a friend sent me an email about a video on a merchant's website using a parodied, celebratory version of osama bin laden's death as a marketing tool. outside of such a thing being in bad taste, there's nothing wrong with that, but what is striking to me is the mentality behind it.
the gist of the video was "ding-dong the witch is dead! buy our product!". it's been a pretty common theme for most folks, let's be honest. "yay! that bad guy who killed all those people is dead! oh, sweet justice!", might sum up the collective sentiment. but that logic is so wrongheaded and naive that it's hard to know where to start. i like lists, so i'll take that approach:
1) according to the FBI's wanted poster, bin laden hasn't even been officially charged with doing anything relating to the 9/11 attacks. let that soak in - HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED.
2) bin laden has repeatedly denied responsibility for the attacks. there are many sources who say he has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the key is that there's no way to tell, conclusively whether he did or didn't have anything to do with them.
3) so, there's a guy who hasn't been accused of anything (though his involvement was heavily implied by certain parties) who has denied responsibility for the crimes in question, who was hunted down and executed, without trial. people celebrate this. i can only assume, since people aren't hypocrites (sarcasm), that this is the way they think they should be treated. those who celebrate bin laden's death must believe that they, themselves, should be punished for crimes that anyone implies that they may have committed, without the chance to defend themselves. somehow, i think this one of those things that only applies to "other" people.
4) how does anyone know if the events in question (bin laden's murder) actually took place? did anyone see it happen? did they know bin laden and see his body afterward and identify that he was, in fact, dead? no? so, all we have to go on is the word of proven liars and manipulators? sorry, but that doesn't pass muster for me. how do i know bin laden's dead? because liars told me so!
5) doesn't it bother anyone that the president has hit squads running around killing people upon his decree? anyone remember stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, etc? oh, right, this is 'murica! no president would issue orders to kill innocent american political opponents. it can't happen here - right?
6) but let's assume bin laden is guilty. the government killing him is unjust for those actually injured in the attacks he's blamed for. isn't he supposedly rich? why not, at least, force him to make restitution to the injured parties? by the hit squad going out and terminating him, it insures that those with an actual claim against him will never be compensated. nice "justice" you got there.
7) again, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that bin laden is guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. would those who celebrate his death equally celebrate the deaths of george w. bush and barack obama, who have openly and publicly engaged in the planning and execution of operations resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians in orders of magnitude greater than bin laden ever has, if the governments of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan or yemen hunted them down in washington d.c. and killed them with a hit squad? if not, why not? is it about killing innocent civilians or is it about something else?
if you are one of the people who celebrated bin laden's murder, you have to ask yourself exactly what it is that you're celebrating and why.
the vast majority of people simply don't know what justice means. the public education system has done its duty, churning out compliant, unthinking drones who cheer the depredations of government on command. good job, most-people, you once again confirm your unquestioned love for evil.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
the problem(s) with minarchists
as is the nature of being an anarchist in the freedom movement, i have many minarchist friends. for those who don't know what these terms mean, an anarchist (an=no, archos=rulers) is one who advocates the abolition of government and a minarchist (min=small, archos=rulers) is one who advocates a government, but a small and weak government. though i certainly appreciate minarchists more than outright statists, there are some problems that i think minarchists should consider that make the minarchist position untenable.
as with all issues, there are two aspects: the moral and the practical. the moral is always the easiest to deal with, so i'll start with that. inherent in any "archism" that isn't anarchism, is the rule of some over others - by force. so, by definition, minarchists advocate an institution in which some people use violence to rule over the innocent as well as the criminal. they advocate the initiation of force to keep others out of certain markets like defense, justice, and police. some may even advocate more than that, but if so, that begins to strain even the minarchist label.
it should be fairly obvious that no one, including a minarchist, has the right to participate in any markets, while excluding others by force, nor does anyone, including a minarchist, have the right to force others to participate in a market that they have monopolized with their minimal state via such nefarious schemes as taxation (the forced taking of the property of others, aka; theft). even if elected, how can an electorate, each member of which has no right to rule over others, confer to the minarchist such a right? they can't. no one has any such right. such a right does not exist. therefore, the actions of the minimal state must be undertaken illegitimately.
generally, minarchists use the argument that a government is necessary for an orderly society and that certain markets must be monopolized by the state to achieve that. this is a practical argument, not a moral one. the morality of rule over others is still as clear regardless of practicality. the problem is that minarchists are, in this way, no different than totalitarians. they advocate the violent rule over others in order to achieve some goal. the difference is in degree, not in kind. totalitarians have the same philosophy, only with a wider scope.
now for the practical problems with minarchism. in advocating a state monopoly in certain markets, like "national" defense, justice or police, minarchists, wittingly or unwittingly, advocate socialism. socialism is an economic "system" in which government holds titled control over the means of production. in other words, the government holds a legal monopoly over a certain market or markets. it has been shown, both in theory and in practice, that socialism can't work for the good of society. the reason is that a coercive monopoly (a monopoly that insulates itself from competition by force) has no market input by which to determine demand for its goods or services, the correct resources and amount of resources to use for the goods or services, or the type of production to employ for those goods and services. there is no access to the pricing that markets provide (through competition) in order to calculate these things. a socialist system is, by its nature, excluded from the information necessary to make prudent decisions. This is widely known as "the calculation problem".
to minarchists: i know that the migration away from statism is a tough one and it takes time. you are on the right track! of course, it is my desire to help to bring you full circle and gently point out the reasons why government, of any size, is morally and practically wrong. luckily, i've also written briefly on how markets are more likely to succeed where governments inevitably fail, here, here, here and here.
take the leap to anarchism, minarchists (and everyone else)! we are here waiting to soften your landing.
as with all issues, there are two aspects: the moral and the practical. the moral is always the easiest to deal with, so i'll start with that. inherent in any "archism" that isn't anarchism, is the rule of some over others - by force. so, by definition, minarchists advocate an institution in which some people use violence to rule over the innocent as well as the criminal. they advocate the initiation of force to keep others out of certain markets like defense, justice, and police. some may even advocate more than that, but if so, that begins to strain even the minarchist label.
it should be fairly obvious that no one, including a minarchist, has the right to participate in any markets, while excluding others by force, nor does anyone, including a minarchist, have the right to force others to participate in a market that they have monopolized with their minimal state via such nefarious schemes as taxation (the forced taking of the property of others, aka; theft). even if elected, how can an electorate, each member of which has no right to rule over others, confer to the minarchist such a right? they can't. no one has any such right. such a right does not exist. therefore, the actions of the minimal state must be undertaken illegitimately.
generally, minarchists use the argument that a government is necessary for an orderly society and that certain markets must be monopolized by the state to achieve that. this is a practical argument, not a moral one. the morality of rule over others is still as clear regardless of practicality. the problem is that minarchists are, in this way, no different than totalitarians. they advocate the violent rule over others in order to achieve some goal. the difference is in degree, not in kind. totalitarians have the same philosophy, only with a wider scope.
now for the practical problems with minarchism. in advocating a state monopoly in certain markets, like "national" defense, justice or police, minarchists, wittingly or unwittingly, advocate socialism. socialism is an economic "system" in which government holds titled control over the means of production. in other words, the government holds a legal monopoly over a certain market or markets. it has been shown, both in theory and in practice, that socialism can't work for the good of society. the reason is that a coercive monopoly (a monopoly that insulates itself from competition by force) has no market input by which to determine demand for its goods or services, the correct resources and amount of resources to use for the goods or services, or the type of production to employ for those goods and services. there is no access to the pricing that markets provide (through competition) in order to calculate these things. a socialist system is, by its nature, excluded from the information necessary to make prudent decisions. This is widely known as "the calculation problem".
to minarchists: i know that the migration away from statism is a tough one and it takes time. you are on the right track! of course, it is my desire to help to bring you full circle and gently point out the reasons why government, of any size, is morally and practically wrong. luckily, i've also written briefly on how markets are more likely to succeed where governments inevitably fail, here, here, here and here.
take the leap to anarchism, minarchists (and everyone else)! we are here waiting to soften your landing.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Anarchy! What it is and What it isn't
First things first: anarchy is not chaos. In fact, the philosophy, which has many quite different factions, is based on the moral and practical goal of greater societal order through voluntary interaction rather than through force. Anarchy is the natural societal order achieved through the consensual interactions of individuals.
Anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarkhos" , meaning "no ruler". Those who advocate anarchy are called anarchists. There are many different types, based on their idea of what type of socio-economic system they prefer to engage in with others, including anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-primitivists, etc. A quick read on Wikipedia can sum up the differences. What's important to know about anarchists is that they all reject the notion that people can be owned by and, consequently, ruled by, other people. They do not believe that anyone has a right to the person or property of others, precluding the idea that some (governments) may use force against others (citizens) in order to bend those others to their will.
The anarchist's greatest enemy, therefore, is government. Governments are those groups of people claiming for themselves the right to rule over others by force. The anarchist believes that people are born with equal rights and such rule is imposition against those rights. Anarchists advocate the abolition of government in favor of the spontaneous order of natural human society and consider it naive to believe that if people cannot be trusted with their own power as individuals, that they somehow can be trusted with the centralized power of government.
Typically, people are woefully miseducated on the ideas of human nature, society and economy, making them fear the idea of a voluntary society, even though the alternative, government, has proven to be a whimsical, utopian idea based on a theory, socialism, that has been discredited by economics and has proven to be a disaster in practice. For this reason, it is assumed that voluntary society cannot exist. Herein lies the biggest stumbling block to the philosophy: reversing the years of misinformation and replacing them with more factual, logical understanding.
The assumption for most is that government must exist to stop bad people from doing bad things. Anarchism disagrees. It should be clear that, not only does government fail in this, but it acts a vehicle for bad people to do really bad things like war, genocide, slavery, etc. Anarchists understand that security is a service that is subject to supply and demand, like any other. Therefore, it cannot be supplied effectively, efficiently or in a manner consistent with the desires of the customer by a coercive monopolist like government. All people desire to be secure in their person and property to a far greater degree than they desire the person or property of others as a general rule. Entrepreneurs realize this and will always offer such security in a competitive environment, consistent with the desires of its customers. If the customer is a syndicalist, they are free to procure security from a syndicate. If they are communists, they can choose to procure security from the commune. If they are capitalists, they are free to procure security from a company. All these entities are truly held accountable for abuse by their competitors or ideological alternatives. Governments are not.
The way to tell a true anarchist from a fake is that the true anarchist is never willing to initiate force against the person or property of others. He will never support government, nor will he require others to participate in his preferred ideology. The anarchist is not a lazy busybody willing to employ government to force his ideas on others. He relies, like every decent person should, on persuasion and, upon the failure to persuade, tolerance. All anarchists are libertarians, all anarchists are market anarchists. Ideology follows after those categories. All are libertarians because they must accept the non-aggression principle. All are market anarchists because they cannot seek their preferred socio-economic situation without market freedom.
Of course, there is much more to anarchism than the simple exposition above. Here are some links that get into the nuts and bolts:
basics of libertarianism 1
basics of libertarianism 2
government monopoly
contradictions of government 1
contradictions of government 2
contradictions of government 3
the anarchist solution 1
the anarchist solution 2
the anarchist solution 3
the anarchist solution 4
the anarchist solution 5
what are rights?
the failure of democracy
the constitution experiment
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
The choice lies with you!" - Peter Kropotkin
Anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarkhos" , meaning "no ruler". Those who advocate anarchy are called anarchists. There are many different types, based on their idea of what type of socio-economic system they prefer to engage in with others, including anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-primitivists, etc. A quick read on Wikipedia can sum up the differences. What's important to know about anarchists is that they all reject the notion that people can be owned by and, consequently, ruled by, other people. They do not believe that anyone has a right to the person or property of others, precluding the idea that some (governments) may use force against others (citizens) in order to bend those others to their will.
The anarchist's greatest enemy, therefore, is government. Governments are those groups of people claiming for themselves the right to rule over others by force. The anarchist believes that people are born with equal rights and such rule is imposition against those rights. Anarchists advocate the abolition of government in favor of the spontaneous order of natural human society and consider it naive to believe that if people cannot be trusted with their own power as individuals, that they somehow can be trusted with the centralized power of government.
Typically, people are woefully miseducated on the ideas of human nature, society and economy, making them fear the idea of a voluntary society, even though the alternative, government, has proven to be a whimsical, utopian idea based on a theory, socialism, that has been discredited by economics and has proven to be a disaster in practice. For this reason, it is assumed that voluntary society cannot exist. Herein lies the biggest stumbling block to the philosophy: reversing the years of misinformation and replacing them with more factual, logical understanding.
The assumption for most is that government must exist to stop bad people from doing bad things. Anarchism disagrees. It should be clear that, not only does government fail in this, but it acts a vehicle for bad people to do really bad things like war, genocide, slavery, etc. Anarchists understand that security is a service that is subject to supply and demand, like any other. Therefore, it cannot be supplied effectively, efficiently or in a manner consistent with the desires of the customer by a coercive monopolist like government. All people desire to be secure in their person and property to a far greater degree than they desire the person or property of others as a general rule. Entrepreneurs realize this and will always offer such security in a competitive environment, consistent with the desires of its customers. If the customer is a syndicalist, they are free to procure security from a syndicate. If they are communists, they can choose to procure security from the commune. If they are capitalists, they are free to procure security from a company. All these entities are truly held accountable for abuse by their competitors or ideological alternatives. Governments are not.
The way to tell a true anarchist from a fake is that the true anarchist is never willing to initiate force against the person or property of others. He will never support government, nor will he require others to participate in his preferred ideology. The anarchist is not a lazy busybody willing to employ government to force his ideas on others. He relies, like every decent person should, on persuasion and, upon the failure to persuade, tolerance. All anarchists are libertarians, all anarchists are market anarchists. Ideology follows after those categories. All are libertarians because they must accept the non-aggression principle. All are market anarchists because they cannot seek their preferred socio-economic situation without market freedom.
Of course, there is much more to anarchism than the simple exposition above. Here are some links that get into the nuts and bolts:
basics of libertarianism 1
basics of libertarianism 2
government monopoly
contradictions of government 1
contradictions of government 2
contradictions of government 3
the anarchist solution 1
the anarchist solution 2
the anarchist solution 3
the anarchist solution 4
the anarchist solution 5
what are rights?
the failure of democracy
the constitution experiment
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
The choice lies with you!" - Peter Kropotkin
Sunday, August 8, 2010
illegal immigration
a major, ongoing concern in the u.s. is that of illegal immigration. as is so often the case, the mainstream debate revolves around logic (or the lack thereof) stemming from false, assumed premises. most participants assume the legitimacy of the state, lack an understanding of private property, have a very poor, if not non-existent understanding of economics and are influenced, surprisingly transparently, by ethnic and racial biases.
first, let's address the rights-driven, morality of immigration. every person has rights. those rights stem from his entitlement to his own property, the most basic unit of which is his body. all people have the absolute right to do with their property whatever they wish, as long as they avoid infringing the property of others. as the old cliche goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
that being the case, people have the right to travel wherever they please as long as they respect the legitimate property of others. no one has the right to stop them from immigrating from place to place except those who may own land being trespassed upon. any attempt to stop immigration outside of one's own land is a violation of the rights of that individual - a crime.
practically, immigration is a boon to an economy. generally, people immigrate for the same reasons they do virtually anything else; as a means to the end of improving the quality of their lives. this is a natural function of markets. as a place becomes more productive and, therefore, wealthier, it attracts those who wish to increase their wealth. it works out, because such economies need new labor to expand production in line with growing demand. it is part of the natural harmonies of human society - the spontaneous order. as more people enter an economy, more goods and services are needed to sustain them, creating higher demand, a continued increase in production expansion, an increase in the need for new labor, etc.
the problems with immigration are a creation, almost entirely, of the state. countries are an abstraction. when one refers to "this country" or "our country", they engage in the fallacy of conflating two separate and distinct groups. there is no "country", only (1) people engaging in activities every day, attempting to better their lot in life according to their own values and (2) those, like governments, attempting to live at the expense of others through force. they are separate, competing groups. the latter group has established a boundary with another such neighboring group (like the boundary between the u.s. and canada or mexico) inside which, each will exploit its resident population. these turf boundaries are sanitized with the term "borders".
governments will, in order to control populations, set up laws governing immigration. they don't want anyone to be able to conduct business inside their boundaries without being able to exploit them. so, they set up checkpoints at borders and keep a strict watch on who enters and who leaves. they violate the rights of people to move freely in order to better conduct their criminal scheme. they demonize "illegal" immigrants who use welfare, but do not pay into the system, creating friction between immigrants and legal citizens who must fund welfare. it's clever, because it hides the fact that the whole scenario is a product of the state creating and forcibly funding a welfare program in the first place. governments might point out how much drug-related crime immigrants are engaged in, but this, too, is a result of the state's outlawing of drugs.
illegal immigration is a problem created and exacerbated by government. the individuals referring to themselves as "the government" have, just as any other people, no right to restrict the movement of others. in violating the rights of immigrants, they cause the weakening of an economy. there is nothing wrong with immigration, legal or illegal. eliminate the state and you eliminate the problem.
first, let's address the rights-driven, morality of immigration. every person has rights. those rights stem from his entitlement to his own property, the most basic unit of which is his body. all people have the absolute right to do with their property whatever they wish, as long as they avoid infringing the property of others. as the old cliche goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
that being the case, people have the right to travel wherever they please as long as they respect the legitimate property of others. no one has the right to stop them from immigrating from place to place except those who may own land being trespassed upon. any attempt to stop immigration outside of one's own land is a violation of the rights of that individual - a crime.
practically, immigration is a boon to an economy. generally, people immigrate for the same reasons they do virtually anything else; as a means to the end of improving the quality of their lives. this is a natural function of markets. as a place becomes more productive and, therefore, wealthier, it attracts those who wish to increase their wealth. it works out, because such economies need new labor to expand production in line with growing demand. it is part of the natural harmonies of human society - the spontaneous order. as more people enter an economy, more goods and services are needed to sustain them, creating higher demand, a continued increase in production expansion, an increase in the need for new labor, etc.
the problems with immigration are a creation, almost entirely, of the state. countries are an abstraction. when one refers to "this country" or "our country", they engage in the fallacy of conflating two separate and distinct groups. there is no "country", only (1) people engaging in activities every day, attempting to better their lot in life according to their own values and (2) those, like governments, attempting to live at the expense of others through force. they are separate, competing groups. the latter group has established a boundary with another such neighboring group (like the boundary between the u.s. and canada or mexico) inside which, each will exploit its resident population. these turf boundaries are sanitized with the term "borders".
governments will, in order to control populations, set up laws governing immigration. they don't want anyone to be able to conduct business inside their boundaries without being able to exploit them. so, they set up checkpoints at borders and keep a strict watch on who enters and who leaves. they violate the rights of people to move freely in order to better conduct their criminal scheme. they demonize "illegal" immigrants who use welfare, but do not pay into the system, creating friction between immigrants and legal citizens who must fund welfare. it's clever, because it hides the fact that the whole scenario is a product of the state creating and forcibly funding a welfare program in the first place. governments might point out how much drug-related crime immigrants are engaged in, but this, too, is a result of the state's outlawing of drugs.
illegal immigration is a problem created and exacerbated by government. the individuals referring to themselves as "the government" have, just as any other people, no right to restrict the movement of others. in violating the rights of immigrants, they cause the weakening of an economy. there is nothing wrong with immigration, legal or illegal. eliminate the state and you eliminate the problem.
Monday, August 2, 2010
that "render unto caesar" passage
My post entitled "Christianity and the state" lays out a strong case against the compatibility of government and Christianity. often, as should be expected, the passage in the bible in which the pharisees question Christ about taxation is brought up. it's often used as proof that, indeed, Christians are required to pay taxes to the state, thereby supporting paul's alleged statement in romans 13 commanding submission to government. here, i will point out why this is not only a poorly reasoned argument, but one that, if reasoned properly, reinforces the idea of Christian resistance to the state.
let's have a look at the entire passage, first (from the ESV):
19 The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people. 20 So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 21So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. 22Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar’s." 25He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." 26And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.
here we have the pharisees, who were constantly trying to trap Jesus, attempting to have him either deny his deity by sharing Godly authority with man, by allowing that caesar has the authority to tax God (Christ) and Christians, splitting their allegiance between two authorities, or have Jesus deny that caesar has such authority so that they can have him arrested for promoting tax revolt or evasion. regardless of whether Christ says yes or no, he loses.
Christ, though, is smarter than what the pharisees give him credit for. his answer is neither the yes nor the no that they seek. Christ answers in a way that will get him out of the trap, yet will make his point perfectly clear. typically, Christians interpret his answer as a simple "yes, we must pay taxes (and that caesar has authority over Christians just as another God would)". it's a puzzling interpretation as it assumes that the pharisees were successful in their trap and Jesus was thwarted in that instance, denying his his deity by sharing authority with a man.
in fact, the question that should automatically arise from Christ's answer is, what is it that belongs to caesar, but not to God? or, does God's authority end where caesar's begins? the obvious answer is that nothing belongs to caesar that doesn't belong to God. Christ's followers would have readily understood that, as would the pharisees, but they'd have nothing to use against Jesus because of his very clever response to their devious inquiry. this is why they were "marveling at his answer".
pay tribute to caesar? no. in fact, that denarius with his face on it? don't even use it. let him keep it. this dovetails nicely into agorism, or the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the underground markets, which naturally tends toward non-state issued currency. easier said than done, of course, but it's always a great goal to strive for.
not paying taxes has a greater moral implication also. if you don't pay, then the state can't use the funds to finance its wars, police and corporate protection racket. all of the state's funding is cut off if we refuse to pay taxes and trade in currencies like gold and silver rather than state currencies. if we can successfully go underground with our economic activities, then the state is isolated from wealth. it will have no option but to wither and die.
render unto caesar - nothing.
let's have a look at the entire passage, first (from the ESV):
19 The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people. 20 So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 21So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. 22Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar’s." 25He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." 26And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.
here we have the pharisees, who were constantly trying to trap Jesus, attempting to have him either deny his deity by sharing Godly authority with man, by allowing that caesar has the authority to tax God (Christ) and Christians, splitting their allegiance between two authorities, or have Jesus deny that caesar has such authority so that they can have him arrested for promoting tax revolt or evasion. regardless of whether Christ says yes or no, he loses.
Christ, though, is smarter than what the pharisees give him credit for. his answer is neither the yes nor the no that they seek. Christ answers in a way that will get him out of the trap, yet will make his point perfectly clear. typically, Christians interpret his answer as a simple "yes, we must pay taxes (and that caesar has authority over Christians just as another God would)". it's a puzzling interpretation as it assumes that the pharisees were successful in their trap and Jesus was thwarted in that instance, denying his his deity by sharing authority with a man.
in fact, the question that should automatically arise from Christ's answer is, what is it that belongs to caesar, but not to God? or, does God's authority end where caesar's begins? the obvious answer is that nothing belongs to caesar that doesn't belong to God. Christ's followers would have readily understood that, as would the pharisees, but they'd have nothing to use against Jesus because of his very clever response to their devious inquiry. this is why they were "marveling at his answer".
pay tribute to caesar? no. in fact, that denarius with his face on it? don't even use it. let him keep it. this dovetails nicely into agorism, or the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the underground markets, which naturally tends toward non-state issued currency. easier said than done, of course, but it's always a great goal to strive for.
not paying taxes has a greater moral implication also. if you don't pay, then the state can't use the funds to finance its wars, police and corporate protection racket. all of the state's funding is cut off if we refuse to pay taxes and trade in currencies like gold and silver rather than state currencies. if we can successfully go underground with our economic activities, then the state is isolated from wealth. it will have no option but to wither and die.
render unto caesar - nothing.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
a strategy to defeat the state
for some reason, i don't think i've ever posted my preferred strategy for bringing down the state. so, just for the record, i'll document it now. i'd hate to be accused of having complaints, but no solutions!
the most important part of any strategy right now is education. every time someone swallows the red pill, the state weakens. the ideal situation would be to have everyone learn that the state is not only not necessary for civilization, but it is deleterious to those ends. having a designated and untouchable group of people violently exploiting others, like governments, can never be the solution to the problem of people violently exploiting others. there's no way to teach everyone right from wrong. some are so hopelessly entangled in the myths of the state, that they simply lack the ability to escape. the more that we plant the seed of truth, the closer we edge to our goal. don't worry that deconversion is slow and difficult; be patient. all we can do is plant the seed. if the mind is fertile, it will, eventually, germinate.
second is the promotion of civil disobedience. the more difficult we make it for the state to govern, the better. it helps to waste their resources and makes a spectacle of their aggression against good people. so, however and to whatever extent you can, disobey! if you are too fearful to do that, then support someone who's willing and able to take the risks. legality ≠ morality!
lastly we must develop underground markets. black markets, gray markets and anything that encourages voluntary exchange and economic development off of government's radar. the more we prosper while evading the greedy hands of government, the better able we'll be to weather the storm of the state's inevitable collapse which will take the white markets with it. it's called agorism and it can be any voluntary, economic exchange that goes unreported to government.
freedom won't come easy, so forget wasting your time with political action. political action is the opiate of the masses. the state has sown the seeds of its own destruction, at least in the u.s., and now is the time to prepare to move out of the dark ages and into enlightenment.
understand, disobey, evade!
learn more here:
www.strike-the-root.com
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
www.agorism.info
the most important part of any strategy right now is education. every time someone swallows the red pill, the state weakens. the ideal situation would be to have everyone learn that the state is not only not necessary for civilization, but it is deleterious to those ends. having a designated and untouchable group of people violently exploiting others, like governments, can never be the solution to the problem of people violently exploiting others. there's no way to teach everyone right from wrong. some are so hopelessly entangled in the myths of the state, that they simply lack the ability to escape. the more that we plant the seed of truth, the closer we edge to our goal. don't worry that deconversion is slow and difficult; be patient. all we can do is plant the seed. if the mind is fertile, it will, eventually, germinate.
second is the promotion of civil disobedience. the more difficult we make it for the state to govern, the better. it helps to waste their resources and makes a spectacle of their aggression against good people. so, however and to whatever extent you can, disobey! if you are too fearful to do that, then support someone who's willing and able to take the risks. legality ≠ morality!
lastly we must develop underground markets. black markets, gray markets and anything that encourages voluntary exchange and economic development off of government's radar. the more we prosper while evading the greedy hands of government, the better able we'll be to weather the storm of the state's inevitable collapse which will take the white markets with it. it's called agorism and it can be any voluntary, economic exchange that goes unreported to government.
freedom won't come easy, so forget wasting your time with political action. political action is the opiate of the masses. the state has sown the seeds of its own destruction, at least in the u.s., and now is the time to prepare to move out of the dark ages and into enlightenment.
understand, disobey, evade!
learn more here:
www.strike-the-root.com
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
www.agorism.info
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
remember not to vote!
yes, i've written on this subject before. i felt like i should be more clear and concise on the argument i make against voting. looking back at those earlier posts, there was something left to be desired.
1. voting sanctions violence. government is a group of people who have declared themselves to be your ruler - with or without your consent. every rule they make, every regulation they implement is backed up by the threat that they will use force in order to gain your compliance. when you vote, you actively help someone get into a position to use that violence against others. you become, in essence, an accessory to crime.
2. voting legitimizes government. the more votes a candidate receives, the greater his "mandate". everything he does can be whitewashed as "the will of the people". a vote helps to obscure the criminal nature of government by giving people the illusion that they are involved in the process, when, of course, they aren't.
3. you never know what you're voting for. politicians are liars. that's a known quantity. all one has to go on when electing a candidate are his words. we know that words can't be trusted. so, when you vote and that candidate does something awful that he said he wouldn't do, like invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, are you going to be willing to accompany him to the hague to answer to war crimes? let's be honest, you helped it all happen.
4. voting will never change the nature of government. regardless of your vote, government will remain, by definition, an institution based on violence against others. if you want to be involved in assisting a machine of evil, then voting is an easy way to do it.
the alternative, of course, is to stay at home, away from such things and enjoy your clear conscience (or, you can do this instead). after all, if you vote, you have no right to complain.
1. voting sanctions violence. government is a group of people who have declared themselves to be your ruler - with or without your consent. every rule they make, every regulation they implement is backed up by the threat that they will use force in order to gain your compliance. when you vote, you actively help someone get into a position to use that violence against others. you become, in essence, an accessory to crime.
2. voting legitimizes government. the more votes a candidate receives, the greater his "mandate". everything he does can be whitewashed as "the will of the people". a vote helps to obscure the criminal nature of government by giving people the illusion that they are involved in the process, when, of course, they aren't.
3. you never know what you're voting for. politicians are liars. that's a known quantity. all one has to go on when electing a candidate are his words. we know that words can't be trusted. so, when you vote and that candidate does something awful that he said he wouldn't do, like invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, are you going to be willing to accompany him to the hague to answer to war crimes? let's be honest, you helped it all happen.
4. voting will never change the nature of government. regardless of your vote, government will remain, by definition, an institution based on violence against others. if you want to be involved in assisting a machine of evil, then voting is an easy way to do it.
the alternative, of course, is to stay at home, away from such things and enjoy your clear conscience (or, you can do this instead). after all, if you vote, you have no right to complain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)