Recent comments

Wow! This article is amazing! This guy should win the contest!

dhowlandjr, posted on February 21, 2011: "...It's simply impossible to impose a voluntaryist (or anarchistic, or simply correct) viewpoint on others. We all have it, it's a basic part of our nature and our survival mechanism, and the degree to which we suppress and ignore it is the degree to which we allow or cause our own enslavement...." Sam replies: Your comment, as I see it, is the solution to the debate. Do you ever wonder, dhowlandjr, if anybody is listening??? The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

Rob has a page about submitting articles, just follow the directions there. I can't guarantee he'll take yours though. ;-)

"Is Per recommending we go around calling those who advocate (or even just perceive as legitimate) monopoly government "enemy" to their face? I see no proof anyone is suggesting such a course" Well, he did entitle his article with exactly that! You don't think minarchists come around here at all? It's not as if it was a quiet conversation, for private consumption only, between two anarchists. "But the assertion remains, while people advocate, or even passively accept aggression against others, they ARE the enemy of their fellow men." "Passively accept"? That's a pretty positivist view of anarchy if you ask me. No one has any obligation to protect me from aggression, but me. No one becomes my enemy if he refrains from that. I thought anachists believed that no one owes them anything. "Advocate"? Yeah, if they understand what they are advocating. Note, the government takes great pains, through government schooling and propaganda, to ensure the average Joe does NOT understand what statism boils down to. Government could not exist without euphemism. "We can't write that taxation is theft, because that would alienate IRS agents (and their families/friends)." Oh, heaven forbid we should bother an IRS agent! I mean, here is a person who clearly IS an enemy, and you are suggesting I am saying we should not annoy even those who are enemies? Sorry if you got that impression, but I am not saying that at all. "It's a place where people speak their mind and present ideas without apology." I don't argue this because I think it unnecessarily hurts people's feelings (although it does that), or because it is a tactical mistake (although it is that too), but because it is wrong. Minarchists and even other statists are not per se our enemies. We can be free in a world, outnumbered by statists, as long as they see fit to leave us alone (which many are willing to do).

Can you please provide a quote or name a name of someone here who has said they will not speak with statists? Otherwise, that does indeed appear to be a strawman argument.

No, it is logic. Point 1) We live on a world we share with a lot of people, whether you like it or not. Point 2) Those people have opinions, whether you like it or not. Point 3) A lot of those people with opinions are willing to use force to make them happen. If there is a large segment of that population which you feel are not worth talking to (and identify as an enemy), but still have the power to trespass against you, and you refuse to be trespassed against without response, where does that leave us in light of the first three conditions? No speaking, but we have an inherent conflict that wont go way means eventual violence, one way or the other. Either initiated by them or by us in response to what we would consider aggression or trespass. So, you can call it a strawman, but most people consider it straight forward completely reasonable logic. Different sides of a life and death conflict that refuse to talk to each other will result in violence, and will more then likely lead to exactly the opposite of what we want.

G'day BrianDrake and tzo, A "government" with only jurisdiction over those who consent is not a state. The first is a de jure (rightful) "government", having jurisdiction[1] only over those who consent to be members, the second, "a state", is a de facto "government", "existing in fact [without] lawful authority". It is without lawful authority because it is claiming jurisdiction[2] over a TERRITORY, and EVERYONE inhabiting it, whether they consent to being members or not. I might consider giving my consent to the former, I adamantly refuse to give my consent to the latter. “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire [1] JURISDIC'TION, n. [L. jurisdictio; jus, juris, law, and dictio, from dico, to pronounce.] 1. The legal power or authority of doing justice in cases of complaint; the power of executing the laws and distributing justice. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Note: Notice that Noah said, "the power of EXECUTING the laws", and not the power of CREATING the laws. [2] JURISDIC'TION, n. 2. Power of governing or legislating. 3. The power or right of exercising authority. ~ Ibid. Note: Those who are on their toes may have noticed that Noah said, "power OR right" at definition #3. The first (power [only]) is de facto, without consent; the second (right) is de jure, with consent.

About my comment that is quoted in the article; my claim was that if you could convince your neighbors to leave you alone, you would have convinced them to be voluntaryists. The condition is "convince them to leave you alone". Desiring to leave you alone in all areas except one does not satisfy this condition. Nor was the condition "if they reach electoral stalemate and are unable to do anything but leave you alone". So the examples in your article do not in any way address my statement. It may indeed be a "strange [line] of argument" and it may be incorrect. But you've done nothing to actually address it or attempt to correct it.

Good observation, dhowlandjr. I live in a world not of my making. Well, I should qualify that: the world revolves around MY belly-button, not yours! My world. The factor that helps me to be free is my knowledge that YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly-button -- whether you admit it or not. If you and I disagree it's not because I'm bad or even disagreeable. It's because your experiences, strengths and hopes have led you to see the thing differently. [But you're wrong! -- naw, just kidding :-)]. I can and must take certain responsibility for the condition of my world (or how I perceive my world and how I react to it). I am a sovereign state. I so declared myself shortly after reading Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" in the mid 70's. That simply means I'm self-governing. I did not go up to a "state" or a "court" house and voluntarily file some "legal" document with employees of state. No sir ree, Bob! There will be a number of pogroms designed to prove to me that I cannot govern myself -- that I must pledge allegiance to a flag and be a part of a state right here in the-land-of-the-free-and-the-home-of-the-brave -- that I should be grateful for all these marvelous "benefits" delivered by parasites of state. And that I should vote. A major life challenge is to work my way around those who truly believe they have a "social contract" to rule me. Freedom is not free. They will rob me and they will try to enslave me by appearing to "require" me to sign this or some other document "under penalty of perjury" (and without "due process") to reveal stuff they have no need to know about my person or my property. My goal is to remain free in spite of their machinations. It is possible and it is preferred. Yes, you can. Sam

"Do you try to guilt, shame, and bludgeon statists with your words? If so, do you see how that could be seen as hypocritical?" If it is seen as hypocritical, it is done so in error. "Bludgeoning" with your words is not an act of aggression (in the context we're speaking of). Physical bludgeoning (not done in defense) is. Not arguing that an abrasive conversation style won't probably be received poorly, obscuring the message. But anyone who confuses physical violence with being "rude" (especially when the "rudeness" is in response to the advocacy of aggression) is not logical. Anyone who persists in such a perception (meaning they reject correction, even when given gently), seems to be a lost cause.

Wow, my comment spawned an entire STR article! Woohoo! I'm flattered. Edited to add: What's it take to getting full article writing creds here? Publishing an "Exclusive to STR" article carries so much more weight than simply replying in the comments.

Also, even though this is apparently easy to forget on the Internet, 99.9% of us live in a "state". We support the state by paying taxes, whether voluntarily or not. We pay taxes to the state every time we buy something at the store. Most of our friends and relatives are "statists." Most of us probably got an education thanks to the state. All anarchists, unless they live in the woods somewhere, are anarchists in theory, but "statists" in fact. It's important to understand that there is a difference between rhetoric and reality - and in reality, calling everyone who you rely on "evil" and an "enemy" isn't going to get you very far. It was very gracious of Per to qualify his argument with a second article, but I really think we should take a much more pragmatic approach.

Well said Paul. There are few things human beings like less than being labeled, pigeon-holed, and stereotyped. There are many people out there that incorrectly see the state as necessary. This does not automatically make them an "enemy". I was a statist once, as were most of you at one point as well I assume. I would never have come around to the ideas of voluntaryism if some one got up in my face pointing fingers telling me how evil my statist beliefs were. The art of persuasion is often a delicate thing. Also one that considers coercion to be immoral should consider how the way they speak reflects on their stated beliefs. Do you try to guilt, shame, and bludgeon statists with your words? If so, do you see how that could be seen as hypocritical?

Well, for the record, that was about as funny as ex-lax in a diarrhea ward.

Samarami, that is a great, great comment. You are absolutely right that -- since we all were born into a Statist society and have been immersed in Statist propaganda from Day One, that seeing the truth and moving towards abolitionism is a PROCESS, a path, a journey of discovery and growth. Minarchists are moving in the right direction, and some will continue on to the abolitionist view and some won't. We need to be firm about the importance of abolishing ALL FORMS AND TYPES of initiated, non-defensive coercion (or aggression) while encouraging minarchists to continue their journey. Alliances with minarchists can definitely help the cause of freedom as long as we remain clear and firm on the importance of the endpoint: abolishing all non-defensive coercion, no matter how the coercion is dressed up or what clever names and rationales might be used for it. I particularly liked your last paragraph, Sam, which shows a warm connection to others regardless of whether they think exactly as you do, and an appreciation of the positive elements in someone's argument even if you disagree with it. Not every argument HAS positive elements -- we can all think of many examples, I'm sure -- but you are right that Per's strong "anarchist only" viewpoint is useful -- it hammers home the importance of eliminating all structures that initiate coercion -- even if you personally believe, as I do, that minarchism is often a way-station on the road to abolitionism and that minarchists such as Paul and Browne do useful and sometimes powerful work for liberty.

Cons hate it when cons con the cons. Gads!

Here's an interesting paragraph from that report: ------------- General responses to police misconduct on a judicial/criminal justice level appear unchanged with no corresponding fluctuation to the increase in general misconduct rates which demonstrates a possible bias built into the justice system which continues to limit prosecutorial effectiveness against law enforcement officers charged with criminal wrongdoing. This appears to correspond to a previous study performed by the NPMSRP showing a large disparity in conviction and incarceration rates between law enforcement officers and the general public. -------------

G'day BrianDrake, Let me begin by pointing out that the majority of people do not perceive anarchy the way that some of you do. Here is what most individuals believe an anarch to be. So I personally avoid that label like the plague. I am not "one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder". I do not believe "there is no law"; my law is the law of nature, which according to John Bouvier's Institutes of American Law is "is superior in obligation to any other". I am not one of those who "do what they please with impunity", an utterly ridiculous notion, IMO; and I am not in favor of "political confusion", I am simply self-governing and therefore have no need to be governed. As to "panarchy", I've not yet read Panarchy by Paul Émile de Puydt, so I cannot comment on their similarity. However, I do agree with what David M. Hart is reputed to have said about panarchy, "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members." You wrote: But isn't it true that if you can convince your neighbors to "leave you alone", that is, that government shouldn't be imposed on people, then you've convinced them to be anarchists? Not at all, I have merely convinced my neighbors [including the local police] that I am self-governing, and they can, and do, therefore, "leave me alone". As one local rancher put it to the local gendarme, (when we first arrived in this area), "He's honest, he works hard and he doesn't cause trouble. What more do you want from a man?" ...if enough people to matter actually agreed that you have the right to secede yourself (without forfeiting your property - love it or leave it), they are at that point anarchists and we've won. Your statement there would be correct except for your addition of, "they are at that point anarchists". No, BrianDrake, they are voluntary members of a man-made government. If I leave a statist alone does that mean that I have consented to become a statist? Not hardly!! If government only has jurisdiction over those who actually consent, then it is no longer a state, it is a business. According to Frédéric Bastiat's definition of the word "government", “It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” If you wish to call that "a business", [which is generally thought of as something you enter into for a profit], you are certainly free to do so. Liberty and self-reliance are not the same thing, and those who advocate liberty (self-ownership) do not have a single, unified preference on the optimum amount of self-reliance. One can be a hermit, fully self-reliant. Another can join a commune, where all worries of responsibility are delegated to others. As long as these preferences are freely chosen, it is liberty, it is anarchy. Well now, point one, is correct "liberty and self-reliance are not the same thing", in fact, at this point, I can see no relationship whatsoever. Point two, "and those who advocate liberty (self-ownership) do not have a single, unified preference on the optimum amount of self-reliance". Since we apparently agree that "liberty and self-reliance are not the same thing", what does it matter? Point number three, "One can be a hermit, fully self-reliant." Doubtful, because man is a social animal, but regardless of that, what does being "fully self-reliant" have to do with being self-governing? Point four, "Another can join a commune, where all worries of responsibility are delegated to others." I think that would have made much more sense had you perhaps said, "all worries of responsibility are shared by the voluntary members," or something of the sort, but again, I must ask, what does this have to do with being self-governing? And, point number five, "As long as these preferences are freely chosen, it is liberty, it is anarchy." You are apparently stating that "liberty" and "anarchy" are synonymous. If so, I would point out that natural liberty is not anarchy, i.e. "Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion". "Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men." Buriamaqui, c. 3, § 15; 1 Bl. Comm. 125 – A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 716 [Emphasis added] It is not the behavior of the state, per se, that makes it criminal. It is, in fact, "the behavior of the state, per se, that makes it criminal," (as though "the state" was a sentient being). Things are not criminal, behaviors are criminal. And, "To join or support one that,' (in my opinion), 'would itself do injustice, would be criminal", which is why I have opted out. It is the involuntary nature of it. This is sure to piss some people off, but they should be honest with themselves. It is a convenient excuse for those individuals who are simply unwilling to secede, because they perceive that life without the state would be too difficult and dangerous. I fully understand this and do not think ill of them for making this choice, just as I hope they do not think ill of me for choosing to withdraw my consent to be a member of their political organization, which leads us to your last point. ...convincing a statist to "allow" individual (not smaller state) secession, is to really convince him to be a voluntaryist. Agreed, which is what I, (and Paul, apparently), are trying to do here.

There's no principled difference between anarchism and minarchism, it's just a matter of semantics! Anarchists too think that it's right to use force in response to an attack. The reasonable way to do this is with everyones equality under the law, public trials, proportional punishments and so on along the principles of justice which have evolved over thousands of years. If you call this a "state" or if you call it something else, doesn't change what it is. I don't want a "state" per se, but I want a justice system which protects negative rights, and they tend to be called "state". Any "state" activity which hurts someones negative rights is not minarchism, it's socialism. What's important to me is how force is used, not how organisations are labeled.

"You assume that by properly identifying an aggressor as an enemy, you can't be tactful in your dealings with that person." Tact? I am not talking about buying a gallon of milk from an Obama supporter. Almost anyone can manage that. I am saying that if you classify everyone other than anarchists as an enemy, rather than mistaken, or hoodwinked, or propagandized (for example), you naturally will cut off any but the most trivial possible relationship with him, including the notion of persuasion. "Respect each other"? The original column was entitled, "Why Minarchists Are The Enemy". Strange way of showing respect. The other problem with making 98% of the population your "enemy" is that it trivializes the notion of "enemy". It makes it life easy for those who truly are enemies (most powerful people in Washington DC, for example). No, my neighbor is not another Dick Cheney! I simply reject the notion that all statists want to oppress and control everyone. They certainly want themselves and their associates and neighbors, everyone in their immediate vicinity, to be oppressed and controlled. That does not imply they care about someone in another town or state - or that they couldn't be convinced not to care in return for getting their own preferred variety of statism locally. These people are not enemies. They are our natural allies, and we will need their help if we are ever to have the chance to establish free states or communities for ourselves.

"More effectively quell violent protests without loss of life"? So the protests would be even more violent with full metal jackets on those bullets. Thanks for the confession, you Army goons.

None of us were born anarchists. Could I call myself a "borned again" anarchist -- like religionists I remember? It took what it took to get me where I am. I'm 74. I didn't ask for a state ("public school") education, but that's what I got. I didn't ask to be enslaved ("drafted") by state goons and trained to murder, but that's how it worked out. Afterward I gleefully (and grateful to the GI Bill) accepted a state "higher" education and became a state teacher. To cop another religionist phrase, I've since "repented" of all that -- but it didn't happen overnight. In 1964 -- not yet 30 -- I was an avid Barry Goldwater enthusiast, just as the young Ron Paul supporters are of him today. I became so disgruntled with the LBJ crowd and disillusioned with the "white supremacist" types in the political arena I've never registered or voted since. It was the last year for poll tax in Texas. In 1973 Harry Browne wrote "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". Although old Harry was a ministatist (at least he spelled Libertarian with upper case "L" and ran for "president" -- how mini is that???), he led me on to the path of freedom and sovereignty. Harry taught me to think through ideas previously too risky for me to broach -- just like Ron Paul is providing inspiration for future STR posters today (hopefully including at least two of my seven children). Per, you write good stuff. Don't let anybody slow you down. You are an inspiration to me and many others. But some of your "gentle detractors" also have a message. Listen and sort. Regards, Sam

The Physics of Peeling Paint

This is a sottish comment, and hatred tends to eat the holder of it. Murder is not a "logical and moral course of action".