Or that we do not trust others? Voluntaryists are not against all rules, just against state laws. Law that is determined not by one institution but by many is called polycentric, customary or privately-produced law. This chapter is about the why and how of polycentric law.

A stateless society is not a lawless one. In fact, no society could be without any form of law or governance. The difference between a state society and a stateless one is, in the latter, _law comes from generally-agreed morality and not from the state_. In this book, I propose the non-aggression principle as a standard for that morality. However, even if no one had ever heard of the NAP, it is likely something not too different from it would emerge naturally in a society not governed by a monopolistic hierarchy.

Society necessarily has some mechanism or other for sustaining order. While it is presumed in our society that police, the legislature and the courts provide—and are essential for—peace and order, to the contrary, order exists despite state monopolies, not because of them. Society, law and enforcement existed long before these things came along, and exist to this day in societies without government. In fact, common law, as we understand it in the Anglo-American tradition of law, is a product not of conscious law making but of the evolutionary process of dispute settlement.

In _The Market for Liberty_ , Morris and Linda Tannehill dismiss the idea that we need monopolistic law and force to solve disputes.

It is interesting to note that the advocates of government see initiated force (the legal force of government) as the only solution to social disputes. According to them, if everyone in society were not forced to use the same court system, and particularly the same final court of appeal, disputes would be insoluble. Apparently it doesn't occur to them that disputing parties are capable of freely choosing their own arbiters, including the final arbiter, and that this final arbiter wouldn't need to be the same agency for all disputes which occur in the society. They have not realized that disputants would, in fact, be far better off if they could choose among competing arbitration agencies so that they could reap the benefits of competition and specialization.

It should be obvious that a court system which has a monopoly guaranteed by the force of statutory law will not give as good quality service as will free-market arbitration agencies which must compete for their customers. Also, a multiplicity of agencies facilitates specialization, so that people with a dispute in some specialized field can hire arbitration by experts in that field...instead of being compelled to submit to the judgment of men who have little or no background in the matter.

As we will see, a better system is possible.

A simple rule is, the easier it is for normal people to do what they want without harming others, to do business and trade, to create and innovate, the better off the people around them. There are, in fact, things a government can do to aid an economy. One of the most important, as seen from the studies in _The Mystery of Capital_ , is upholding contracts and property rights. If there are ways to do these things in a free market, while lowering or eliminating the risks of abuse associated with state intervention, they are worth considering.

Law around the world

In his paper _Privately-Produced Law_ , Tom W. Bell explains that people around the world and throughout history have used more equitable legal systems than the centralised model. Some legal systems many would write off as "primitive" are in fact very effective at protecting individual freedom and property, resolving complex conflicts, avoiding violence and can legislate changes in the law. They do all these things without the inefficient, unsatisfying elite control of the system most civilised people are used to.

In such systems, people make reciprocal agreements for all kinds of things. Victims, people for whom agreements have been broken, enforce the agreements by going to a predetermined arbitrator or other organisation charged with ensuring the terms of the agreement. Such agreements are necessary to belong to the community in the first place; and since they are mutually beneficial (unless one knows one is going to break the law), people believe in them. Economic restitution, proportionate to the severity of the crime, is the main form of punishment for torts. The guilty yield to the punishment largely due to the threat of ostracism.

Old Anglo-Saxon law made courts out of public assemblies. Interpreting the law was not a problem, as custom took care of it. The outcome of the dispute was about the facts of the case. There were no crimes against the state, or against society. There were only crimes against individuals. The dispute was brought to the public assembly, which attempted to negotiate a settlement both parties would find acceptable, preserving the peace of the community. The assembly had institutional memory, meaning it would remember the outcomes of the cases, and the law would be adjusted accordingly. The people of the community would soon come to know what to expect, and the community had customary law.

Various other groups have come up with laws regarding the conduct of their members, including immigrant communities, communes, merchants and guilds. Commercial arbitration has become a popular, fast and efficient form of resolving disputes for the insurance, construction, textile and other industries. (Find more on arbitration below.)

Contracts and reputation

In advanced capitalist countries, where legal contracts have a long history and a solid place in the culture, enforcing contracts is something the state does reasonably well. How could contracts work in a stateless society? Well, how did they work before the state began enforcing them? How do they work where there is no state? Generally, the answer is the same: reputation. If you are known for fulfilling the terms of the contracts you sign, you win new ones, and you make money. If you break a contract, you lose big time. You lose future contracts but you also lose face from all your peers. Nowadays, that could mean being smeared on the internet as well. Shame, and in more extreme cases, ostracism, is a common punishment throughout the world for anyone who breaks with his or her expected obligations.

Reputation is very important. In a sufficiently small community, we would probably not need any kind of court system because if Johnny cheats Holly, everyone will find out, and will shame, attempt to rehabilitate or (again, at the extreme) ostracise Johnny. We could formalise this process for a larger society with some kind of reputation database, possibly along the lines of what eBay and Amazon use, or possibly more sophisticated, using arbitrators. Arbitrators would be judged on their reputation. They would likely specialise in a field. They could create permissions to add entries and create permissions to read the database, but could not alter or remove entries.

When Johnny and Holly agree to enter into a contract, they take it to an arbitrator, Justine, who gets a fee. Justine makes an entry in the database. If Justine makes a ruling against Johnny the cheat, and Johnny does not comply with it, the arbitrator puts all of it in the database, showing that Johnny is not someone you would want to do business with. There could be a number of online and offline backup databases to ensure no one tampers with them.

A credit rating is a kind of reputation. Debts that are so small they are not worth taking to court or even arbitrators are still regularly paid off because of one's credit rating. Stefan Molyneux explains that we already operate under such a system, and that expanding it with dispute-resolution organisations, or DROs, could be advantageous to all.

Picture for a moment the infinite complexity of modern economic life. Most individuals bind themselves to dozens of contracts, from car loans and mortgages to cell phone contracts, gym membership, condo agreements and so on. To flourish in a free market, a man must honour his contracts. A reputation for honest dealing is the foundation of a successful economic life. Now, few DROs will want to represent a man who regularly breaks contracts, or associates with difficult and litigious people. (For instance, this writer once refrained from entering into a business partnership because the potential partner revealed that he had sued two previous partners.)

People will need to be represented by DROs because their being accepted into mainstream society will demand it. Without a contract with a DRO, one would have no credibility as an honest broker and thus no chance of entering into contracts—at least, contracts without very high fees and penalties for breaking them. We do not necessarily need prisons in these cases. "Would we actually have more fraud and looting of shareholder value if the perpetrators knew that they would lose their bank accounts and their reputation, and have to do community service seven days a week for five years?"

A DRO would be liable for crimes their clients commit. If a man murdered his wife, he would lose his contract (which would prohibit murder) and have to pay some penalty to the next of kin. That might mean forced labour under some kind of imprisonment. DROs "are as ancient as civilization itself, but have been shouldered aside by the constant escalation of State power over the last century or so.... [They make] all the information formerly known by the local community available to the world as whole, just as credit reports do." And insurance can be created for just about anything.

Arbitration

Arbitration has made courts superfluous in many areas, with tens of thousands of arbitrations conducted every year. Arbitration is a kind of privately-produced law, as it involves two people voluntarily coming together, choosing their own terms and accepting someone else's ruling. Arbitrators have been around since the Middle Ages, and developed the whole body of merchant law. None of them could violently enforce their rulings.

In a society of polycentric law, arbitrators would be chosen for their expertise, efficiency and integrity as impartial judges, as they are now. Arbitration has even gone online. Judge.me is a company that resolves international disputes in a matter of days based on common principles of justice. It is an efficient and promising service.

Choosing the law

Private law means we can choose which laws to abide by, instead of hoping to impose them on others. Sure, people in polycentric legal societies will get things wrong; but they will get them less wrong, with less drastic, society-wide consequences, than state law. Laws will be easier to change because they will not engender special interests that have a billion-dollar stake in them, only customers who demand change. David Friedman's argument is that, since the government seldom carries out vital functions more efficiently than the free market, why would we expect it to make laws right? A monopoly is rarely necessary or preferable; why would a monopoly on the production of law be different?

In a free market for law, a large number of security firms would exist that, for a fee, would enforce the basic rights, including contracts, of their customers. Imagine my television goes missing. The camera my security agency has installed outside my home saw the person who did it. The thief the agency identified denies the crime. I have a rights-enforcement agency, but so do you. The two agencies might go to war over my claim to get my TV back, right?

But wars are very expensive and private firms want to minimise costs. War only profits those who wage it when they steal the money used to pay for it from someone else through taxation or plunder. Instead, the agencies could decide on a neutral arbitrator who will decide to whom the TV belongs. Since such disputes are likely to recur, policies will stipulate when the firms will approach an arbitrator.

Since such firms will deal with each other for a long time, they will be able to agree on rules and industry standards. Instead of fighting, they will have rules and mechanisms in place to enforce rulings of the arbitrators. If firms attempt to collude, it is likely customers will desert them, as existing and potential customers find legitimate claims are not redressed.

In order for a rights-enforcement agency, an arbitration agency or a private court to make money, people need to choose to use it. So who would their customers be? A polycentric legal order would resolve the debates over, say, the implementation of Islamic sharia, because Muslims who want sharia (which is not all Muslims, just so you know) can abide by it, and would not force others to follow it. Orthodox Jews would shop at a different agency. Libertarians who do not want too many rules would have their own. Pacifists might choose arbitration without enforcement.

Dealing with aggression

Contracts are a very useful way to solve disputes. Perhaps I sign a contract when I move somewhere that I am not going to let my grass grow too high or scatter car parts on the lawn, and if I break it, there is recourse to kick me out. But what about torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Murray Rothbard has some ideas. The free market offers endless possibilities—whatever people can offer that customers want. Insurance companies would pay the victims of crime, the breaking of contracts, the winners of arbitration, then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. Competing defense agencies would exist to protect people, and they would likely work closely with the insurance companies: the less crime there is, the less the insurance companies need to pay out. Insurance companies would probably lower the cost of burglary insurance to those with alarm systems, or trained gun owners. Thus, the incentives for swift, efficient restitution with a minimum of violence are built in to the system.

Holly accuses Johnny of a crime. Johnny gives her the finger and does not show up in court or send a representative. As a result, his side of the case is not heard. If he is found guilty, he might nonetheless accept the verdict. If not, he could go to another court, he could appeal, and so on. If courts and appeals continue to find Johnny guilty, they will have found him guilty of aggression. In a society based on the non-aggression principle, this is a crime. Private defense agencies thus have the moral authority to demand restitution and employ violence if it is not forthcoming.

In a free society, people would be free not to press charges, or not to employ violence if other parties did not accept rulings against them. Nonetheless, in the eyes of anyone with access to a reputation or contract-rating database (which would be everyone), those who violate the NAP would have all manner of sanction against them. They would find it difficult to buy a car, for instance, because they would not be trusted to pay for it. Crimes against "society" would not exist (and arguably do not exist at the moment).

Not everyone who is murdered has a DRO, of course. Not everyone who is killed has next of kin. One way this problem would almost certainly be handled is if the person belonged to a community in which one of the conditions for living was not to kill any members of the community (which presumably would be all communities), the community would have legal recourse against him or her. I can imagine if you kill someone in this community, you would have the whole community come after you with their rights-enforcement organisation. Likewise, if you are from a community, there would probably be stipulations saying thou shalt not kill, or else thou wilst get kicked out of this community, or arrested, or something similar. This doesn't wrap the problem up entirely, because the murdered or murderer may not have lived in a contract-based community. That just means one guy, living in the middle of nowhere, with no family and no insurance, has to defend himself.

I am sure that, like with everything a voluntaryist proposes, statists will be able to find holes in the theory and "what if" their ideas to death. A few holes in the presentation of a theory does not invalidate it, especially when it is something everyone will have the chance to influence, unlike the current way of dispensing law. They are free to continue to believe they are best represented by the "justice" system as it is now. All we ask is they respect others' opinions enough to let them try their own way of doing things. They could be attempted on a micro level, with a few hundred or a few thousand people.

A system of polycentric law would eliminate victimless crimes, because people could not insure themselves against things that do not harm them. It would be fairer, instead of today's system of treating rich people's crimes as misdemeanors and minorities' or the poor's crimes as murder. It would simplify laws, meaning far less need for expensive lawyers. It would lower costs, meaning everyone could afford it; or at least, it would be easy to raise money for those who could not. And we would not have every law and verdict handed down by a self-interested elite.

41 Agorism and counter-economics

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. – Buckminster Fuller

Freedom, including the freedom to build and trade and innovate, is the natural state of humanity. If the state is meant to protect us from the bad people (its perpetual justification), it follows that, if we are peaceful people who do good things for ourselves and others, we have the right to ignore the state. If one must ask permission, one is not free. Agorism is voluntary exchange without asking permission; taking one's freedom back and using it to make people better off. It is one method of challenging state monopolies. Monopolies enable and encourage abuse. So, asks the libertarian, how do we end them?

In _the_ _New Libertarian Manifesto_ , Samuel Edward Konkin considers how libertarians have tried to end the state, from violence to collaboration to spreading the word. He concludes from their overall failure that the answer is to stop feeding the state, and outlines his vision for an agorist society, and the counter-economic method of getting there. Counter-establishment economics, or counter-economics, is simply peaceful action that the state forbids. It exposes the unnecessary and damaging role of the state in the enforcement of its monopolies. The Underground Railroad, which helped those legally enslaved escape to freedom, is one example.

Agorism has much to do with self sufficiency, shaking off dependence on the state and doing things for oneself and one's community. In addition, while it means avoiding taxes, its purpose is starving the state of funds. If a person, or much better, community, opposes the state, he, she or it can set up businesses or co-ops that are unlicensed, unregistered, unregulated and illegal. They can provide goods and services cheaply and without needing to feed the beast.

Agorism means one by one, people stop supporting the state and start supporting each other instead. Agorists will be at the forefront of the building of a new society, and they provide an example for those who are interested. Agorism is like all trade in that it alleviates and prevents poverty, but unlike other trade it ensures that money spent does not go toward the evils the state creates. Agorism and counter-economics are about ignoring bad laws and disobeying illegitimate authority.

To make clear, drug barons are not agorists (as they do not believe the state is immoral) or counter-economists (as they use violence). It is unfortunate that it is necessary to use violence in drug markets, but that is a natural consequence of the criminalisation of something so many people want. But not all black markets are violent.

Counter-economists come in all shapes and sizes. They could be

\--Tax evaders;

\--Smugglers (of humans looking for opportunities, drugs to people who need or want them, banned books, cigarettes subject to high taxes, and so on);

\--Midwives whose positions have been eliminated by state health-care systems;

\--Doctors working without belonging to government-approved national medical associations;

\--Gun owners who disobey firearm restrictions;

\--Gamblers who gamble with friends instead of in registered casinos;

\--Unregistered taxi drivers;

\--Publishers and consumers of illicit art, literature and newspapers;

\--Pirate radio operators;

\--Online black markets like Silk Road;

\--Sellers at garage sales, flea markets, swap meets, roadside stands, on Craigslist or other agorist marketplaces;

\--Farmers' markets that do not acquire official permits and pay administrative fees to assemble;

\--Farmers who grow and sell things the state prohibits, from hemp to raw milk;

\--Kids selling lemonade and Girl Guide cookies at the risk of being forced to stop;

\--Cooks who make and sell food, perhaps to friends and neighbours, by mail order (like Stateless Sweets) or by the side of the road;

\--Unlicensed contractors;

\--Entrepreneurs who defend peaceful people against state aggression (like Shield Mutual);

\--Employers who pay under the table and employees who are paid under the table;

\--Men standing in front of hardware stores hoping to get work paid under the table;

\--People who pirate drugs or entertainment subject to intellectual property laws;

\--People who give sanctuary to others on the run, such as whistleblowers and runaway slaves;

\--People feeding the homeless despite prohibitions on it;

\--People using an alternative currency (such as bitcoin or others), and using encryption to transfer funds online;

\--People engaging in reciprocal gift economies;

\--And anyone competing with a government monopoly, like Lysander Spooner did. Looking at all these illegal (but victimless) activities, are you a counter-economist?

In the twilight years of the Soviet Union, just about everyone was. The state had proven itself utterly incapable of providing more than the bare minimum of all manner of goods that were, in fact, available on the black market: food, repairs, electronics, exit papers and favours from the powerful.

Occupiers, you are counter-economists. Occupy movements were entirely voluntary, working on consensus, mutual aid, equality and solving their own problems. They established clinics, schools, libraries, kitchens and security teams. They showed everyone that we can have a voluntary society, that we can build a new society, based on compassion and helping each other, out of the shell of the old. Building the new society is called prefigurative politics. These values also inform the philosophy of the sovereign community, meaning new communities outside the reach of the state. Voluntary institutions show not only the morality of non-aggression, but also that we can solve the world's problems without force. Says Kevin Carson,

I've hoped for some time that Occupy would cease to be mainly a protest movement and instead become mainly a school of living. That is, that—like the neighborhood assemblies in Argentina ten years ago—it would become a venue for local communities to disseminate the skills and technologies for building counter-institutions and a counter-economy that could flourish outside the decaying neoliberal system.

...The human capital built up by Occupy in local communities has great potential as a clearinghouse for sharing and promoting such projects, and as a seed around which the new society and the new economy can crystallize.

Carson points out that a counter-economy should find ways to link together the disparate elements of the counter economy. Most people, including the poor, have considerable resources at their disposal. If people can leverage and mobilise those resources, they can provide a sustainable counterweight to the capitalist economy. As this is happening on a low level, one major next step is

building the secondary institutions we need to make the resources we already have more usable. Most people engage in a great deal of informal production to meet their own needs, but lack either access or awareness of the institutional framework by which they might cooperate and exchange with others involved in similar activities.

Learn more at agorism.info, www.humanadvancement.net, in the book _Markets Not Capitalism_ and in the writings of Samuel Edward Konkin and the Movement of the Libertarian Left, available free online.

42 Mutual aid

Anarchism is stateless socialism. – Mikhail Bakunin

In a world in which we have become content to allow political and legal processes to define our interests and resolve our disputes, we have forgotten the capacity of informal systems, such as neighborhoods and communities, to provide for social order. Whereas the interests of political systems are separated from those of the rest of us, within the neighborhood there tends to be an interconnectedness among neighbors, born of face-to-face relationships, that fosters mutual support and protection. – Butler Shaffer

Naturalist and anarchist Pyotr (Peter) Kropotkin wrote _Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution_ 1170 in 1902 in response to claims that natural selection and "survival of the fittest" meant the struggle of all against all. The historians, he explained, taught us of wars, cruelty and oppression, and the state, glad to find an excuse, explained to us those things would be the norm if not for an intervening authority. (Hobbes' "state of nature" being an undeservedly-well-known example of why we think this way.)

His book describes a different point of view: mutual aid among humans and other animals. It shows not only how they take care of each other, but the evolution of the morality of mutual aid. The "Law of Nature"/"kill or be killed" doctrine is simplistic and only covers a part of the existence of animals in the wild or humans in society. Members of a wide variety of species engage in mutual aid, not only within the species but sometimes across them, as we learn when we see birds cleaning the teeth of crocodiles.

Though competition among people can help economies grow, far more important is taking care of one another. We help out our family members, our friends and even strangers who can do nothing for us. We possess love, kindness, empathy, sympathy, caring, and a sense of fairness. For various reasons, we may not cooperate regularly with those in our community. But we could.

In _Democracy in America_ , Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his time, "[t]he political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there." Americans had innumerable associations, from commercial to religious to those that created hospitals and schools. These associations are all examples of mutual aid: people who do not have unlimited wealth forming and joining associations to fulfill their needs.

Mutual aid, examples of which are detailed below, has existed in human society for as long as we have been humans. Mutual aid promotes community and independence, which is why the state, along with slave owners and bosses, frequently attempts to shut it down. They have put a state bureaucracy in place of people helping each other, imposed taxes so that people needed to find sources of income, and declared a variety of practices illegal. But in the space where mutual aid has been allowed, it has flourished.

Why mutual aid? Why not charity?

In spite of the huge sums taken from them by the state, people still give to charity. They realise the state is not helping the causes they believe in and know they can help by picking up the slack. Why? "Presumably for a combination of reasons, including, in no particular order, compassion, social norms, the desire for good reputations, the desire to avoid bad reputations, and the desire to avoid social disorder." Mutual aid and charity avoid the high administrative costs and, of course, the political intentions of government-run antipoverty programmes.

There is nothing virtuous about being forced to pay for other people. But charity is generosity, right? Charity is not necessarily bad, but it can have the effect of entrenching poverty like government welfare programmes, rather than leading the way out of it. It can grant the givers a sense of benevolent superiority. It can disempower the receivers, making them feel like they have nothing to contribute. Giving food and clothes can also destroy local economies, as free foreign goods crowd out local goods. People come to depend on someone else's help. Mutual aid, on the other hand, means people in the network will help each other whenever and however possible.

Mutual aid is not likely to be illegal, in contrast to agorism. It means putting aside the competition and force inherent in the statist model (whether capitalist or socialist) and cooperating to help one another. It means sharing, and cooperating to make sure what one gives is used as one wants. While our nature pushes for reciprocity, we do not necessarily expect an equal return. It might run along the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". (Of course, people may decide to kick free riders out of the network.)

For those who do not trust or believe in the welfare state, mutual aid can create a social safety net. It can prevent the poor, disabled or elderly from falling into poverty. You can be sure your money is going toward community projects or helping those in need, rather than hoping the government or a potentially-corrupt non-profit is spending it the way you would like.

What can you and the people around you do to help each other?

\--The book _Mutual Aid and Union Renewal_ argues unions could reverse their decline if they engaged in mutual aid. If unions do not appear to benefit their members, or simply do not encourage their involvement, loyalty will remain low. But a union could act as an extended family. Some union members have set up member assistance programmes, helping each other with alcoholism and substance abuse, for example.

\--The cooperative is an autonomous association of people who voluntarily work together or jointly own something, like a housing project or business. They are usually run democratically (without force) by their members. They foster community through cooperation. Ideally, they would break off from and become independent of the state, and thus provide examples of secession.

\--A worker or producer cooperative is one owned by the people who own and operate a business. (This arrangement is sometimes called "market socialism".) Shared ownership diversifies, rather than concentrates, wealth. Not all worker cooperatives are exclusive owners of businesses, as some outside shareholders may be involved. Such cooperatives employ over 100m people and could be the wave of the future for business. After all, Ocean Spray, Sunkist and the Associated Press are all cooperative businesses.

\--Cleveland, Ohio, a city which has lost more than 50% of its population in the last few decades, has helped turn around its decline with cooperatives. The Evergreen Cooperatives have created wealth in poor communities by giving people ownership over their business and showing them how to utilise their skills. The Evergreen Cooperative has already spawned successful businesses, namely Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, Ohio Cooperative Solar and the Green City Growers. This model is slowly spreading throughout the country. Banks, utilities and anything else we need can be delivered by employee- or consumer-controlled enterprise.

\--A system of cooperatives in Spain functions as an agency for certifying organic food, making state agencies, which are often politicised and captured, irrelevant.

\--Agricultural cooperatives enable farmers to pool their resources for mutual benefit. They may be more able to afford capital equipment for more efficient farming in this way. In the days of continual raids on small farms and heavy subsidies of big farms, the benefits of farmers' working together outweigh the costs, both to themselves and consumers. A kibbutz is an agricultural cooperative, as is India's Amul, which sells dairy products, and Malaysia's FELDA, which sells palm oil.

\--A consumers' cooperative is a business owned and run by its customers. The two largest supermarket chains in Switzerland are co-ops. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op is one example, as is the UK's Co-operative Group.

\--Finally, social cooperatives, of which there are over 7000 in Italy, provide social services such as child care, elderly and disabled care, help with addiction, education and employment counseling.

\--There are other community-strengthening ideas that fall short of cooperatives. You could start a neighbourhood watch, where members of the community take turns guarding each other's property. Neighbourhood watch is widespread in North America. When the police are absent, their job is merely to punish crime. A neighbourhood watch can prevent it by having people present at all times. Moreover, in the countless parts of the world where the police are not accountable to those they police and are seen as thugs, a well-established neighbourhood watch could make the police redundant. This practice is easier today than ever, since we can communicate with each other at great distances, calling our neighbours to warn them without knocking on their doors.

\--An alternative devised by Antonio Buehler in Austin, Texas, is the Peaceful Streets Project. The Peaceful Streets Project is a grassroots effort to hold the police accountable. Members hand out video cameras to locals so they can film the police in their neighbourhoods when they commit wanton violence. They also hold public "police complaint department" events for people to voice their stories of police abuse.

\--Voluntary fire protection is a good idea, too. Most fire departments in the US are volunteer. Volunteer firefighter Benjamin Franklin started the US's first mutual fire insurance company, which operates to this day.

\--Neighbourhood associations and homeowners associations of various kinds are protecting local environments, enforcing safety and other rules, organising social activities, building recreational facilities and fixing roads.

\--One person following this blog's Facebook page told me of a teacher who started a parents' group that collects canned food, clothing, books and small items such as toothbrushes. Parents donate time, labour or rides to one another. In this way, the group promotes agorism and community.

\--Poor communities have even more to gain. Many rural Africans work each other's fields, and the owner of a given field might provide food and drinks. They help one another build houses. They pool their money for life insurance, or household items.

\--People who complain about high costs of buying from the insurance oligopoly may want to pool their money with others. Members of the network may choose criteria by which some pay more and others pay less. Smokers might pay more in a health insurance society and pyromaniacs will probably not be allowed in a fire insurance society. And no one will be forced to subsidise others' risky habits.

\--Likewise with the banks. Need a loan? How about a credit union? There are thousands of credit unions in North America with millions of members. A credit union is an example of a consumers' cooperative. We could start mutual banks for cooperatives that need loans, perhaps issuing interest-free credit against some collateral the membership agrees with.

\--Sick of inflation? Don't like making money? Ever tried a local exchange trading system (LETS)? LETS is a non-profit enterprise that records transactions for people's exchanging of goods and services. A member may earn credit for fixing someone's car, and spend it later when he needs a babysitter or a dentist. The credit does not need to be in the national currency, which is how it avoids inflation and the necessity of making money. Credit can be given for a given job by whatever criteria the people decide.

\--Some places are moving away from fiat currency imposed by central banks. Greece's current situation of lawlessness is leading many to adopt a cashless economy. Barter exchange has become the norm for many Greeks. One news story writes of a local network of hundreds of people who have set up their own LETS. Perhaps 15 such networks existed at the time of writing, with more on the way. Necessity is the mother of cooperation.

\--Mutual aid could mean investment. Communities, clubs or other networks can put their money into local ventures with people they know and trust, gaining a tangible stake in the business and avoiding the rigged markets for securities.

\--Support groups have sprung up for just about every shared personal problem. People who have the same illness take strength from and learn to cope thanks to their groups; immigrants set up hometown societies or landsmanshaftn.

\--Occupy Wall Street coordinated mutual aid for those who participated in the May 1, 2012 protest. People supplied food, medical and legal support, skill sharing and workshops, and hosted a Really, Really Free Market where people could bring clothes, books, toys, tools and whatever other things people who wanted to participate in a gift economy could bring. They set up a free university, as well.

\--Rachel Leone, writing on mutual aid at Occupy, says,

You might not know it, but mutual aid is already part of your everyday life. Family members—both chosen and biological—take care of each other when one is sick, watch each other's children and pets, and help with household projects. Friends share food and favorite books. Couch-surfers allow strangers to stay on their couches when they travel and then go off to adventure themselves, knowing that they will have a place to rest and a new friend at their next destination. Hitchhiking gets people to from state to state in exchange for stories and songs. Neighbors share recipes and tools. And let's not forget that good consensual sex can be a form of mutual aid, too

All these things are already happening. Mutual aid has never been easier. Mutual aid societies have gone international. They use online platforms like www.chipin.com, www.kickstarter.com and www.etsy.com. If more people choose not to depend on the state, the idea will spread.

Many people are predicting the collapse of the state, or of parts of it, such as unsustainable health-care systems. Mutual aid may become necessary. The sooner we get started, the freer and more secure we can be.

43 Contract-based communities

As long as today's problems are stated in terms of mass politics and 'mass organisation', it is clear that only states and mass parties can deal with them. But if the solutions that can be offered by the existing states and parties are acknowledged to be either futile or wicked, or both, then we must look not only for different 'solutions' but especially for a different way of stating the problems themselves. – Andrea Caffi

The future social organization should be carried out from the bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation. It is only then that the true, life-giving social order of liberty and general welfare will come into being, a social order which, far from restricting, will affirm and reconcile the interests of individuals and of society. – Mikhail Bakunin

The movie _Bowling for Columbine_ showed a headline about a town in the US requiring everyone to own a gun. Naturally, most people in the theatre with me shook their heads. What a bunch of ignorant townspeople, right? But if you are in a place where you know everyone has a gun, how likely are you to break into someone's house? Wouldn't be a very sensible idea, would it? But even if you think a law mandating gun ownership is a stupid idea, is it right for you to impose your beliefs on others?

I do not know why it needed to be a government decision, but at least it was local, which makes it easy enough to move to the next town if we do not like it—far more reasonable than expecting someone to move to another country or go live in the woods. In a stateless society, no one would be expected to move, because the possession or non-possession of firearms would have been a stipulation of the rules one would have already agreed to to be permitted to live in the community in the first place.

Now, in every democratic country, we have a race, a fight—always of image over substance—to see who will take the reins of power, so that the winner can impose his or her beliefs on the entire population by force. Would it not make more sense to have smaller groups in which people could live by the values they want? If abortion is murder, disallow it in your community; but why should millions of people who disagree with you be forced to follow your values? The option—the right—should exist to secede. Regarding the initiation of force, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in _Democracy: the God that Failed_ , points out "[s]ecession solves this problem, by letting smaller territories each have their own admission standards and determine independently with whom they will associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate from a distance."

The sovereign community

When moving somewhere new, people are usually subject to certain by-laws passed down by the municipality, if such a level of government exists. Such laws might include not letting one's grass grow too long or driving slowly in a school zone. In general, the lower down the level of government, the _fewer_ people it represents, the more accountable it is. A government that presides over only a few thousand people, in fact, is barely a government. Unlike any other government, it would have little or no bureaucracy, few powerful lobbies and people would not need to rally en masse to make changes. A group of a few hundred people who make decisions on consensus is not a government at all, as there is no one imposing decisions on others.

The ideal unit of human organisation is not the nation or the race but the community. Dunbar's number, the number of individuals the average human can maintain a stable relationship with, is between about 100 and 200, most likely because we evolved in communities of this size. In a community, people grow up around each other and share a culture. They know and learn from and trust each other. True communities make only minor distinctions between family and friends. Their members will defend each other and the community. Rules (or laws) are best made on the community level, because it is much easier to come to a consensus and ensure the rules represent the wishes of everyone.

If a community successfully broke away from the state and wrote up a contract for its members to follow, they would agree on it by consensus. People contemplating moving there would read over the contract before making up their minds. Rule enforcement, too, would be far easier, because the enforcers would know the offenders. Shaming, ostracism and reconciliation are all much easier. And we do not need to get rid of professional enforcers and prisons for the truly recidivist criminals; we just would not pay unrepresentative and uncaring institutions to do it for us.

The exemplary sovereign community would counter the objection statists have that anarchy can only mean killing each other wantonly. People who believe in this nightmare scenario not only do not read (or brush aside) anarchist ideas on preventing that possibility; they disregard the enormous differences between the modern world and the stateless world of old.

First, we are used to peace. Many hunter-gatherer societies are used to war. We are accustomed to diversity of culture, language, skin colour, ideas and ways of living. We no longer react toward people we have never seen before as members of other tribes who are likely hostile. Where suspicion was normal, now we might trade or play football with them. We are used to peaceful interactions with all the thousands of anonymous people we meet over our lifetimes and get into intractable conflicts with maybe twenty of them. People who like peace will defend and build on it, just like people who appreciate their freedom will not give it up easily.

Even in the past century we have become more peaceful. The decades leading up to World War One were marked by militarism in Europe. War was seen as salutary for a nation and a man. This feeling is now accepted far less widely. One can see evidence for this claim in the statistics alone: people are killing each other less now (relative to population) than any time in history.

Second, we can communicate with those members of other "tribes" in town hall gatherings, dispute-resolution organisations, or just over the phone in ways that even one hundred years ago were impossible. World War One was caused in part by poor communication among the warmakers. Unsure of each other's intentions and lacking the easy long distance calling we take for granted, part of the march to war was, in fact, a blind stumble of guesses. We no longer suffer from the same lack of communication. Equally importantly, stateless societies would not have vast war machines at their disposal.

Third, where most people see the inevitability of war, a better understanding of the causes of war reveals that states have, for hundreds if not thousands of years, nearly always been the initiators of war and the causes of terrorism. They make war to enlarge the power and wealth of the people on top. Through taxation and debt, they force their subjects to pay for it. Without the apparatus of legal plunder and the build up of militaries, war is far less likely.

Finally, we have all the ideas necessary for peaceful and prosperous living, from ideas of stateless, democratic decision making to how to take care of each other through mutual aid.

I conceive of "community" in very broad terms. It could mean cities or something even larger, if they can somehow manage themselves, as well as towns; cooperatives of farmers or workers; or whatever other associations they want to put together. Individual communities' making their own rules would mean anyone's kind of anarchism can be attempted. You could try a propertyless commune or a Galt's Gulch (let's hope the capitalists and the communists don't engage in a cold war); whatever you think makes the most sense. Voluntaryism, unlike traditional anarchism, makes all forms of stateless living possible.

Some sovereign communities will have leaders of one thing or another, as do most or all communities. Leaders are great, but it is hard to lead hundreds of thousands of people without an urgent, common cause (which is why a sense of urgency and a flat hierarchy are important for large businesses to stay ahead of the competition). But leading on a smaller level is not a problem. Small groups are more flexible and can act like teams more easily than big ones.

Sample rules

If a community decides on a code of rules, it can institutionalise them by having those who want to live there sign a contract. The contract would say the people living there would adhere to those rules if they wish to remain there. Some stipulations in the contract might read

\--adhere to the non-aggression principle. It is possible to build a community entirely on this premise, with very few other rules. Freedom would be maximised, though there would be other consequences as well.

\--join the mutual aid network, or certain aspects of the mutual aid network, such as neighbourhood watch, health insurance, pensions for old people, and so on.

\--no private property. People who believe property is theft would probably want it in writing.

\--gun restrictions. Some people will want to live in places where only one or a few people have guns. Others will want to live where the more people have guns, the better. But perhaps they would require everyone who wants a gun to undergo background checks and safety training.

\--no violence whatsoever. This one is for pacifist communities. I would not want to take away someone's right to defend him or herself, but pacifists have a different point of view, and if they want to organise on that basis, they should be free to do so. (The problem is, of course, the danger from outsiders; living in the mountains may eliminate this risk.)

\--immigration rules. As good as immigration can be for an economy and for opening minds, for one reason or another, it is possible that a community would not want too many newcomers. Perhaps it would put a strain on the local environment. Perhaps they just do not like Paraguayans. I would love to stamp out racism, but I can only lead the horse to water. Let immigrants go where they are welcome, where they can improve their own lives and the lives of those around them.

\--the minimum drinking or drug-taking age, and which drugs are prohibited.

\--no parental abuse or neglect of children, or else the community intervenes and adopts them until the parent is rehabilitated.

\--no Walmart. If communities want to protect local business and even foster infant industries, they can erect barriers to trade as selective as they like. No big box stores' setting up in this neighbourhood or even no buying from such stores could be rules. Nowadays, we have the ability to trade with millions of people around the world. A community that makes its own rules does not need to be hampered by one-size-fits-all laws, tariffs and sanctions over whole nations written for minority interest groups.

Communities and individuals would be able to decide with whom, anywhere in the world, they would trade. Hoppe again: "Consider a single household as the conceivably smallest secessionist unit. By engaging in unrestricted free trade, even the smallest territory can be fully integrated into the world market and partake of every advantage of the division of labor, and its owners may become the wealthiest people on earth." Secession promotes economic integration to the extent independent units want it.

Sovereign communities would likely form confederations with others, as was the case in pre-British-ruled Ireland, with no violence involved in leaving the group. They may prefer to trade with others of similar values. This principle is similar to the idea of buying fair trade, supporting small businesses over big or boycotting companies that abuse their workers.

\--how to make decisions, and when not to. Not all decisions need to be made collectively. A man is free to the extent he does not have to follow decisions he disagrees with. But for those decisions that are made collectively, such as building a road or a school, the rules should specify a decision-making mechanism. The process most respecting of the individual is consensus. Consensus is, of course, rejected as a way of making decisions on the national level, but that is evidence the nation is too large a unit for decision making. It is preferable to decide on a lower level, where important things like new rules and punishments can be discussed by the people they will affect. The higher the level, the less representative decision making is and the easier it is for a majority to trample on a minority.

If the community is too big for consensus, let the decision-making apparatus split and different people can choose which to join without moving. "Community" does not have to be an exclusive territory. As long as they agree not to impose their policies on others, they can live next to each other in harmony. Given what we know about polycentric law, such an arrangement is entirely possible.

\--rules for arbitration. I have propounded a free market in dispute-resolution, arbitration and enforcement. But it is possible a single community will have a single organisation in charge of arbitrating disputes among members. It may have an authority figure charged with ensuring decisions are enforced. The village policeman is often a friendly, respectable, trusted, admired member of society. It is not necessary to do away with him just because we do not like the FBI and DEA.

\--penalties for non-compliance. These might start with simply talking to the violator for breaking smaller rules once or twice. Next could be public reprimand—singling out the person for criticism at a community meeting, and asking him or her how he or she will address the problem. A larger offense might require monetary compensation, perhaps working to pay off one's debt to the victim. As a major punishment for something the community considers very offensive, probably after one or more chances to reform, the community could kick out the offender (or put it to a vote). If the offender is irretrievably violent and the people believe he or she requires deterring or punishing, they can lock him or her up. Of course, a society based on polycentric law would deal with these things equally well.

Whatever codes of ethics communities decide on, there is likely to be a good deal of similarity among them. Free communities will probably agree on some variation of the NAP, participating in a neighbourhood watch or sharing the costs of policing the streets, and so on. Some might be more entrepreneurial or socialist or fearfully protective than others, but most will probably still adhere to common norms. And when they share best practices, people get better ideas. Anything is possible when we are free to decide.

44 Breaking free

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible 'anarchy', why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? – Murray Rothbard

The worst thing the British ever did for India was to unite it. India is a vast country of a billion people with little in common. As many as a million people died and 12m were displaced when India was partitioned. Today, an insurgency in the east of the country started and continues because of a central government stealing land in the name of "development" the people are not interested in, and 100,000 farmers have committed suicide. India has gone to war with Pakistan several times and approached nuclear war over a border clash. None of these things would have happened if India had followed Mahatma Gandhi's vision.

"The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy," said Gandhi. He believed India should comprise independent enclaves that were not subject to violence by powerful governments. His idea of swaraj, which means self-rule, was how to avoid domination by foreign rulers. It meant continuous effort to defend against subjugation. "In such a state" of swaraj, said Gandhi, "everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour". Swaraj is not just about throwing off shackles but creating new systems that enable individual and collective development. Unfortunately, the forces of power prevailed, and India became ruled by rapacious Indians only marginally better than foreigners.

Swaraj, or some other form of secession, is a way to achieve freedom. Walter Block describes it. "Secession means the right to stay put, on one's own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one's own account." Secession is practical if it is not met with state aggression to prevent it.

Many statists believe we need national organisations and associations. But I do not understand why. Most decisions could easily be taken on a personal level, and the ones requiring collective action could come on the community level. Voluntary collective action is realistic and preferable to coercion. While the long-term goal of voluntaryism is a stateless world, in the shorter term the goal is to make it possible to live outside the state. Democracy cannot be said to offer true freedom to the individual without freedom from the government's every edict. Hoppe explains "[w]ithout the right to secession, a democratic government is, economically speaking, a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and ultimate decision making (jurisdiction) and is in this respect indistinguishable from princely government."

Let us go further into justification for secession. Here is Scott Boykin on the subject.

"Modern political thought has produced three main types of argument for the state's legitimacy. One, found in Kant, grounds the state's authority on the purported rightness of its institutions and aims." By whose judgment? If the individual is the judge of what is right and wrong, the individual who deems the state's institutions and aims wrong has the right to secede; at least, the individual who practices non-aggression.

"Another, found in Locke, holds that consent, whether explicit or tacit, is the source of the state's authority. A right of secession challenges this position in maintaining that consent may be legitimately withdrawn in favor of an alternative political arrangement." If democracy is based on the consent of the governed, does that mean one can withdraw one's consent?

"The third, found in Hume, bases the state's authority on its usefulness in producing order, which facilitates the individual's pursuit of self-chosen ends." The modern state, in a variety of legal ways, destroys order and limits the individual's choices. By all three counts, therefore, you have the right to secede.

You, an individual, and your family and friends, can opt out of a system based on violence. No, I do not mean you can leave and go somewhere else. All countries, by definition, have governments, and government, by definition, is force. I mean you have the right to end your relationship with those who threaten you with violence.

Community secession

To start, however, I recommend secession on a community level. The only reason I advocate community secession is no political entity will recognise an individual who secedes until the right to do so is itself recognised, which might not be for a long time. It may be just as true that national governments will not recognise local secession either; the history of secessionist movements is, after all, the history of central states' making war on separatists.

Ordered anarchy often arises during or after a war, revolution or other crisis. Those things may be coming to democratic countries, as they have in Greece and to a lesser extent the US with the Occupy movement. Many are realising they can make a better society on a local level. They are leaving the state and the banks and the big corporations behind and making a new start.

Thus, we can start sovereign communities. The sovereign community is not subject to the authority of any state besides a local one its members have all willingly signed on to. Naturally, the "community" could be as big as it wants, provided positive consent is granted. It would enable everyone who wants to escape the state to do so, while not dismantling it for those who still want to live under a state system.

I propose entire communities separate, one by one, from the state. They could just declare independence, or they might use legal means and go through the courts. The sovereign community would not be cut off from all other communities; there is no doubt people would still visit each other. They would just not pay taxes or consume government services. They would make their own rules.

How to break away

Breaking free of the state could be undertaken bit by bit, as in these communities.

\--The town council of Sedgwick, Maine, unanimously passed a law exempting the people of the town from all external laws related to food. Federal laws prohibit the growing and selling of certain foods; these people do not care. They have declared food sovereignty. There are four towns in Maine who have done so.

\--Some places are moving away from fiat currency imposed by central banks. Greece's current situation of lawlessness is leading many to adopt a cashless economy. Barter exchange has become the norm for many Greeks.

\--That said, the Greeks may have been forced to act this way with the collapse of the Greek economy. Other communities are taking similar measures without being compelled by circumstance to do so. Pittsboro, North Carolina, issues its own currency. It already had the US's largest biodiesel cooperative, a food cooperative and a farmers' market. Now it has taken a further step toward self sufficiency. According to Lyle Estill, a community leader, the currency has experienced no inflation. And Pittsboro is not the only one. Cities and towns around the US are rejecting Federal Reserve notes for circulation.

\--Other communities are passing laws that refuse to recognise federal laws regarding corporations, such as corporate personhood. More than 100 municipalities in the US have passed ordinances prohibiting multinational corporations from dumping or spraying toxic chemicals, building factory farms, mining, fracking and extracting water.

\--The Free State Project aims to make New Hampshire the first state to secede (successfully) from the US. The idea is for libertarians to congregate in order to have the biggest impact. New Hampshire is not the only state hoping to secede, with independence movements in California, Texas, Wyoming, and presumably other states I am unaware of.

\--Keene, New Hampshire, has become a kind of center for voluntaryist activism, encouraging the liberty-minded to flock there. It has not seceded from the US but might do in the future. Its people engage in all kinds of agorism, mutual aid, outreach education and civil disobedience.

\--Like Keene, anarchists and socialists gather in Exarcheia, a part of Athens, Greece. It houses many organic food stores, fair trade shops, anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist activism.

Such piecemeal changes can be steps toward freedom and independence for one's community, but they could just be a declaration of sovereignty over one particular thing members of the community do not want controlled by someone else. Alternatively, people could break away entirely from the state in one fell swoop. Has anybody done that?

\--The Lakota nation, an American indigenous group, has seceded entirely from the United States of America. It canceled all treaties it held with the state and its members renounced their citizenship. They hope to reverse the enormous harm 200 years of incorporation into the US has caused.

\--Seasteading is an option that becomes more viable every year. Seasteading means building new homes on barges, ferries, refitted oil platforms or islands out in the ocean. Most have been unsuccessful, succumbing to natural disasters or lack of support. That is no reason to write off the whole idea. The real challenges are in construction and, as with all sovereign communities, escaping the violence of the state. Seasteading might not only mean building homes, but also resorts, casinos, aquaculture, deep-sea marinas and even universal data libraries free from copyright laws.

\--Freetown Christiania is an enclave of Copenhagen with just under 1000 residents. It is a self-governing and self-sustaining community which, though officially part of Denmark, is de facto independent. It began in 1971 and has become a kind of sanctuary for outcasts such as single mothers and drug addicts. The people make rules by consensus and have banned hard drugs, though marijuana and hashish have been sold openly.

\--The Yubia Permanent Autonomous Zone in California is an example of a community that has broken away from the state and established communities based on the non-aggression principle. "The most important thing to understand about Yubia," says its website, "is that it is not only a place—it is a way of **being**." Yubia's social contract is based on the book Universally Preferable Behaviour by Stefan Molyneux. The people agree to adhere to core values such as mutual aid and the NAP.

The site continues. "The concept for Yubia is influenced by Zomia, the politically autonomous region in Southeast Asia, James C. Scott's _The Art of Not Being Governed_ , the writings of Hakim Bey, and the concept of _swaraj_ or self-rule, as propounded by Mohandas K. Gandhi." This is what they have agreed on. They will keep it if they can.

\--These things could happen on a much wider scale. One goal of voluntaryism is to reduce our vulnerability to repression by the state. We can develop alternative economic and security organisations and decision making. People have already started decentralising the internet, making it harder to implement a kill switch. Hackers, who were once mischievous teenagers, have grown up and have launched satellites to enable a free internet outside of the state's reach.

\--Similarly, in an economy based on a single currency that is regularly debased by a central bank, a new form of online currency known as bitcoin has emerged. It has the chance to revolutionise global finance. One article explains its significance: "There's decent incentive for small businesses to use it—it's free to use, and there aren't any transaction fees. At the moment you can buy the services of a web designer, indie PC games, homemade jewelry, guns, and, increasingly, illegal drugs. If the internet is the Wild West, bitcoin is its wampum."

\--Or we could eliminate money. Setting up a resource-based economy based on the vision of the Venus Project and Zeitgeist holds wide appeal. Some people call their ideas idealistic. Who knows until they try? For those who are interested in building such a society, let them do it. People will join if it shows signs of success. Set a time and a place, get together and make it happen.

\--Though difficult without the support of those around, breaking free does not have to take place at a community level. Business and professional associations might decide to stop following pointless laws and paying taxes, while nonetheless continuing to act responsibly. Schools can ignore federal and state laws regarding curriculum or the hiring and firing of teachers, instead making those decisions in concert with parents and perhaps students.

These things are only possible when enough people, a critical mass, agree and are willing to fight for these rights against the state they are compelled to obey. The biggest danger inherent in secession is the same one sovereign communities have had throughout history: the state does not give up control over anyone easily. But people are showing more and more that they are fed up of statism, and are doing something about it. Find more about breaking free at www.secession.net.

Conclusion

I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal. – Rudolf Rocker

Imagine a world where the power hungry were kept in check at every turn. Imagine a world where people could only become wealthy by creating value for others. Imagine the words "financial crisis" meant that when banks lose money, the bankers pay for it. People would have greater freedom to do the things they truly want, without having to worry about genocide, war, oppression, police brutality and getting locked up for nothing. They would have greater equality because there would be no corporations, no legal ways to plunder others, and no institutionalised poverty. Unemployment would fall and technological innovation would zoom ahead as limits we now have arbitrarily imposed on us at the whims of corporate executives would disappear. Poverty would drop as people would be free to move where they can make their own living and not be forced into low-paid jobs to make money so they can pay taxes. Health would improve as we could once again choose food for ourselves. The environment would not be subject to destruction at the hands of the greedy. Education would improve as teachers would be accountable to those they are educating. Imagine people taking care of each other because they want to, not because they have to. This is the stateless society.

We can get there with a revolution: a revolution of the mind. When one chooses to live as a sovereign individual, we are that much closer to the voluntaryist ideal. Sovereign individuals are not merely people who oppose the state. They do not attempt to impose things on others, or get others to do so. They will not negotiate contracts that bind others into slavery. Unlike many parents and teachers and police, they are less likely to act as authorities. If they lead, they lead by force of personality. The less we think we know what is right for others, the less we try to impose our beliefs on them. The revolution will start quietly, mostly under the radar, but it will grow bigger as people wake up to the world that has been hidden from them. They will come up with new ideas and arrangements that make the state irrelevant.

A truly voluntary world would be one very different from what we know. We do not know quite what it would look like. It does not need to be planned and designed, but it can be based on a few overriding principles. We can build societies on love and compassion, freedom and happiness, cooperation and equality. Only when humans accept and believe in and cooperate with and help one another will we realise our full potential. And until that happens, we will remain slaves.

When I began writing the _Rule of Freedom_ blog, I was hesitant to put my name on it. I knew that being a voluntaryist, or an anarchist, or whatever I am, one faces social barriers. I know I have diminished in stature in the eyes of many of my friends for no other reason than they disagree with me. Ordinary people think anarchists are bomb-throwing rioters, and educated people think they are extremists who can be brushed aside with simple arguments. But I have never been one for keeping much hidden. The truth about the evils of statism and the virtues of voluntaryism, the lies about war, the general ignorance about free markets and immigration, and the bankruptcy of democracy as a way of securing our rights and freedoms needed to come out.

I realise, of course, there are loose ends this book does not tie up. Various libertarian thinkers are working on the problems of how to achieve freedom and how to achieve a sustainable and just society. I encourage everyone to seek them out, to answer any questions you have, understand more rigorously the ideas of a society based on the non-aggression principle, and learn how you can help create that society.

The state is the initiation of force. We need to submit to everything the government tells us or we get attacked. Most people given power do not limit themselves as we would hope. As such, government enables and incentivises the worst behaviour of humankind, such as aggressive war, oppression and theft, and cloaks all of it in legitimacy. We have to start wars to protect our national security and protect against terrorism; we have to send millions of people to jail because they are dangerous; we have to tax to help the poor; we have to lie to protect people; we need police, intelligence and other security apparatus or else everyone would be running around killing each other. All of these claims have been disproven in this volume and in my neighbourhood. Government is unnecessary. The initiation of force against innocent, unwilling parties is immoral and destructive.

The state is a parasite. It feeds off productive people and gives to the unproductive. It does not foster economic growth but restrains it. It exacerbates economic crises and crashes. It bolsters large corporations and strangles small ones. It holds back innovation and wealth creation, deepens and entrenches poverty, and enriches the people on the top.

The state is a scam. It is a construction of those who want money and power and do not care whom they wrong in pursuit of them. Any attempts to reform it, to turn government into a tool for freedom and justice, is bound to fail. The best statists can hope for is to mitigate the worst excesses of government; but even that endeavour has gone nowhere. Every day innocent people go to jail and people who ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people live in luxury.

Too many people in our world, all around us, live in prisons in our minds. We chase an image of what looks good instead of an ideal of what is right. We are too used to consuming, going in and out of jobs, paying taxes, and living our so-called lives we forget about justice and freedom. Those are two things that psychopaths, control freaks and bullies will try to take away from you and everyone who lets them. Do not let them. Expose the truth.

Study, question everything, resist attempts to fall under the spell of the powerful. Organise, educate, engage in civil disobedience. Disengage from the economy of regulations and licenses and patents and bailouts and meltdowns, and stop paying for the crisis caused by the elite. Establish sovereign communities, practicing sustainable agriculture and commerce and whatever else you are into. Start voluntary organisations or businesses that make the state obsolete. Stop paying taxes, stop voting and stop paying attention to politics. Live the non-aggression principle. And take care of each other.

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah. _The Origins of Totalitarianism_. Schocken Books, 1951.

Bacevich, Andrew J. _The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism_. Metropolitan Books, 2008.

Bacevich, Andrew J. _Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War_. Metropolitan Books, 2010.

Becker, Gary. _The Economics of Life: From Baseball to Affirmative Action to Immigration, How Real-World Issues Affect Our Everyday Life_. McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Bernays, Edward. _Propaganda_. Horace Liveright, 1928.

Brafman, Ori, and Rod A. Beckstrom. _The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organisations_. Penguin Group, 2006.

Buchanan, Patrick. _Churchill, Hitler and "the Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World_. Three Rivers Press, 2009.

Butler, Smedley. _War Is a Racket_. Round Table Press, 1935.

Chabris, Christopher, and Daniel Simons. _The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us_. Broadway, 2011.

Chartier, Gary, and Charles W. Johnson (eds.). _Markets Not Capitalism:_ _Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power and Structural Poverty_. Minor Compositions, 2011.

De Soto, Hernando. _The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else_. Basic Books, 2003.

De Waal, Frans. _Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals_. Harvard University Press, 1997.

Ferguson, Niall. _Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power_. Basic Books, 2004.

Ferguson, Niall. _The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West_. Penguin Books, 2007.

Friedman, David D. _The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism_. Open Court Publishing Co., 1989.

Fry, Douglas P. _Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace_. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Hasnas, John. "The Obviousness of Anarchy". From _Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?_ Ashgate, 2008.

Hazlitt, Henry. _Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics_ (later reprint edition). Three Rivers Press, 1988.

Higgs, Robert. _Depression, War and Cold War: Challenging the Myths of Conflict and Prosperity_. The Independent Institute, 2009.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. _Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order_. Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Kropotkin, Pyotr. _Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution_. Forgotten Books, 2008.

Macmillan, Margaret. _Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History_. Modern Library, 2010.

Macmillan, Margaret. _Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World_. Random House, 2003.

Molyneux, Stefan. _Everyday Anarchy_. Freedomain Radio, 2008.

Molyneux, Stefan. _Practical Anarchy_. Freedomain Radio, 2012.

Mueller, John E. _Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them_. Free Press, 2009.

Nock, Albert Jay. _Our Enemy the State_. Ganis and Harris, 1935.

Oppenheimer, Franz. _The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically_. Transaction Publishers, 1914.

Orwell, George. _1984_. Eric Blair, 1949.

Pape, Robert. _Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism_. Random House, 2006.

Pinker, Steven. _The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined_. Penguin Books, 2012.

Porter, Bruce D. _War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics_. Free Press, 2002.

Pritchett, Lant. _Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility_ _. Center for Global Development, 2006._

Rummel, R.J. _Death by Government_. Transaction Publishers, 1997.

Scott, James C. ___The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia_ _. Yale University Press, 2010._

_Sowell, Thomas._ _Economic Facts and Fallacies_ _(second edition). Basic Books, 2011._

_Sowell, Thomas._ _The Housing Boom and Bust_ _. Basic Books, 2010._

_Spooner, Lysander._ _No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_ _. 1867._

Starr, Amory, Luis A. Fernandez and Christian Scholl. _Shutting Down the Streets: Political Violence and Social Control in the Global Era_. NYU Press, 2011.

_Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Linda J. Blimes._ _The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict_ _. W.W. Norton & Co., 2008._

_Tannehill, Morris and Linda._ _The Market for Liberty_ _. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011._

Ward, Colin. _Anarchy in Action_. Freedom Press, 1988.

_Woods, Thomas E. (ed.)._ _Back on the Road to Serfdom: The Resurgence of Statism_ _. Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2011._

_Woods, Thomas E._ _Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse_ _. Regnery Publishing, 2009._

Yergin, Daniel. _The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power_. Free Press, 1992.

Zimbardo, Philip. _The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil_. Random House, 2008.

Zinn, Howard. _A People's History of the United States_. Harper & Row, 2005.

 Sometimes "government" and "state" can be used interchangeably. Is a school system government—the decision makers—or the state—the institutions that carry out the decisions? Thus, for the purposes of this book, "government education" and "state education" mean the same thing.

 Rummel, 9

 That said, the supposedly-right-wing parties implement and enlarge popular welfare policies, just as lefties start and prolong wars. Any government wants to please as many people as possible, and it will spend as much money as possible to do so. Principles are a hindrance in politics.

 Please do not make the mistake of confusing the Tea Party with minarchists. The Tea Party is a mass movement of slogans and working through the system. None of the people it got elected to Congress have done anything to reduce the size of government.

 http://theruleoffreedom.wordpress.com

 <http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=986>

 Moreover, the state is constantly expanding (except under crises that threaten its existence), historically and today, bringing more people and more territory under its thumb. Many states are using all manner of violence to bring people in their hinterlands to heel. We see it when the various indigenous peoples of the Amazon are brushed aside to face the utter destruction of their ancestral homes when "progress" demands a new dam, or when farmers in India are called terrorists for fighting back against the stealing of their land to build a new steel plant. Condoning the state means at least accepting, if not trying to fight against, this expansion.

 Rummel, 25-6

 For the history of this subject, I recommend Franz Oppenheimer's _The State_ , James C. Scott's _The Art of Not Being Governed_ , Martin van Creveld's _The Rise and Decline of the State_ and Bruce D. Porter's _War and the Rise of the State_.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html

  http://abcnews.go.com/News/Blotter/fbi-spied-peta-greenpeace-anti-war-activists/story?id=11682844

 Many anarchists find the idea that our bodies are our property abhorrent, because it implies we can give away that ownership to someone else, turning us into slaves or prostitutes. Their morality would necessitate that everyone's needs are provided for and no one has to sell him or herself to another.

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block84.html>

 Green anarchists point out that not all land is useless. Not only is living in harmony with nature man's natural state, humans do not necessarily have a claim to seize and transform all land everywhere. That is particularly true if it will harm living things. Taking over a field and putting down a factory raises different moral questions; owning a forest as a nature conservancy would be legitimate.

 Find the fuller discussion at  https://blog.mises.org/18608/the-relation-between-the-non-aggression-principle-and-property-rights-a-response-to-division-by-zer0/.

 Proudhon said "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property was labour. Find more here <http://c4ss.org/content/13144>.

 This quote is abridged.

 You can read the book online at <http://jim.com/treason.htm>.

 I write more on the subject of Israel and the policy of revenge here  http://menso.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/revenge-does-not-work-israeli-policy-and-the-failure-of-deterrence/.

 <http://freegrafton.com/about/>

 <http://yubia.blog.com/2011/08/23/core-values/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkkOAOtV0>

 _Death of the Liberal Class_ , 199

  http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/17/riding_the_wave_of_discontent

 T _he Machinery of Freedom_ , 146

 Similar attempts to centralise power in Libya are failing disastrously. Do people not understand that the centralisation of power was the problem in the first place?

 If you disagree, I suggest the books _Imagined Communities_ by Benedict Anderson, _Nations and Nationalism_ by Ernest Gellner or _Nations and Nationalism since 1780_ by Eric Hobsbawm. Find more in chapter 23.

 Jack S. Levy, "Domestic Politics and War," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, The

Origin and Prevention of Major Wars (Spring, 1988): 659.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71mjZefg8g>

 Learn why here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5a23t_9Y1w>.

 By the way, foreign aid is nothing like charitable giving, and is usually far more detrimental than helpful.

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html>

 <http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/112702.html>

 My next book, based on my thesis, will be on this topic.

  http://www.sandmonkey.org/2011/04/07/7-popular-myths-about-the-revolution/; find more in chapter 35.

  http://www.egyptindependent.com/opinion/police-reform-getting-it-right

 Since I wrote this section, crime and violence have risen in Cairo. Though I am not particularly surprised, I am saddened to think that the window opened by the defeat of the police was not exploited. The people could have organised to provide their own security for the long term, but they did not.

 Ward, 32-4

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w5aJvVCc0Q>; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQhqZ-iWMRM

 As studies show: <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095821.htm>

 <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpGJjNUbmpo>

 Oppenheimer, iv

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/

 Moreover, what happened in Cairo during the revolution would astound the big-government people. In their neighbourhoods and in Tahrir Square, the people took on roles defending each other, defending buildings such as the Egyptian Museum, cleaning the streets, and so on. They organised because they believed certain things needed to get done, and could be done. Believing people will organise in an anarchic state is not some particularly optimistic view of human nature, like some statists seem to believe; it is a proven fact.

 <http://www.economist.com/node/18618271?story_id=18618271>

 Businesses' lies may be called propaganda as well, but inducing one to buy a product and inducing one to fight in a war are worlds apart.

  http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban

 One example is the practice of creating online "sock puppets" that seek to manipulate public opinion  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

 Find historical examples here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management#US_government>

  http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/

 They are treated differently in the media from white terrorists, who are often not even called terrorists.  http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/top-ten-differences-between-white-terrorists-and-others.html

 <http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/singleton/>

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/mar/07/cameron-afghanistan-britain-security-video

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/act-of-valor-military-hollywood_n_1284338.html

  http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/promoting_militarism_while_hiding_bloodshed_20110617/

  http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/fraud-alert-us-department-of-labor-now-reduced-to-soviet-propaganda-ministry/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XxPxI_Ohg>

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/world/asia/koran-burning-in-afghanistan-prompts-second-day-of-protests.html?_r=1

  http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/02/left-at-least-seven-dead-in-afghanistan.html

  http://www.salon.com/2012/02/26/the_causes_of_the_protests_in_afghanistan/singleton/

  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=all

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer

  http://www.alternet.org/story/151703/1_million_dead_in_iraq_6_reasons_the_media_hide_the_true_human_toll_of_war_--_and_why_we_let_them?page=entire

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-administration-deal-with-conflicts/2013/06/12/e6f98314-ca2e-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html

 <http://www.democracynow.org/2000/3/24/cnn_and_the_military>

 I taught a class on the causes and consequences of 9/11 in March 2011. You can find my piece on the causes of 9/11 at  http://theruleoffreedom.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/the-causes-of-911/.

 Find my piece on Iran here  http://theruleoffreedom.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/war-part-6-iran/.

  http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-another-survey-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed-npr-listeners-best-informed/

  http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/09/04/meet-amber-lyon-former-reporter-exposes-massive-censorship-at-cnn/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news

  http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2011/06/fox-sucks-but-what-about-cnn-and-msnbc.html

 <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3489>

  http://neocolonialthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/foreign-intervention-in-syria-part-2/

 Starr et al., 43

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh

 <http://www.economist.com/node/13497460>

 I must say, I do not pay attention to what happens at these summits at all anymore. They are all the same: they spend upwards of a billion dollars to eat caviar and issue highfalutin statements about things they have no intention of carrying out. If you have to have these aimless discussions, carry them out through Skype like the rest of us.

 <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml>

 <http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/>

 <http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203l.asp>

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-germany-blockupy-idUSBRE84H0NQ20120518

  http://www.alternet.org/story/153283/20_ways_the_obama_administration_has_intruded_on_your_rights?page=entire

  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-is-running-a-massive-spying-campaign-on-the-occupy-movement-2012-5

 <https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/23>

  http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12115/dissent-or-terror-new-report-details-how-counter-terrorism-apparatus-was-used-mon

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html

  http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00563

  http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/2011/10-stats-you-should-know-about-our-prison-system/

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9179087/Internet-activity-to-be-monitored-under-new-laws.html

  http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/041211-us-police-increasingly-peeping-at.html

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1386191/Privacy-storm-police-buy-Geotime-software-maps-suspects-digital-movements.html

  http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/total+surveillance+society+approaches/5896234/story.html

  http://www.alternet.org/rights/155764/6_government_surveillance_programs_designed_to_watch_what_you_do_online?page=entire

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATq-XHSXTuI>

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_fbi_s_new_wiretapping_plan_is_great_news_for_criminals

 A former marine was detained for posting anti-government messages on Facebook  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detained_n_1817484.html

 <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/26-9>

  http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/is-there-no-escape-from-the-u-s-government/

  http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/127-more-blog-posts-from-jamie-mcclelland/992-fbi-seizes-server-from-progressive-internet-service-provider

  http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10097-wikileaks-exposing-mass-surveillance-industry

 <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29865.htm>

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/25/google-transparency-report-released

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/18/google-reports-alarming-rise-censorship

 The government does not even need evidence to demand that any organisation hand over information on its members.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html

  http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/100797-2011-12-06-cops-hide-surveillance-cameras-in-trees-outside-mans-home.htm

  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/public-bus-audio-surveillance/

  http://www.businessinsider.com/trapwire-everything-you-need-to-know-2012-8

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8818716/US-crime-predicting-technology-tests-draw-Minority-Report-comparisons.html

 See the myth torn apart by the experts in this video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>.

  http://www.alternet.org/rights/156170/glenn_greenwald_how_americas_surveillance_state_breeds_conformity_and_fear?page=entire

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mwgfiwUjCg>

  http://blog.independent.org/2011/12/03/civil-society-or-dictatorship/

  http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/09/08/the-post-911-u-s-military-prison-complex/

  http://www.globalissues.org/article/735/journalists-held-in-us-military-prisons

  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/is-nobel-peace-prize-winner-obama-more-brutal-than-bush.html

 <http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/singleton/>

 <http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/31/obamas-secret-kill-list>

 <http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing>

  http://progressive.org/eric_holder_pathetic_rationale_for_assassinating_U.S_ctizens.html

 I have been informed by someone desperate to prove me wrong that extensive (secret) deliberation goes into choosing whom to assassinate, which makes it legitimate. We just have to trust them.

 <https://rt.com/usa/news/drone-kill-mcmahon-obama-245/>

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/hedges-ndaa-is-chilling-the-practice-of-journalism/

 <http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/jon-stewart-on-the-ndaa/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DbxSZ_FB8>

 The Department of Homeland Security has been issued hundreds of millions of hollow-point bullets. Hollow point bullets are used for greater penetration and tissue damage. What are they going to do with this ammunition? They won't say. <http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-million-point-government-179/>

  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/

 Find more incredible ways in which the US is becoming a giant prison here  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-signs-that-the-united-states-of-america-is-being-turned-into-a-giant-prison

 <http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-president-order-communications-770/>

  http://start.umd.edu/start/publications/research_briefs/LaFree_Bersani_HotSpotsOfUSTerrorism.pdf

  http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SuspiciousActivity/Internet_Cafe.pdf

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/24/privacy-group-sues-dhs-over-social-media-monitoring-program/

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/05/26/department-of-homeland-security-forced-to-release-list-of-keywords-used-to-monitor-social-networking-sites/2/

  http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/the-department-of-homeland-security-is-searching-your-facebook-and-twitter-for-these-words/

  http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/06/04/obama-defies-federal-court-ban-ndaa-indefinite-detention-140691/

 <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/21/crime-rates.html>

  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/americans-odds-harper-crime-bill-gives-more-jail-160536154.html

  http://www.vancouversun.com/Controversial+crime+bill+cost+Canadians+billion+study/5832700/story.html

 Governments typically wrap oppressive new laws in dualistic A (which is unconscionably bad) versus B (which might sound bad but is better than A) arguments. They also invoke saving children from certain horrors at every turn possible. Child pornography is of course a great pretext to control the internet. In fact, private actors have already helped fight child pornography; and unlike the state, they have a reason to want to eliminate it. <http://mashable.com/2011/10/24/anonymous-child-pornography/>

  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/16/pol-vp-terry-milewski-bill-c30.html

  http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/26/csis-office-of-the-inspector-general/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/canada-freedom-of-press_b_2946418.html

  http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/police-arrest-447-anti-capitalist-demonstrators-in-old-montreal-1.1262638

 <http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/>

 <http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/classement_2013_gb-bd.pdf>

  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canada-cops-tops-salaries-pay-hikes-193437113.html

  http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/13/costly-obsolete-its-getting-hard-to-justify-buying-this-jet/ ,  http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2011/06/expanding-foreign-military-bases-serves-harper%E2%80%99s-war-agenda

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Environmental_issues>

  http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-biggest-environmental-crime-in-history-764102.html

 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/24/oh_canada>

  http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/stephen-harper-pushes-for-responsible-oil-and-gas-trade-in-china-speech/

  http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/120118/canada-keystone-pipeline-us-oil-sands-project

 Ibid.

 Well, it is possible the Green Party would do so, which is why many well-meaning Canadians pin their hopes on it, but because of the moneyed interests involved, the Green Party will not win the election. Just like the predictable defeat of Ron Paul in the US, Canada's rich will not allow the people to vote away their money.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/canada-environmental-activism-threat

 Find a more developed argument here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRQbIBv2zg>.

 I do not want to mislead. There are options to _avoid_ the state besides demonstrating. They are detailed in part 5.

  http://www.military.com/news/article/study-dod-may-act-on-us-civil-unrest.html

 Perhaps I should not be as hasty as others to use this word. Jim Davidson, who has visited Somalia, wrote the following. "I don't think there are any warlords in Somalia. There are war leaders, or militia leaders, in various parts of Somalia. People who defend their homes often organize militias; it is done in places as genteel as Switzerland, Texas, and Israel. You find that the mainstream media tends to call the leaders of these militia 'officers' in countries other than Somalia. Very often, the elders of a community choose a war leader or officer, and he chooses his lieutenants and subordinates. He provides leadership, until the crisis is past or until another officer is chosen to replace him, or until he dies. Calling him a warlord and calling his lieutenants 'henchmen' doesn't further a discussion of these issues." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/clark-d8.html

 <http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf>

  http://www.trust.org/alertnet/crisis-centre/crisis/somalia-in-turmoil

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAzQvJqOi0be4FkrVYH29lrNKsDw?docId=06fc13705b374f79a498c3ad1d505448

 <http://reason.com/blog/2006/12/27/the-anarchy-advantage-in-somal>

 <http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880>

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628>

 <http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf>

  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/18/terrorism/index.html

 Jeremy Scahill says the CIA has had contact with Somali warlords for some time <http://www.thenation.com/article/163210/blowback-somalia>;  http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

 A look at Abraham Lincoln's speeches and personal writings at the time of the Civil War imply he had little interest in ending slavery and every interest in maintaining a powerful union from which no one could secede.

 <http://c4ss.org/content/10003>

 Bacevich, _Washington Rules_ , 185

 Oppenheimer, 15

 Find more on state-enabled monopolies in _Markets Not Capitalism_ , 68-74.

 Rummel, 1-2

 Ibid., 20

  http://www.examiner.com/article/serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits

 <http://www.economist.com/node/15328544>

  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/the-psychology-of-power/

  http://fr33agents.com/study-finds-that-having-power-can-make-you-stupid/

  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/19/INGT9MCJHJ1.DTL

 <http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance256.html>

 Sometimes they use the law to curb the power of future governments; for example, Israeli settlement policy has made it harder (some say impossible) for future Israeli governments to withdraw from the West Bank. That said, it is impossible to prevent future interested parties interpreting the law as they see fit.

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/doig1.1.1.html>

 <http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm>

 Hasnas, 114

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096852004601924.html?grcc=979ba72decc3855de32ebd8e1e2b1fd0Z3&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news

  http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/la-county-oks-1000-fine-for-throwing-football-frisbee-on-beaches/

  http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man ,  http://blog.mises.org/17835/from-3-to-4500-what-laws-have-you-broken-today/

 <http://www.statisticbrain.com/civil-lawsuit-statistics/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ>

  http://gizmodo.com/5898585/itll-soon-be-illegal-to-troll-in-arizona

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/man-sentenced-30-days-catching-rain-water-own-property-enters-jail

  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/police-shut-down-lemonade-stands-and-cookies-stands-run-by-kids-all-over-america-is-there-anything-we-are-still-free-to-do-without-government-permission

  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/young-girls-banned-from-selling-girl-scout-cookies-on-their-own-front-lawn

  http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/155167/158/County-Shuts-Down-Kids-Lemonade-Stand-500-Fine

  http://www.fedupusa.org/2012/03/feeding-the-homeless-banned-in-major-cities-all-over-america/

  http://www.disinfo.com/2012/08/woman-faces-600-a-day-fine-for-giving-free-lunches-to-poor-children/

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDD6FtNMpNw>

  http://www.naturalnews.com/035372_Michigan_pigs_farm_freedom.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M2tkLYXYaE>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoLGQYCk3xg>

 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html>

 <http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/>

  http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Illegal-Gambling.htm

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act

  http://publicintelligence.net/u-k-home-affairs-committee-encourages-internet-service-providers-to-censor-extremist-websites/

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/20125192059184697.html

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/26/5-ways-cispa-could-be-worse-than-sopa-for-internet-activists/

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201241373429356249.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/surveillance-technology-repressive-regimes

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp9n3lQUBE4>

 <http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/06/24-8>

 Find more on the injustice of the justice system here <http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/>, here <http://www.judicialwatch.org/> and here  http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of_american_justice_a_tale_of_three_cases/singleton/.

  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/night-in-the-cells-accidentally-became-two-years-in-solitary-6295937.html

 <http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/20/rape-factories>

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/supreme-court-oks-routine-jailhouse-strip-searches

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/strip-search-nation_b_1419252.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

  http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/2011/10-stats-you-should-know-about-our-prison-system/

  http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/

 <http://www.bop.gov/about/history.jsp>

 <http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-war-on-drugs/>

  http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/11239478-418/city-of-chicago-to-pay-man-36-million-for-wrongful-conviction.html

  http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/

 <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/morals>

 <http://minnesotaindependent.com/88389/cca>

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/world/asia/getting-tough-on-immigrants-to-turn-a-profit.html

  http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

  http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/05/16/why-women%E2%80%99s-rights-movement-must-listen-to-sex-workers

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2005/08/30/think_again_human_trafficking

 <http://c4ss.org/content/7741>

 As distinct from the other seven Civil Rights Acts.

  http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

  http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/prison-labor-booms-in-us-as-low-cost.html

 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4414491.stm>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar>

 Noting that US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world, Robert Higgs wrote "A longstanding scam of members of Congress: set the corporate tax rate high, then open your door to the competing bribes from corporations seeking loopholes. This scam explains in part why Congress cycles through raising/complicating and lowering/simplifying taxes."

  http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/how-regulations-add-cost-government

  http://www.eurasiareview.com/30052012-ron-paul-the-ex-patriot-act-americas-berlin-wall-for-tax-refugees/

  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/13/government-will-take-almost-half-your-paycheck-in-2013/

  http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion

 <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm>

 <http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2005/0507.html>

  http://www.cnbc.com/id/42643384/S_P_Affirms_US_AAA_Rating_Cuts_Outlook_to_Negative

  http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm?cnn=yes

 <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php>

  http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=CAD

 <http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/index.php>

  http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/americas-real-budget-deficit-4-2-trillion/

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAR0VRLRGHE>

  http://www.policymic.com/articles/9748/austrian-economics-would-save-europe-nigel-farage-debunks-keynesians

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAR0VRLRGHE>

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/world/europe/greece-in-chaos-faces-possible-new-elections.html?_r=1

  http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/18/investing/spanish-banks-debt/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/business/global/euro-zone-nears-moment-of-truth-on-staying-together.html?_r=1

  http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2012/05/31/7-charts-indicate-why-europe-is-doomed/

  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-warnings-about-a-coming-global-financial-catastrophe

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hREygzbzox>

  http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-irs-even-worse-than-you-think/

  https://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=corporations+don't+pa&ix=hea&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=corporations+don't+pay+taxes

  http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/louisiana-makes-it-illegal-to-use-cash-to-buy-used-goods/

  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

 A demagogic or populist state bribes the poor to a great extent, though it still requires certain elites who hold the power. The poor become the base. In the rich countries, the middle class is more likely to be the base, and the poor are left to pick up the scraps. In all cases, government creates an elite class and an excluded class, and often gives rise to a class dependent on the state as well.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10>

 This phenomenon is known as rational ignorance. Since our votes make a negligible difference in who governs and far less in what the governor does, it makes little sense to spend dozens of hours deciding for whom to vote.

 <http://bigthink.com/ideas/39535>

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/98356.html>

 The exception may be the regime headed by a Hitler or a Stalin, a totalitarian government headed by one person with absolute power. Of course history would have been different had different people been in power in such cases. Other regimes rely on the more dispersed power of the clique or cliques that make up the government, such as the cabinet, the generals and the well-connected CEOs. No one would likely have resisted the urge to use as much power as the totalitarians had, however, if they had only known how, so the problem in any regime is the ability to concentrate power.

 The structure of religion can be used in a similar way: started and hijacked by people who will use it to control and steal. Indeed, this has been the case throughout history. Both are dangerous in the wrong time and place. A system that demands obedience for whatever reason and is not questioned can be used for immorality. Those who are opposed to authoritarian forms of religion should be just as opposed to government.

 <http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857>

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/crony-capitalism-exposed/2011/11/14/gIQACiK4KN_story.html

 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9645000/9645842.stm>

  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323221/congress-insiders-above-the-law/

  http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/2011/05/fishing-subsidies-contribute-to-overspending-and-overfishing/

 <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php>

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00h05sj>

 <http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/study-k-street-holy-place>

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/10/31/fulfilling-the-presidents-green-dreams-through-private-competition/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sSg0xjzIec>

  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/white-house-pleads-for-patience-on-tarp.html

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576297180040726512.html

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359530678869402.html

 <http://www.detnews.com/article/20111114/AUTO01/111140434>

 <http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22258>

  http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/07/25/least-19-us-politicians-pocket-bp-cash

 <http://c4ss.org/content/2685>

  http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-11/politics/politics_solyndra-probe_1_solyndra-loan-e-mails-energy-department-loan?_s=PM:POLITICS

  http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/01/12/bankrupt-solyndra-let-us-give-bonuses/

  http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/financial-turmoil-grips-two-more-green-energy-companies-receiving-federal-loan-guarantees/

  http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/06/is-abound-solar-the-next-solyndra-panel

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/wind-power-companies-paid-to-not-produce/

  http://blog.independent.org/2011/11/12/biodefense-cronyism-and-corporate-welfare/

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581140907497810.html

 "Even the U.N. Hates Ethanol." Wall Street Journal, 14 June 2011, A14.

 <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000115>

  http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department

  http://www.survivalandbeyond.net/new-facts-suggest-political-retribution-in-gibson-guitar-raids/

  http://www.examiner.com/article/feds-threaten-to-raid-summer-concerts-to-seize-guitars. They never actually followed through on their threats, as far as I know.

  http://www.examiner.com/article/gibson-guitars-hit-with-300-000-fine-by-justice

  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/gibson-guitars-strum-a-lobbying-tune.html

 Watch the movie _Farmageddon_ to learn more on this trend.

 <http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/>

  http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/03/10/half-of-biggest-obama-funders-given-white-house-jobs/

 <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1160453,00.html>

  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/business/pentagon-brass-and-military-contractors-gold.html

  http://motherjones.com/politics/2000/08/cheneys-multi-million-dollar-revolving-door

 <http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=G>

 Find a long list of people who have gone through the revolving door here <http://geke.us/VennDiagrams.html>

 Find more on the revolving door and the elites' grip on power in the US in my essay  http://www.scribd.com/doc/74265960/The-Elitists-The-Ruling-Class-and-Occupy-Wall-Street.

 I strongly recommend _The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy_ by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on this subject. Feel free to brush aside the cobwebs that they are "anti-Semites": all their claims are well documented.

  http://www.examiner.com/article/war-profiteering-and-campaigns-perpetuate-war-on-terror

  http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=D01&cycle=2010

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-17-military-mentors_N.htm

  http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/TiesThatBind.html

 <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-01.htm>

  http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/1/blackwater_usa_building_the_largest_private

  http://www.alternet.org/world/101012/pentagon_hands_iraq_oil_deal_to_shell/

  http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/22/5897019-promises-promises-scrutiny-of-afghan-no-bid-deal

  http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Defense-bill-provides-home-for-earmarks-1806778.php

  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/army-thanks-but-no-tanks-90719.html

 Find more examples here  http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html

  http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=D01&cycle=2010

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Political_contributions.2C_federal_contracts.2C_advocacy

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-boeing.html?_r=2&emc=eta1),

  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/31/business/la-fi-wto-boeing-20110331

 With that said, I marvel at how angry people get to hear that the functions of war get farmed out to publicly-traded corporations. They seem to believe that, if a government does something, it is legitimate, but what corporations hired by government and not subjected to oversight do is despicable. The problem is, as always, the initiation of force.

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/14/fertilizing-farms-with-tax-dol

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/19/ending-farm-welfare-as-we-know

 Trace some of the tens of millions spent by agribusiness lobbying the US federal government here  http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=A01&cycle=2010

  http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/08/04/if-you-eat-you-need-know-5-facts-about-farm-bill

 http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ls5nralulA>

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122384633401456.html

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkvIS5pZ0eI>

 European governments fund groups so they can lobby for more funding! <http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/giving-money-lobbying-money>

 <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/68-213-x/2007000/4094533-eng.htm>

 <http://www.usa.gov/Federal_Employees/Benefits.shtml>

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-07-column07_ST1_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

  http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-no-its-super-bureaucrat/

  http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/29/philly-councilwoman-to-retire-and-collect-478000-pension-then-start-back-to-work-on-monday/

  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BENEFITS_TO_DEAD_PEOPLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-23-11-58-21

  http://www.kiplinger.com/infographics/how_does_income_stack_up_against_government/map.html

  http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2011/05/08/$200,000_lifeguards_to_receive_millions_in_retirement/page/full/

  http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/20/why-u-s-cities-are-going-bankrupt/?hpt=hp_bn2

 <http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/TM/OIGtm_CKE_080112.pdf>

 <http://www.triallawyersinc.com/kstreet/kstr01.html>

 <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5228/The-Freedom-to-Cross-a-Border>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5772/Are-Government-Jobs-Productive>

 Friedman, 17

 I have been accused of setting up a straw man on this point. I can assure you I did indeed believe all those things. The political science community plays a major role in producing the thinkers who legitimise the state.

 <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs177/English>

 JP Morgan donated $4.6m to the New York City police as Occupy Wall Street was rising in strength.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/02/1022031/-JP-Morgan-buys-NYPD-for-4-6-million

  http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12

  http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/the_cost_of_americas_police_state/singleton/

  http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_did_americas_police_become_a_military_force_on_the_streets/

 <http://m.reason.com/26819/show/e89317aba62791fbe1b3c2131838c378/>

  http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/texas-county-police-buys-drone-can-carry-weapons

  http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/jan/05/4/tampa-police-to-buy-armored-vehicle-communication--ar-344028/

  http://www.alt-market.com/articles/866-military-tanks-on-st-louis-streetsbut-why

 And by now, many more places do as well  http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/03/06/9-tons-mean-machine-help-utah-officials-fight-crime-natural-disasters.

 <http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/01/sheriff-lotts-new-toy>

  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068428/Bloomberg-I-army-NYPD-State-Department-New-York-City.html

  http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/08/nypd-unveils-new-high-tech-system-to-track-crime-and-terrorism/

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO75JjAUyeo>

 <http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/18/no-right-to-resist-rogue-cops>

 <http://dogmurders.wordpress.com/>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc3sGDHgxFA>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCXOiN3ybM>

 See this excellent piece by Radley Balko on how we arrived at this maddening state of affairs, along with several examples.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html

 See this interactive map of botched police raids. <http://www.cato.org/raidmap/>

 <http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras>

 <http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/26/reasontv-the-governments-war>

  http://share.banoosh.com/2012/08/09/occupier-charged-with-terroristic-felony-for-protesting-in-front-of-bank/

 <http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/23/reason-on-tv-epstein-judge-nap>

  http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/a-scene-reporter-arrested-by-the-state-sees-nashvlle-under-occupation-but-whose/Content?oid=2668260

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/occupy-wall-street-nov-17-journalists-arrested-beaten_n_1099661.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPucQHtHZs>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ>

  http://www.pixiq.com/article/kentucky-police-detain-man-for-suspicion-of-terrorist-activity

 Find plenty more examples of the war on cameras here <http://www.copblock.org/tag/filming-police/>.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/protest-police-liberty-central

  http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hope_is_action_hedges_ellsberg_arrested_at_white_house_protest_20101217/

  http://www.timescolonist.com/Girl+drawing+lands+trouble/6209562/story.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI>

  http://consumerist.com/2013/01/22/couple-gets-75k-in-settlement-after-arrest-for-dancing-the-charleston-in-nyc-subway/

 <http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/april-113660-trial-yuba.html>

 <http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2542281.shtml>

  http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kansas-man-gets-years-plus-for-bath-salts/article_d71cf9a6-6838-56ae-8a43-44f0ed6255de.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ7agdh89pE>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfPYuFK5TtM>

  http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/woman-i-was-arrested-1181947.html

<http://www.copblock.org/13928/teacher-arrested-for-declining-to-sit/>

 All these cases are from the past one or two years. For further examples at least as shocking, see here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States.

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYgBSmbtADI>

  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/08/28/2-arrested-for-lack-of-common-sense-after-rafting-down-main-street-in-manayunk/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/christopher-beatty-arrest-iced-tea_n_3232925.html

 <http://blog.motorists.org/different-kind-of-robbery/>

  http://blog.motorists.org/5-federal-court-cases-that-weakened-the-4th-amendment/

 <http://blog.motorists.org/the-fourth-amendment-is-dead/>

 <https://www.checkpointusa.org/>

  http://www.freep.com/article/20111021/NEWS06/110210365/Drivers-face-drug-checkpoints-highways-near-Flint

  http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/nazi-style-tsa-roadside-checkpoint-rights-abuses-effect

  http://www.copblock.org/4308/cop-who-paralyzed-man-for-life-continues-to-be-violent/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJxyCiWcfFs>

  http://egyptsaidso.com/shame-on-them/d-c-police-beat-up-a-man-in-a-wheelchair/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5fAGOVvEM>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyd_NldNSiM>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chavis-carter-shot-jonesboro-police_n_1730997.html

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/101226.html>

  http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/speeding-cops/fl-speeding-cops-20120211,0,3706919.story

  http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-analysis-finds-misuse-of-tasers-police-across-ny-state

  http://www.alternet.org/rights/153536/madness%3A_even_school_children_are_being_pepper-sprayed_and_shocked_with_tasers_/?page=entire

  http://libertycrier.com/front-page/police-officer-tased-a-12-year-old-girl-inside-a-victorias-secret/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/mount-sterling-police-shut-down_n_1337953.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Y9mkrGRsc>

  http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2011/06/14/news/doc4df7b12331ec9768149316.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 <http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/30/51809.htm>

 <http://www.alternet.org/story/155487/?page=entire>

 <http://rt.com/usa/news/chicago-taser-pregnant-rent-324/>

  http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/06/15/police-taser-used-on-nude-80-year-old-woman-attempting-hit-officers-with-cane/

 In Australia, police tasered an 84-year-old man  http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-tasered-mentally-ill-man-84-20120816-249il.html

  http://gawker.com/5836707/cop-tasers-mentally-ill-guy-with-his-hands-up-in-arizona

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOAOtQj3jiA>

  http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/usa-safety-tasers-questioned-death-toll-hits-334-mark-20081216

 <https://rt.com/usa/news/500-taser-law-enforcement-503/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBpJD5JnaHc>

  http://www.naturalnews.com/035626_police_brutality_Fresno_drowning.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/police-brutality-charges-us

  http://rollingout.com/politics/chicago-police-shoot-black-13-year-old-8-times-parents-say-he-was-unarmed/

  http://www.copblock.org/18235/19-year-old-shot-5-times-underage-drinking/

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065629/Police-killed-deaf-cyclist-stun-gun-failed-obey-instructions-stop.html

  http://www.activistpost.com/2010/10/police-misconduct-costs-nyc-taxpayers.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5j3NRRQQnI>

 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools>

  http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/178448/175/Milledgeville-Police-Handcuff-6-Year-Old-Girl

  http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/18626605/texas-honors-student-jailed-for-excessive-truancy

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5j3NRRQQnI>

 <http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/413/floridakids.shtml>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/student-sues-ga-school-di_n_1279253.html

 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools>

 Pepper spray is not necessarily non-lethal, by the way.  http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/investigates/photo-shows-pepper-sprayed-prisoner-12142011

  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america

 <http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/GooseCreekSuit2.html>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/suit-filed-after-nm-teen-_0_n_1124180.html

  http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

 Watch the movie the War on Kids for more depth on this state of affairs.

  http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/privacy-fears-over-the-device-that-can-eavesdrop-on-crimes-1.1036149

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sStd-fMa2ic>

 <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833487>

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/ap/politics/main20038514.shtml

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-protesters-complain-of-police-monitoring.html?_r=1

  http://www.tomsguide.com/us/FBI-Backdoor-CALEA-Facebook-Obama,news-15090.html

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3140207/Government-spies-could-scan-every-call-text-and-email.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zihNLwQDM_E>

  http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/08/congress-passed-bill-to-proliferate-drone-use-in-us-airspace/

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16545333>

 <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/07/where-is-outrage>

  http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/07/johns-hopkins-researchers-develop-mav-the-size-of-a-bug/

  http://phys.org/news/2012-02-butterfly-flight-bug-size-robots.html

 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202151608.htm>

  http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/

 <http://unmannedsystemscaucus.mckeon.house.gov/>

 <http://flexyourrights.org/faq/police_allowed_to_lie>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/attractive-undercover-cop_b_1277330.html

  http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/oct/14/exnypd_narc_testifies_cops_routi

 Described in the book _The Lucifer Effect_ ; see also <http://www.prisonexp.org/>.

 See a blatant example here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah0WoUDLiEg>

  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/the-cops-we-deserve/248775/

 <http://mises.org/daily/5651/To-Serve-and-Protect-the-State>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F14%2FMNFQ1MP92G.DTL One study is not conclusive, of course. But given what we know about what police do, it is plausible.

  http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/18/no-good-cops-go-unpunished-when-they-sto

  http://www.metro.us/boston/local/article/1002747--occupy-keeping-peace-with-internal-security

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair>

  http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/154080/what_progressive_criticisms_of_anarchists_in_occupy_don't_understand:_a_response_to_chris_hedges/?page=entire

 That said, we must bear in mind that when hundreds of people are being arrested and beaten, often just for sitting in protest, blood can run high. I have no moral qualms about defending oneself against aggression. The problem is that the media can spin the images any way they want, so we might not know who started what.

 I should mention that a recent riot in Vancouver was roundly condemned and followed by a major public shaming of the culprits who were photographed. Shame is a powerful emotion and a powerful weapon that does not require police.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R_qrvkoSCg

 <http://mises.org/daily/4101>

  http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2011/10/privatizing-police-work/329/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs>

  http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Patrol_Special_Police>

  http://www.policymic.com/articles/44725/this-is-what-budget-cuts-have-done-to-detroit-and-it-s-freaking-awesome

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTPArh0-Tc>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0MVsJhTdSQ>

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people

 Similarly, during the riots in Los Angeles in 1993, Korean storeowners, abandoned by police, defended themselves and their property with guns.  http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/

 <http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19384745tgeTy96g>

  http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/airport-security-breached-25000-times-since-2001/

 Its untouchable agents also commit a variety of crimes  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20-signs-that-we-are-witnessing-the-complete-collapse-of-common-sense-in-america.

  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-9.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3sH1GaO_nw>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqCuCm5FPjE>

  http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html

 Here are 8 more examples of TSA molestation of the elderly.  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/9-examples-of-elderly-americans-being-strip-searched-or-sexually-molested-by-tsa-agents-at-u-s-airports

  http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/04/unvarnished-truth-about-un-american-tsa

  http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2011/04/19/airport_security/index.html

 <http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/MID11TSM.PDF>

  http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners

 <http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead36.1.html>

 Find more on how overblown terrorism is here  http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/terrorism-is-overblown-you-bet-it-is/.

  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrwHE3kEjdc>

 <http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2012/04132012.aspx>

  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/01/10/ns-navy-ships-fence.html

 <http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam>

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601683.html.

  http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/01/declassified-us-government-colluded-with-big-banks-to-monitor-disrupt-occupy-protesters-as-criminal-threats/

  http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/testimony/2001/1206transcriptsenatejudiciarycommittee.htm

 <http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/war-on-terrorism>

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

  http://www.skepticallibertarian.com/2012/02/fbi-appears-to-have-foiled-own-terror.html

 <http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/fbi-bend-suspend-law/>

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/key-charges-dismissed-against-michigan-militia-members-charged-with-plotting-war-on-government/2012/03/27/gIQAfUYVeS_story.html

 <https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/16-13>

  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515

  http://www.alternet.org/rights/155880/fbi_terror_plot:_how_the_government_is_destroying_the_lives_of_innocent_people/?page=entire

 <http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/29/setting-the-trap/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1sYlW5al_4>

  http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/you-will-be-punished-if-you-dont-become-informant-aclus-nancy-murray

  http://www.alternet.org/rights/150209/the_shocking_way_us_cops_are_trained_to_hate_muslims?page=entire

 The same has been taught to the US military as well:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy

 Mueller, 39

 <http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-shirt-arijit-delta-308/>

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/world/middleeast/16yemen.html?_r=1

  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-9.html

  http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/stop-trying-to-combat-terrorism/

  http://www.freedominfonetwork.org/profiles/blogs/obama-s-drone-war-in-yemen-is-al-qaeda-s-best-recruitment-tool

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rEoVwlnmm8>

 I have written extensively on the War on Drugs elsewhere. Find my historical analysis of it here  http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-assessment-of-us-drug-war-policy-no-victories-only-failure/.

 <http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-afghanistan-south-1467>

  http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/16/franklin-despite-the-best-enforcement-efforts-of-cops-like-me-we-have-lost-the-war-on-drugs/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikLIRqv0wZY>

  http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Sunday-debate-Should-marijuana-be-legal-It-is-1367908.php.

  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medpot26jul26,0,777205.story

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaXrPCPOtF0>

 <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5654>

  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/dea-fbi-irs-raids-two-westside-pot-dispensaries-shoots-a-dog.html

 <http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/18/obamas-dea-raids-another-medic>

  http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/03/dea_raids_marijuana_dispensaries_across_montana.php

  http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/dea_police_raid_more_marijuana_dispensaries_in_was.php

  http://www.independentsforkerry.org/2012/02/26/suicide-rates-fall-when-states-legalize-medical-marijuana-says-new-study/

 <http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html>

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/26/proposition-19-california-marijuana

  http://www.betterhealthnews.com/2008/01/27/vancouvers-new-10-billion-dollar-market/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjv0plAhmGY>

 Moreover, as economist Walter Block points out, giving more money to the government would not be a good thing. "It is sometimes argued that one of the benefits of legalising addictive drugs is that they could be taxed, and the government revenues enhanced," he says. "From this perspective, this would be the only valid case against legalisation." How about we legalise drugs and do _not_ tax them? Most statists who favour legalisation seem to think politicians simply have not considered its benefits to society. But of course there are much more selfish motives behind drug criminalisation. The agorist in me prefers the black market.

  http://menso.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/prohibiting-a-market-does-not-mean-destroying-it/

 Prostitution, for instance, however distasteful it is to you, can be basically non-violent if legal. When criminalised, danger to women is inevitable.

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249>

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexicos-crime-wave-has-left-up-to-25000-missing-government-documents-show/2012/11/29/7ca4ee44-3a6a-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html

  http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/war_on_drugs_fast_furious_and_fueled_by_the_us_20110614/

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-usa-mexico-guns-idUSTRE75E49N20110615

  http://blog.independent.org/2011/04/10/mexicans-are-fed-up-with-the-war-on-drugs/

 See a video that brings the war to your eyes here <http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/mexicos-drug-dead/>.

  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#GangsandtheMilitary

  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57470618/chicago-police-sergeant-tribal-warfare-on-the-streets

  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/look-on-the-bright-side-theres-a-roaring-heroin-trade-in-afghanistan-and-its-all-thanks-to-us-8601260.html

  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/blogs/crime-and-punishment/facts-about-the-taliban-and-heroin-20110516-1ep6k.html

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/10/rotten_to_the_core

  http://blog.transparency.org/2011/05/11/corruption-in-afghanistan-the-status-quo-is-not-an-option/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/06/afghan-war-drugs-hit-list

 <http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/afghanistan-drugs-guns-money/>

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/tennessee-police-ignore-pot-at-state-officials-home/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sctqCrHAtlg>

  http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/border-agents-corrupted-while-fbi-and-dhs-wrangle-power

  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/17/MN7T1JHAST.DTL

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwcMOxO2yG8>

 Decriminalisation does not increase usage  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/07/global-report-decriminalization-does-not-increase-rates-of-drug-use/.

 <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1390>

  http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/osh.htm

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

 <http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30>

  http://www.alternet.org/health/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich/

 <http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html>

  http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w/1

 <http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I>

 <http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9O32MGO3.htm>

  http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w

  http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w/3

  http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2012/02/02/new-york-city-still-the-marijuana-arrest-capital-of-the-world/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/elisa-castillo-life-in-prison_n_1527861.html

  http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w/2

  http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/04/20110904arizona-prison-business-politics.html

  http://www.alternet.org/drugs/155794/24-Year-Old_Gets_3_Life_Terms_in_Prison_for_Witnessing_a_Drug_Deal%3A_The_Ugly_Truth_of_Mandatory_Drug_Sentencing/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6t1EM4Onao>

 <http://www.economist.com/node/15580530>

 <http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_ATF_illegal_firearms.html>

  http://www.alternet.org/drugs/154448/Why_Can%E2%80%99t_You_Smoke_Pot%3F_Because_Lobbyists_Are_Getting_Rich_Off_of_the_War_on_Drugs/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/welcome-to-the-police-ind_n_3415442.html

  http://www.enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/asset-forfeiture
  http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin-bail-confiscated_n_1522328.html

  http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/michigan-cops-used-asset-forfeiture-fund

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-government-is-the-looter/2012/05/18/gIQAUIKVZU_story.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/01/us-military-colombia

  http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/LaunderingDrugMoney.htm

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mexico/family/citibankaffair.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/OldTulsan/latest-andean-export-beau_n_812014_74773478.html

 <http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJRXATSbbCA>

 US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world <http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21760>.

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy>

 <http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/gc_1214235565991.shtm>

 Read the history of Rwanda to learn the effects of imperial invention.

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/15987798/Why-Interculturalism-Will-Work

 <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/nato-a13.shtml>

  http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/830701-asylum-europe-mirage-across-water

 <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0705j.asp>

  http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/05/13/jailing-undocumented-immigrants-big-business/

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/race-multicultural/lost-in-detention/record-number-of-illegal-immigrants-deported-in-2011/

  http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/15/the-most-vile-and-inhumane-immigration-s

  http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/children-of-detained-illegal-crossers-are-put-in-state-custody/article_0eaa9eee-d583-5b64-942a-28f8e13a03bf.html

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/immigration-deal-would-boost-defense-manufacturers/2013/07/01/d1c115e4-df63-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiO5YSjsV9w>

 <http://c4ss.org/content/2337>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5228/The-Freedom-to-Cross-a-Border>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcBwPyDPW54>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/tough-on-immigration-is-tough-on-economic-growth/

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/doctors_without_borders

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/sep/05/migration-increase-global-economy

 Hamilton and Whalley 1984; Winters et al. 2003.

 I am not aware if the studies go into the benefits of diversity to an economy. Diversity, properly harnessed, can bring tremendous benefits. My first book goes into detail on this subject.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/15987798/Why-Interculturalism-Will-Work

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/15/the_enduring_power_of_nationalism?page=0,1

 I realise it is not necessarily the people nationalists consider superior or inferior; it may be the culture, symbols and history instead. That does not make nationalism sensible.

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200305/why-we-fear-the-unknown

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?pagewanted=all

  http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/your_taxes_fund_anti-muslim_hatred_20110509/

 I get it: the Afghan government, the Taliban, was hosting Osama. That is no reason to carpet bomb an entire country. Most of the people who committed the crime were, in fact, dead—frustrating, of course, to the millions who lusted for blood. If a country is people, declaring war on Afghanistan meant declaring war on mostly innocent people, and killing many of them in a misdirected act of revenge.

 Find a list of those things compiled by anthropologists here <http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm>

 <http://volokh.com/2009/12/05/jonah-goldberg-on-nationalism/>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mubin-shaikh/sikhs-attacked-americas-b_b_1749408.html

  http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/hypnotized_into_an_endless_dirty_war/singleton/

 <http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/fa03/gmj-fa03-jensen.htm>

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200305/why-we-fear-the-unknown

 Rummel, 119

 And if you are a libertarian who supports war, I urge you to read this  http://mises.org/daily/5431/Can-a-Principled-Libertarian-Go-to-Waru

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/04/is_america_addicted_to_war

 <http://nationalinterest.org/article/samantha-her-subjects-5161>

 Not all historians agree that Versailles led to those effects as much as the mismanagement of German governments of the time, but it was certainly an easy scapegoat. What the people can be led to believe always matters.

  http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/01/crucial_year.asp

 <http://mises.org/daily/2352>

 Find more here <http://libcom.org/history/world-war-ii-peoples-war-howard-zinn>.

 There is no doubt that many amateur history buffs will be able to pick meat off the bones of my arguments on the causes of the World Wars, which evinces my point.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk>

 <http://pzimmerman.blogspot.com/2011/07/thank-vetno-way.html>

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/13/the_man_who_would_be_king

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/20/parliamentary_funk?page=0,1

  http://nationalinterest.org/article/something-rotten-the-state-iraq-5743

  http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/20/spare_afghanistan_iraq_s_success

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/nov/14/falluja-children-iraq-conflict

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange>

  http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10729-the-toxic-effects-of-agent-orange-persist-51-years-after-the-vietnam-war

 I use the term Operation Iraqi Freedom to refer to this war. The term is such a distortion of the intended and eventual effects of the war that it reveals the moral bankruptcy of those who made the war happen.

 <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050805_terror0805.pdf>

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/23348184/Paving-the-Road-to-Gaza-Israel-s-National-Role-Conception-and-Operation-Cast-Lead

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,4

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/16/the_empire_at_dusk

  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-war-protest-can-increase-war-support

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSovGr8cs0>

  http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/09/01/americans-agree-that-911-changed-u-s-in-major-way-but-divide-on-issue-of-civil-liberties-vs-anti-terrorism-measures/

 <http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=856>

  http://nationalpriorities.org/publications/2011/us-security-spending-since-911/

 <http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/06/blowback>

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/04/the-cost-of-getting-bin-laden

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

 <http://costsofwar.org/>

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

  http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/The-price-of-Obama-s-wars-1394550.php

  http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget

  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/10/135030/army-seeks-perfect-radio-creates.html

  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/161837-analyst-military-bands-to-cost-dod-50b-in-50-years

  http://mises.org/media/4819/War-and-Inflation-Financing-the-Empire

  http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ultimate-stimulus_592145.html?page=3

 <http://costsofwar.org/article/lost-jobs>

  http://costsofwar.org/article/macroeconomic-impact-military-spending

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/16/the_empire_at_dusk?page=0,1

  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/secret-programs/?pid=1017&viewall=true

  http://original.antiwar.com/bonnie-kristian/2011/06/17/the-waste-of-war-2/

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202053.html

 <http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0508/052208cdpm2.htm>

  http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-25/politics/defense.department.audit_1_dod-annual-audits-government-accountability-office?_s=PM:POLITICS

  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-21/lockheed-martin-f-35-operating-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html

 <http://www.cnbc.com/id/42494839>

  http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/12/28/the-war-on-boko-haram-and-the-hubris-of-unwarranted-intervention/

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1

  http://www.examiner.com/article/war-profiteering-and-campaigns-perpetuate-war-on-terror

  http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/24/libyas-imperial-hijacking-threat-arab-revolution

 <http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2011/08/26/winter-is-coming/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3EryUG0EA>

 See the movie _Iraq for Sale: the War Profiteers_ for more details.

 Find more on the effects of conformity here <http://www.lucifereffect.com/guide_conform.htm>

  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

  http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/afghans-to-us-military-be-at-least-a-little-ashamed.html

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/201231491311254.html

  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/world/la-fg-afghan-children-killed-20110303

 <http://www.economist.com/node/10253410?story_id=10253410>

 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5253160.stm>

 <http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm>

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_caused_by_ISAF_and_US_Forces_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Aggregation_of_estimates

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/afghanistan-trophy-photos-us-soldier

  http://www.npr.org/2012/01/12/145117940/viral-images-the-militarys-recurring-nightmare

  http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/political-correctness , their italics

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2011-05-08-troops-strain-morale-afghanistan_n.htm

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/national/main6083072.shtml

 <http://www.rense.com/general93/suic.htm>

 <http://www.startribune.com/local/123693859.html>

  http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/08/army-suicides-up-80-percent-since-invasion-of-iraq/

 <http://rt.com/usa/us-army-suicide-rate-025/>

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201205/the-costs-war

 <http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/bagram-health-risk/>

  http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/soldier_suicides_and_the_politics_of_presidential_condolences_20110712/

 <http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm>

  http://www.alternet.org/story/156374/how_about_this_for_supporting_the_troops%3A_help_our_55%2C000_female_homeless_veterans

 And women veterans are apparently the fastest growing population of homeless  http://www.salon.com/2013/05/27/meet_americas_fastest_growing_homeless_population_women_veterans/.

 Generals live in the lap of luxury  http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-absurd-ways-military-wastes-our-money?paging=off.

  http://servicewomen.org/2011/03/pentagon-releases-2011-report-on-military-sexual-assault/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxKARHvyBo4>

 The Iraq War Logs have revealed plenty of examples <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF2miwIWOE4>.

 Find the rest here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8rbHwMXMT8>.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eWRImrxFX4>

 <http://www.aei.org/docLib/Public%20Opinion%20Iraq.pdf>

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux5.html>

  http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011689456174295.html

 From The Arrogance of Power, available here  http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/CommonBook/Fulbright.pdf.

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011919133413315662.html

 <http://reason.com/archives/1994/08/01/life-savings>

 Lighthouses are also run by the private sector  http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

 My review of Fry's book can be found here <http://menso.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/are-we-inherently-warlike/>.

 <http://www.robotwisdom.com/ai/universals.html>. Again, believing or knowing something is natural is not to sanction it.

 <http://www.csub.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/benderly.htm>

  http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-stoics-would-have-approved-of-costa-rica/

 <http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin16.html>

 Indeed, the Israeli government and its supporters never tire of repeating that it has "the most moral army in the world", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan

 Does "al Qaeda" even mean anything anymore?  http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-limitless-global-war-7094

  http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/20/spare_afghanistan_iraq_s_success

 <http://truth-out.org/news/item/9545-why-i-returned-my-medals>

  http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/07/21/afghan-vips-steal-10-million-from-you-ever-day-in-cash/

 <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html>

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/01/think_again_the_afghan_drug_trade

 See some of those things here  http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/Winning-hearts-and-minds-in-Afghanistan.

  http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government

  http://www.examiner.com/article/us-payments-to-taliban-afghan-warlords-threaten-american-nato-troops

 See Kate Brooks' photo essay here  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/07/what_war_looks_like.

  http://www.aihrc.org.af/2010_eng/Eng_pages/Reports/Thematic/Gen_Sit_Wom.pdf

  http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/11/02/isaf-data-night-raids-killed-over-1500-afghan-civilians/

  http://news.antiwar.com/2011/12/19/us-refuses-karzais-latest-plea-to-end-deadly-night-raids/

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/mcchrystal-weve-shot-an-a_n_523749.html

  http://www.salon.com/2012/02/26/the_causes_of_the_protests_in_afghanistan/singleton/

  http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/19/2224874/taliban-attack-in-eastern-afghanistan.html

  http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/11/the_problem_of_population_protection

  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/04/the-wikileaks-video-and-the-rules-of-engagement.html

  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-afghan-violence-20110804,0,4799144.story

  http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government

  http://www.minorityrights.org/10744/peoples-under-threat/peoples-under-threat-2011.html#risers

  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0518/Deadly-Afghan-protests-erupt-following-NATO-raid

 <http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/afghanistan>

 <http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/638266>

  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/2/americas_secret_afghan_prisons_investigation_unearths

  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650242-2,00.html

  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/commandos-hold-afghan-detainees-in-secret-jails/

 Though not only the US  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/10_things_you_didnt_know_about_drones?page=0,3.

  http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/hypnotized_into_an_endless_dirty_war/singleton/

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-david-rohde-drone-wars-idUSTRE80P11I20120126

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/coming-soon-the-drone-arms-race.html?pagewanted=all

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan

 The definition of "militant" is still the purview of the state, of course.

  http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx?p=1

  http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=1

  http://nationalinterest.org/article/mutiny-grows-punjab-4889?page=1

 Rummel, 177

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01iht-edlieven.1.16613913.html

 <http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/01/29/pakistan-a-new-cambodia/>

  http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXvuU8O2Q0>

  http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/24/counterinsurgency_is_a_bloody_costly_business

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/world/asia/27kabul.html?emc=eta1

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/10/the_few_the_proud_the_unready

 <http://www.michaelyon-online.com/loaded-gun.htm>

  http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-madridprevention/article_1795.jsp

 <http://www.sigmados.com/esp/analisis.pdf>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LmNrJQf8Pw>

 <http://nationalinterest.org/article/mutiny-grows-punjab-4889>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFPLddpgVDQ>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_UbAmRGSYw>

 <http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175225/>

  http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2011/04/09/the-afghan-drug-trade-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1

  http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/11/jp-morgan-hunt-afghan-gold/

 Likewise, Iraq is next to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. The choices of targets are not accidents or coincidences.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwU8eavPInw>

 <http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf>

 <http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1205b.asp>

  http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/03/28/the-massacre-of-the-afghan-17-the-obama-cover-up/

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=19672&context=va

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-digs-in-as-americans-withdraw-from-iraq-afghanistan/2012/02/07/gIQAFNJTxQ_story.html?wpisrc=xs_0005

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJttxltYe8c>

 He is also given credit for ending the troop presence in Iraq. In fact, he was haggling to leave the troops there longer but could not because the Iraqi parliament would not grant the troops immunity from prosecution—in effect, kicking them out of the country.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8830284/US-to-announce-full-withdrawal-of-troops-from-Iraq.html

  http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011310153040668605.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0>

 <http://cpj.org/killed/>

 <http://www.ifex.org/international/2012/04/18/recent_kills/>

 <http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/2010.php/>

  http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/08/simon.press.freedom.911/index.html

  http://www.cpj.org/2010/04/cpj-seeks-pentagon-investigations-in-iraq-journali.php

 <http://cpj.org/reports/2003/05/palestine-hotel.php>

 Of course, not all journalists are trustworthy. One can never be sure what happened in a given event without having been there. What we can hope for is a "balance of biases", and infer what we can.

 <https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/28-3>. The total may be greater now. How would we know?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Whistleblowing_on_Trailblazer.2C_and_government_response

  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=3

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/truth-about-tillman-murde_b_58952.html

  http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Oliver-North-WikiLeaks-terrorism/2010/12/09/id/379463

  http://www.cfr.org/publication/23569/cablegate.html?cid=soc-Facebook-in-Diplomacy-Cablegate-120910

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

  http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/25/wikileaks_documents_reveal_us_knowingly_imprisoned

  http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/958-mohammed-nasim/

  http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-pressured-germany-not-prosecute-cia-officers-torture-and-rendition

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/obama-bush-torture-probe_n_790804.html

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/wikileaks-afghanistan-cor_n_791321.html

  http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/201232962051945408.html

  http://nocureforthat.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/collateral-murder-in-iraq-wikileaks-video-exposes-2007-us-apache-helicopter-killing-spree/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-afghanistan-data

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7913088/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-suggestions-US-tried-to-cover-up-civilian-casualties.html

  http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/1047711--wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-u-s-raid-shot-in-head?bn=1

 <http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/iraqs-bloodbath/>

  http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-reveals-that-mi_n_793816.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbAynPTDI4>

  http://www.salon.com/2012/07/19/that_makes_no_sense_your_security%E2%80%99s_a_joke_and_you%E2%80%99re_the_butt_of_it_salpart/

  http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/22/meet_the_seven_men_obama_considers_enemies_of_the_state

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122119527823867.html

  http://gawker.com/5892115/nypd-officer-sent-to-psych-ward-by-superiors-after-reporting-corruption

  http://www.thenation.com/article/166757/why-president-obama-keeping-journalist-prison-yemen

  http://www.policymic.com/articles/45063/bradley-manning-trial-an-american-hero-gets-court-martialed-on-june-3

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmMReqFC_Qw>

  http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/5/exclusive_julian_assange_of_wikileaks_philosopher

 Another whistleblower I like is BlogDelNarco.com. Mexican media outlets are highly concentrated, and as such they are in bed with the government. They tend not to report the gruesome but highly informative images from the Mexican drug war. But a fearless blogger is feeding the huge market for the truth.

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/06/7_things_you_didn_t_know_about_the_war_on_terror?page=0,5

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM>

 Markets Not Capitalism, 62: "To focus on the specific act of exchange may even be a bit misleading; it might be more suggestive, and less misleading, to describe a fully freed market, in this sense, as the space of maximal consensually sustained social experimentation." This definition accords with Oppenheimer's dichotomy of the state as the political (violent) means of acquiring wealth and society as the economic (peaceful) means. (Oppenheimer, 25; 276)

 <http://c4ss.org/content/7061>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5249/>

 <http://harrybrowne.org/articles/GovernmentDoesn%27tWork.htm>

  http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1999/11/cj19n2-1.pdf

 <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/phelps14/English>

 _Back on the Road to Serfdom_ , 129

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4>

 Find more on monopolies here <http://mises.org/daily/621>.

 <http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods175.html>

 Find references to the large amount of research on the subject here  http://mises.org/daily/5192/The-Business-War-against-Competition#note3.

 _Meltdown_

 It did so again in the years since <http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/>.

 _The Housing Boom and Bust_ , 24

  http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/repeal-of-glass-steagall-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-crisis/

 Here are three people to blame, in case you are interested. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1KwkScA540>

 <http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4.pdf>

 I am not an economist, but I do recommend the book _Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse_ by Thomas E. Woods. Obviously, one book is not definitive, and all books I have read on this subject make good points. This one cogently argues the government's role in the debacle was enormous. Either way, it is obvious that "the free market" and lack of regulation did not exist to cause this crisis. It was caused by the alliance of big business and big government, of a political system that rewards liars and thieves.

  http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?txt=F01&cycle=2010

 <http://www.economist.com/node/21537909>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJ0CUT8d_Y>

  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/abolish-corporate-tax-it-has-been-a-worldwide-failure/article1987495/

 _Back on the Road to Serfdom_ , 113

 Ibid., 115

 Ibid., 119

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQscE3Xed64>

 In poor countries, it is even harder.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/

 <http://www.economist.com/node/21547789>

 The examples are endless. Find more here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obWWToITkg>.

 Find more myths about the free market crushed here http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods173.html, here http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods174.html, here http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods175.html and here  http://media.mises.org/mp3/misescircle-houston12/04_Houston_20120114_Woods.mp3.

 <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html>

 _Markets Not Capitalism_ , 388-9

 See some of the more ridiculous ones here  http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-government-2010-11?op=1 and here <http://www.ij.org/nola-tours>.

 Taleb and Blyth, _The Black Swan of Cairo_

  http://www.alternet.org/story/153462/bail-out_bombshell:_fed_%22emergency%22_bank_rescue_totaled_$29_trillion_over_three_years

  http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-06/wall_street/30480968_1_bloomberg-market-bloomberg-spokesman-guarantees

 <http://hopetoprosper.com/fed-secretly-lends-16-trillion/>

  http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/federal-reserve-board-members-gave-their-own-banks-4-trillion-in-bailouts?news=844625

  http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/latest-news/246-26-trillion-dollar-fraud

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/how-the-fed-steals-for-th_b_1343283.html

  http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/04/obama-uses-green-subsidies-outsource-american-jobs-china

 <http://www.realclearmarkets.com/blog/519.pdf>

  http://www.openmarket.org/2012/01/24/stimulus-was-designed-to-provide-pork-and-payoffs-not-to-revive-the-economy/

  http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/05/economists-stimulus-wiped-out-550000-jobs

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnHQammdwGQ>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5426/Show-Love-to-the-Merchant-Class>

 There is always the possibility that an free-market organisation can accumulate massive funds and enable its owners to hurt others systematically. I deal with that question in chapter 34.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ>

  http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/

 <http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/imbalances-and-violence/>

 <http://c4ss.org/content/9545>

  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true

  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html

 Find a more robust discussion of this topic here  http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/13/let-the-free-market-eat-the-rich/.

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/20/research-finds-wealth-warps-your-perspective-and-makes-you-less-ethical/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51avIprMenI>

 Some data: most money going to welfare programs is wasted; most charitable giving is not. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI>

 <http://mises.org/resources/2974/Man-vs-The-Welfare-State>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI>

  http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/unemployment-benefits-not-so-beneficial

  http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html>

 <http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34snapmonthly.htm>

 <http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm>

  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/25-bitter-and-painful-facts-about-the-coming-baby-boomer-retirement-crisis-that-will-blow-your-mind

  http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-meeker-usa-inc-february-24-2011-2

  http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=598993&ibdbot=1&p=2

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/government-is-no-friend-of-the-poor/

 Read more on why the poor are still poor here  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/.

 <http://mises.org/daily/5388/Welfare-before-the-Welfare-State>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/friendly-societies-voluntary-social-security-and-more/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-blight-of-eminent-domain/

  http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2009939321_apuseminentdomain.html

 The examples above are from the US. However, as with most things in this book, governments of the rich world are only the least bad. Many other governments steal from the poor, forcibly relocate people who have lived somewhere for thousands of years and destroy local environments daily and without a penny of compensation.

  http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/08/forget-the-world-bank-try-wal-mart.html

 Find one perspective on why voluntaryists should oppose sweatshops here <http://c4ss.org/content/6489>.

 <http://www.perc.org/articles/article1374.php>

  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy?page=full

 <http://mises.org/daily/3801>

 Actually, the internet was not quite invented by the government  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um5gMZcZWm0>

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/6/big-milk-a-raw-deal-for-consumers/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7EkN2KLQQ>

  http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/mar/02/santa-paula-woman-arrested-on-multiple-felony/#ixzz1o7qQEBd1

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/

  http://www.naturalnews.com/035895_food_police_raw_milk_confiscation.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24103

  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/09/MN09183NV8.DTL&ao=all

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4742366/Waste-wars-how-Britain-became-obsessed-with-bins.html

 <http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/345073/>

  http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/church-ordered-to-stop-giving-away-free-water.html

 <http://c4ss.org/content/7048>

 _Markets Not Capitalism_ , 68-74

 <http://www.youtube.com/user/howtheworldworks#p/u/9/LA96U4ea604>

 The founder of Subway said there was no way his restaurant could have survived if it had been founded today <http://www.cnbc.com/id/100501700>.

 Here is an example of a small business owner holding back because of uncertainty <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8HCB-B6RIw>.

 Find more examples of government failure here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure>.

 <http://mises.org/daily/5261/Consumer-Advocate-in-Chief>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDFgtb0by4E>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5255/Another-Reason-to-End-the-Fed>

  http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

  http://www.jimcollins.com/article_topics/articles/10-greatest.html

 Well, not _real_ trouble  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-03/wal-mart-s-castro-wright-retires-amid-mexico-bribery-probe.

 <http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/Boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Transfer_Day>

 <http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=600>

  http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151314519938161.html

 <http://c4ss.org/content/12563>

  http://reason.org/files/how_to_manage_or_sell_federal_property.pdf

  http://origin.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste#_edn3

 <http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html>

 Ibid.

 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03298.pdf>

  http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42837&dcn=todaysnews

 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119136054325946827.html>

 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124364352135868189.html>

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/07/cbsnews_investigates/main4927475.shtml

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102003627.html

 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2318.cfm>

  http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/10/fcc_goes_nascar_racing_to_publ.php

  http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=774a6cca-18fa-4619-987b-a15eb44e7f18

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-trip-to-africa-poses-special-challenges-enormous-costs/2013/06/13/29d9270a-cd29-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html

  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/grateful-dead-tom-coburn-wasteful-spending-/1?csp=hf#.T1ZPVvGPWuw

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/26/eveningnews/main5041144.shtml

  http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/21/the-year-in-government-waste-bridges-to

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/500-million-obama-administration-program-will-help-kids-sit-still-kindergarten

 <http://mises.org/daily/5512/The-Austrians-Were-Right-Yet-Again>

  http://www.wagneriswrong.com/austrians-economists-predicted-the-crash/

 <http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/06/why-free-markets/>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5269/The-Great-Myth-of-the-Inflation-Cure>

 Read Murray Rothbard's _The Case against the Fed_ for a fuller explanation.

 <http://mises.org/daily/5465/Whos-Afraid-of-Deflation>

 <http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/11/0082254>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem>

 That said, there is plenty of evidence the developmental state can play a major role in the growth of a less-developed economy, as it did in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and a few other places. If done correctly, the state can foster the growth of big businesses and a good education system, bringing people out of poverty. However, developed economies are different. In developed economies, internationally-competitive businesses and entrepreneurial skills already exist, and they are easy to create because the state does not stand in the way of the starting of new businesses as much as it does in the less-developed world. The state tends not to have the autonomy from pressure groups necessary to foster successful businesses and improve education. Moreover, the development of an economy is, in my opinion, not a sufficient reason to want a state. If people want to pool their money or protect their local economy, they can develop big businesses and compete in international markets without a state. See chapter 42 for more such ideas.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI>

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2>

 <http://mises.org/daily/4993>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/odonnell-job-creation/

 <http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=476>

 Find more on the robber barons here <http://mises.org/daily/2317>.

  http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/03/are-privatized-public-libraries-so-bad/1583/

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardgrant/2012/02/05/when-whats-good-for-general-motors-is-not-good-for-america-or-built-to-last/

 <http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/08/the-stadium-welfare-rip-off>

 <http://mises.org/daily/5954/Chamber-of-Corporatism>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZosnxGKgk>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/spontaneous-order-in-action-the-universal-product-code/

 <http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/Boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx>

  http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/23/the-peoples-police-commission/

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder>

  http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/07/08/how-shareholder-activism-moved-needle-sustainability-2011

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw>

 <http://mises.org/daily/1855>

  http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/anarchy-the-unknown-ideal.html

 <http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/473>

 <http://mises.org/daily/4881>

 Brafman and Beckstrom, 17-21

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY>

  http://web.archive.org/web/20080118074241/http:/members.aol.com/ThryWoman/MRR.html

  http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/timeline.htm

 The USA before it was U, for example <http://mises.org/daily/2874>.

 Here are a few more  http://www.gonzotimes.com/2010/10/compendium-of-sources-to-learn-about-anarchism/#Anarchy_History.

 And a bunch more here <http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm>.

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2EhgADVFY>

 <http://www.gizmag.com/tiger-stone-lays-paving-bricks/16951/>

  http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-repair-job-for-free-in-8-days/

 <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsVMAP0zVgo>

 <http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf>

 If you do not want to read the book in the last footnote, you can watch a lecture on the subject here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPCk69X9AF8>.

 And if airbags are a bad idea, as some believe, it should not be illegal to produce cars without them.

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem>

  http://mises.org/daily/5498/Privatize-the-Highways-and-All-Roads-for-That-Matter

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPCk69X9AF8>

  http://www.alternet.org/story/151850/8_reasons_young_americans_don%27t_fight_back_--_how_the_us_crushed_youth_resistance?page=entire

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12c-8-0Razo>

 During Mao's day, the enemies were the USA and, after the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR. The Japanese have become the evildoers more recently, even though they have done nothing evil to the Chinese since 1945.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY>

 Of course, not all schools or teachers are the same. The point is the incentives to improve education are lacking in a state system.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5331188/Boy-Scouts-train-for-badge-in-anti-terrorism.html

  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy-highschool10-2009jun10,0,2393893.story

  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/black-ops-jungle-academy-military-industrial-complex-studies

 <http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html>

 Find more on the terrifying programming of children in the US here  http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/07/19/the-makings-of-a-police-state-part-i/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Ey7ThGOUs>

 <http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm>

 Politics in this sense has little to with elections. Election campaigns rarely hinge on issues related to education and the election goes to the one who best exploits the far more important issues of gay marriage, gays in the military and gay terrorism.

  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/07/no-child-left-behind-lobbyists.html

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw>

  http://www.businessinsider.com/best-worst-states-for-teachers-2011-5

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-usa-education-trigger-idUSBRE85H0J620120618

 <http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/pf/student_loan_debt/index.htm>

  http://www.mybudget360.com/debt-u-4800-colleges-and-universities-in-the-u-s-and-many-are-putting-students-into-massive-amounts-of-debt/

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/world/africa/09safrica.html?pagewanted=all

  http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeToChooseNetwork#p/u/9/5Hewo7jZQ_4

 <http://www.diablovalleyschool.org/nightmare.shtml>

 Tenure, by the way, is another rigid system that could be rethought.

 <http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/>

 <http://www.sudval.org/>

 <http://www.paulglover.org/nests.pdf>

 eg. <http://www.homeschool.com/>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Socialization>

 <http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp>

 <http://www.home-school.com/news/beeallyoucanbee.html>

  http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/kids_on_drugs_many_children_likely_misdiagnosed_with_adhd/a41a8779

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2141044/ADHD-Ritalin-prescriptions-soaring-experts-warn-effects.html

 <http://www.oikos.org/ritalinkids.htm>

 <http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle110307.htm>

  http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/would_we_have_drugged_up_einstein_how_anti-authoritarianism_is_deemed_a_mental_health_problem/?page=entire

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5wCfYujRdE>

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pink-slime-for-school-lun_n_1322325.html

 The actual sales price may be lower, but the total cost, including the subsidy, which someone will need to pay, will be higher.

 <http://mises.org/daily/1547>

 <http://mises.org/daily/917>

  http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0137009275/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337944807&sr=8-1

 <http://mises.org/daily/3650>

 <http://mises.org/daily/496>

 <http://www.economist.com/node/21547789>

  http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v9/n3/8/Kubick.pdf

  http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/14/counterparties-americas-student-debt-crisis/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A>

  http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/2011/10/medicare-shells-out-millions-for-narcotics/

 <http://mises.org/daily/5496/The-Economics-of-US-Healthcare>

  http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/11/08/addiction-alternative-mate.html

 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17666589>

  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lsd-may-aid-alcoholism-treatment-7546295.html

 Read more here  http://www.alternet.org/drugs/155883/Are_We_Finally_Reawakening_to_the_Profound_Healing_Properties_of_Psychedelics%3F/

  http://www.alternet.org/health/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich/

 <http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/dshea.html>

  http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

 Find more on the FDA here <http://www.fdareview.org/>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArNAxocz1X4>

  http://coedmagazine.com/2010/09/02/10-major-health-benefits-of-marijuana/

 <http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_elderberry_juice_FDA_raid.html>

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/25/almost-everything-were-taught/1

  http://www.openmarket.org/2011/12/06/legalizing-kidney-sales-would-save-thousands-of-lives-save-taxpayers-a-bundle/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/27/kidney-trade-illegal-operations-who

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shiva-rose/rawseome-shutdown-food-freedom_b_922130.html

  http://www.naturalnews.com/035397_Ventura_county_raw_milk_rampage.html

 <http://mises.org/daily/3233>

  http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1112/gallery.health-care-entrepreneurs/

 <http://www.paulglover.org/1006.html>

  http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/anarchist-vision-universal-health-care-mutual-aid-through-self-managed-health-cooperatives

  http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/

 <http://www.hempfarm.org/Papers/Hemp_Facts.html>

  http://sierraclub.typepad.com/mrgreen/2010/03/does-the-coal-industry-get-subsidies.html

  http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E04&year=2011

  http://www.naturalnews.com/036183_fuel-efficiency_automobiles_government.html

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-billion-stimulus-solar-wind-projects-made-910-final-jobs-98-million-job

  http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/05/us-state-department-global-marketing-arm-gmo-seed-industry

  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/suicide-seeds/

 <http://www.lp.org/issues/environment>

  http://www.alternet.org/environment/156223/we_had_a_secret_nuclear_weapons_plant_near_a_major_american_city_yeah%2C_one_of_the_most_contaminated_sites_in_america

  http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/du/index.shtml

  http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2005/06/02/depleted-uranium-lessons-in-humanitarian-and-other-warfare/

  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/peace/abolish-nuclear-weapons/the-damage/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/nov/14/falluja-children-iraq-conflict

 Walter Block has done considerable work on the privatisation of the commons <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPCk69X9AF8>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHVr2eiUa5w>

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/the-economics-of-the-lorax/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPy9j3vtKCs>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QouamYWL6vc>

 Not that I am in favour of hunting seals. This is where shaming and the boycott come in.

  http://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2006/09/02/earth-sanctuaries-ltd-goes-belly-up/

 Find more examples of free-market conservationism here <http://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/>.

  http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/25/privatizing-the-chesapeake/singlepage

 <http://c4ss.org/content/17899>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlaS2_igyY>

 Similar principles apply to the problem of air pollution, which this book does not with but others have; see here <http://mises.org/daily/2120>, here <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux5.html> or here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnJHfiFWJw> for examples.

 <http://www.thedailybeast.com/topics/green-rankings.html>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHeeR4Zqruo>

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo>

 Hasnas, 113-4

 _The Market for Liberty_ , 65-66.

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak>

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html>

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html>

  http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html>

  http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/

  http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/2012/05/taking-the-law-online-judge-mes-plan-to-build-the-future-of-legal-systems/

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmXDrm5Q-eQ>

 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html>

 As agorists will tell you: see the principles underpinning agorist theory here <http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog/index.php?itemid=247>.

 Some of these ideas are from <http://agorism.info/ideas_for_counter-economists>.

 <http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index5.php?entry=howto>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio>

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)). Silk Road does millions of dollars in trade annually (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/06/black-market-drug-site-silk-road-booming-22-million-in-annual-mostly-illegal-sales/), and it is in the digital realm where the state cannot shut it down or find out who uses it or trace the money.

 like this one <http://www.agoristmarketplace.com/>

 <http://www.facebook.com/StatelessSweets/info?ref=ts>

 <http://libertyactivism.info/wiki/Unlicensed_Contracting_Work>

  http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-george-donnelly-of-the-private-defense-agency-shield-mutual

 <http://agorism.info/alternative_currency_and_barter>

 <http://agorism.info/encryption>

 like the Freecycle Network <http://www.freecycle.org/>, Freegan <http://freegan.info/>, Food Not Bombs <http://www.foodnotbombs.net/> and the Really, Really Free Market <http://www.reallyreallyfree.org/>

 <http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271139>

 <http://c4ss.org/content/10402>

  http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/03/building-structure-of-new-society.html

 available here  http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

  http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/government-is-no-friend-of-the-poor/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/co-operatives-worker-ownership

  http://www.fastcompany.com/1762938/rise-shared-ownership-and-fall-business-usual

  http://www.fastcompany.com/1767329/how-evergreen-cooperative-lifting-cleveland-residents-out-poverty

 Find more examples here <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/26-1>.

  http://www.alternet.org/story/155452/the_rise_of_the_new_economy_movement

  http://www.ecoagricultor.com/sistemas-participativos-de-garantia-spg/

 <http://facpe.org/>

 A county in Oregon has taken to citizens' providing their own security after the budget for police ran dry <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGeyuWPM-0>

 <http://peacefulstreets.com/about/>

  http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=955&itemID=23688&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service&cookie_test=1

  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-dream-of-the-1890s-why-old-mutualism-is-making-a-new-comeback/254175/

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_association>

 <http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12636>

 <http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/bank-for-co-ops.html>

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/16/greece-develops-euro-free-currency-in-tight-economy/

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hometown_society>

  http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/04/mutual-aid-on-may-day-and-beyond/

 Hoppe, 117

 Hoppe, 115

 <http://www.swaraj.org/regeneration.htm>

 Hoppe, 81

 <http://www.ditext.com/boykin/ethics.html>

  http://www.foodrenegade.com/maine-town-declares-food-sovereignty/

  http://maine.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/05/trenton-becomes-fourth-town-to-declare-food-sovereignty/

  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/16/greece-develops-euro-free-currency-in-tight-economy/

 Something similar is happening in Spain  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-spain-financial-crisis-feeds-expansion-of-a-parallel-euro-free-economy/2012/08/27/53ed3552-e00f-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html.

  http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/9/north_carolina_town_prints_own_currency

 <http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-05-scrip_N.htm>

  http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/corporate-control-not-in-these-communities

 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_x-YVviM-o>

 <http://www.freekeene.com/>

  http://www.france24.com/en/20120219-athens-anarchist-tradition-alive-well-greece-protests-exarhia

  http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/russell-means-lakota-declares-its-sovereignty-video/

  http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/08/20000-nations-above-the-sea/singlepage

 <http://www.economist.com/node/21540395>

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania>

 <http://yubia.blog.com/2011/08/24/what-is-yubia/>

 <http://hermetic.com/bey/>

 <http://gizmodo.com/5803124/what-is-bitcoin>
