Why I am a Voluntaryist

Voluntaryists see all the stupidity of politics on both right and left, but they don't feel the need to hate their neighbors and family for their political beliefs. We see the deeper roots of the problem, embedded in world-wide cultural memes. That doesn't absolve anyone of blame for supporting the blood-bath of statism, but we're not interested in assigning guilt to individuals. We're interested in finding solutions we can implement within our circle of influence (not in Lansing or D.C.) In short, "we have met the enemy, and he is us". We can't change the problems of religion and politics without realizing that those things are just effects caused by much more deeply-rooted causes within human culture itself. Culture transmits many truths and falsehoods to each successive generation. The core problem is that culture transmits big ugly lies disguised as sacred unquestionable truths. We are taught by culture that we cannot question anyone's culture. How convenient.

You can't change the memes of culture by waving signs in the street, putting bumper stickers on your car, or writing your congressman. It's much more difficult and intimate than that; you have to change yourself and your small circle of friends who have ears to hear and eyes to see. It's like turning an ocean liner; a small turn of the wheel does a lot in the long run, but yanking the wheel does nothing but cause damage and lock things up. People's opinions are not changed by throwing tons of facts at them. I'm sure you've seen that. Throwing up mountains of facts to oppose someone's political or religious belief system often polarizes and strengthens that person's resolve to hold fast to their assumptions.
Voluntaryists see a day when the social safety net will be vastly improved by getting it out of the hands of politicians who suffer almost no consequences for their stupidity and greed. Voluntaryists also work for the day when there can be no 1% hoarding wealth, because only the state allows this hoarding to go on. It is the politically well-connected who can hoard wealth because their profits are protected from the consequences of stupid and greedy decisions.

For example; Voluntaryists oppose government-enforced copyright and patent laws. Shocking, I know, ... but there are good arguments. We oppose trademark or packaging fraud, and that would surely be prevented much more effectively in non-political courts. But it's no crime to take someone's idea and improve on it. Ideas are not property. Most of the biggest advances in humankind have occurred in times and places where there were no such laws protecting amorphous "intellectual property". (As a result, you can get all kinds of great Voluntaryist literature online for free.)

Profits are neither a good thing or a bad thing. Just as greed is neither a good or bad thing. They are only bad when "corporate law" protects them from liability and loss for doing stupid and evil things. Profits and greed shielded by gov't laws are what drive the US wars which have killed 30 million people since WWII ended. Profits and greed shielded by gov't laws are what cause the bulk of environmental damage. Profits shielded by gov't laws are what cause the super rich to get richer and the middle class to get poorer. Not that there would be no rich people without gov't; it would just be a lot more challenging to be super rich in a free society. Because you would have to compete to provide actual goods and services to the public; there would be no cushy government contracts for military adventurism overseas and political pork-barrel programs at home.

The big mistake of those on the Political Left is that they think profits are evil in and of themselves, and that is proved wrong by our daily experience. It isn't profits that cause evil, what enables evil is profits tied to gov't immunity from loss or prosecution. Corporations are evil only because gov't fiat makes the owners, management, and stockholders NOT liable for damages and losses. They reap profits when all goes well, but only the corporation loses money when things go bad. No politician or corporate stockholder loses his house when he hurts people with his mistakes or greed. They are protected from losing personal assets, and that's what is wrong with politics and greed getting in bed together.

You see the most radical example of this when Lockheed Martin stockholders and management enjoy huge profits while 20-year-olds get maimed and killed overseas. And there you have the problem with those on the Political Right; they claim to be all about families and morality, but they support the military-industrial complex which rips families apart and makes morality impossible. And they complain about gay marriage "wrecking the family". They are knee-deep in the blood of innocents. Although, Obama has also overseen the death of innocent people every day since he was in office, all to support the corporations and bankers who helped put him in office.

US Founders and "Original Intent"

On Dec 13, 2009, my friend wrote a reply to my signature quote: "No State known to history originated for any other purpose than to enable the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another" - Albert Jay Nock:

Yes, there were those who wished to create yet another State to exploit the masses for their own good. (Sadly, this is how America turned out to be,) but the original intent is clear to any who read and understand ALL of the discussions from that time and place.

I think you're going by what was written, and not by what actually happened. Governments are always as big as they can get away with. At the time of "the founding", Americans were sick of government interference in their daily affairs, so the constitution had to be kept very modest. Politicians' words also had to be kept quite moderate, as far as any call for state power. But we shouldn't judge government by what politicians say openly or what politicians write, we should judge government by what politicians do. Actions not words.

The very first US government immediately twisted the constitution to its needs. The Whiskey Rebellion illustrates this perfectly. Politicians interfered with local commerce, taxed one group unequally (the tax rate was lower for big producers), used martial law and federal troops on civilians during peacetime, - that adds up to at least 4 violations of the constitution by my accounting.

In promoting the taxes and urging Washington to lead troops to put down the insurrection, Hamilton admitted that he wanted this tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." Hamilton also admitted that he "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." So much for that "original intent" of which you speak so glowingly. Their words were one thing; their "intent" was another. And even when politicians' intent is honorable and fair, they throw away honor and fairness by their compromises. And why do they feel compelled to compromise? Like all politicians, they don't want to lose the upper hand, so they have to compromise.

If you ever have been on a committee, you'll recognize this as a universal principle of human "group behavior". The loudest, often the most ignorant voices get heard, while there is no time or patience for the quiet, more contemplative suggestions. At the rock and roll show, when you say "what do you want, a slow one or a fast one?" - who do you think always wins? The ones who want "loud and fast". People who want slow and quiet might even be in the majority, but they're not the ones shouting out. This is politics 101 in action. Every defect of the "big organization" is multiplied up the ladder of political power. It reaches it's zenith in Washington D.C., where no one knows what the hell is going on, but everyone pretends to have "the" answer. And, they will compromise that "answer" in order to maintain their position of power.

I was always a closet anarchist (though the word has horrible baggage, and I prefer "voluntaryist", or the adjective "a-political"). But, I didn't get radically and openly anarchistic until I read a couple little books (1 2) about the history of the US Constitution and its Amendments, and the court decisions that twisted the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. I also read this small book, twice in a row. That was only about 10 years ago.

The "founders" of the USA did not have consent from any kind of majority. It was mostly "greedy" businessmen. The "patriot" founders were some of the biggest property owners, bankers, and businessmen of the time. As far as the fraction of the populace who were politically involved; it was white protestant males over 21. There was no popular mandate or consent, much less agreement on the details.

Morality doesn't look at intentions, morality looks at actions. Hitler wanted to make a better world for the "best of the best". His ends did not justify his means. Lots of the most evil geniuses in history had great ideals and intentions. Everyone can get behind "good intentions" and "ideals"; I'm sure we have very little disagreement over that. Our disagreement is in the methods that ought to be used to implement those ideals. I also think we probably disagree on some word definitions. And, we probably disagree to what degree long-term ideals should be compromised in defending ourselves from short-term effects.

And that is what is wrong with ALL politics; people justify their brutal methods by holding up their "intentions". That's a road to hell I don't want to continue on. If there were no better ways to interact socially, there might be some sense to arguing that intentions are the primary "good" that we should consider in making our future choices, but I doubt it.

There ARE better ways. We find examples in our daily lives, in other cultures, and in history. We can use persuasion, the scientific method, education, fairness, free association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, property rights, and civil rights to interact. We don't need to add "taxes", "government mandates", "wars", "more prisons for potheads", "more barbed wire at the borders", ... as if those things are a "last resort" because we've exhausted our attempts at using those non-government means. We've barely started using those things, and we can't claim to need "lifeboat scenario" measures.

I won't quote or give links here- you've heard all the words before. I will say that I see very little difference between current Anarchist thought and the original American Ideals. Point out the differences to me, Sir?

It doesn't matter what the "ideals" were. It matters what actions were taken to compromise those ideals.

The bigger question for me is "how did all these 'original American ideals' work out for us"? It has grown into a state whose brutality towers above every other brutal regime in history. So we have it good here in our little lives? - Teetering on the lower edge of the middle class; so what? What is the cost? Millions dead overseas, millions displaced by wars under both Republican and Democrat administrations, hundreds of thousands of wounded, hundreds of thousands of families torn apart by US wars, millions languishing in US prisons because they did "politically incorrect" drugs, gambled, or paid for sex. And on and on.

The part of the cost that we don't see is all of the lost opportunities from the heavy burden of taxes, regulations, licensing, silly laws, quotas, mandates, tariffs, fees, and paperwork, that the state puts on each individual and every business. I can't hold these lost opportunities in front of you to show you that part of the cost. Every time the state adds an expense to the cost of business, all in the name of "controlling" greed, those costs are passed on to customers, tenants, and employees. Much of the cost of using state power to "do good things" is hidden and unable to be tallied.

This is what it boils down to: You can't do long-term good with violent force, so statism is impractical and inefficient. You can justify the means by the ends, so statism is morally wrong.

"Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here."

-- Michael Coughlin

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/object_i.shtml

Alex Jones and 9/11 Truthers

There is nothing new in what Aaron Russo or Alex Jones says to get excited about. I get that same feeling every time I watch any Alex Jones. He just doesn't go far enough for me. Everyone thinks Alex and 9/11 Truthers are so radical, but they still think in terms of collectivism - God bless America and all that constitution stuff.

Alex and Aaron are a good first step. But, I think that long-time followers of Alex Jones and the 9/11 Truth movement are way overdue in taking the next logical step; learning more about the history and philosophy of Voluntaryism (anarchism) and the Free Market. Because when the system collapses (which we can't stop but who knows when?) only one thing will matter: What Next?

And "what's next" will be determined by what is in people's heads. So, the only thing important to me is learning the philosophy of freedom and applying it to my life and helping others to learn the importance of liberty. That doesn't mean getting "mad as hell" and blaming others; it means doing the hard work of learning about history and economics. That's what matters, not the plans of the boogie men in the Trilateral Commission, Rosicrucians, Bilderbergers, or whatever. They can do nothing without soldiers and cops to carry out their bidding.

We need to teach the next generation of kids not to be sheeple, and not to look to the iron fist of government to solve problems and give hand-outs.

I'm trying to say that I know Aaron Russo from way back, and I know the conspiracy crowd from way back. And, in my view, it's not enough to look for corruption, crimes, and conspiracies in government. I know the intrigue of it all is fascinating. But nothing is going to come from any exposure of plots and crimes if we don't look at ideas for changing the entire system - the system which is a breeding ground for power-monger schemes. That means changing people's heads and the way they raise their children to love power and worship authority.

Aaron keeps talking about "the America I thought I knew" and there is lots of talk about what is "legal" under the constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments, and court rulings. Aaron says "The 16th Amendment does not give the IRS the authority to tax your labor and your wages".

Do you guys understand the history of what Aaron is referring to there? The 16th amendment had procedural problems, and so it "isn't legal".

But the root problem is not where does the Fed or IRS get so-called "authority" as found somewhere in the constitution. The root problem is "where does the Constitution get authority"? Read some Lysander Spooner. That's not as easy as watching hours of Alex Jones videos, but it's a lot more educational. An old saying goes: "great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".

I'm interested in ideas, not events and people so much... Not because I think I have a great mind, but because ideas are what molds people and events. Change ideas and you change people and events in the long run. Change people and events, and you don't change a thing in the big picture. Changing people and events is merely defensive and reactive - wheel-spinning activities.

Aaron says "The Supreme Court is the law of the land". That is bull. We are playing the game of those in political power if we think that we can "take back the republic" by forcing politicians to play by their rule-book, The US Constitution. It doesn't matter what is or isn't "an inside job". It doesn't matter what is a "false flag operation" or not. It doesn't matter that, as Aaraon says "the war on terror is a phony". Aaron says "9/11 is the root cause of everything". I don't give a crap what someone predicted or what some UN asshole wrote on a piece of paper. I've been reading about the UN agenda for a one-world government since the early 70's. I've been reading about the UN's desire for world-wide population reduction since the 70's. I've heard about FEMA camps since they invented FEMA back in 1979. None of this is new, none of this is the root problem.

I saw "Mad As Hell" at a libertarian meeting in Grand Rapids back in the mid 90's. At the very beginning of "Mad As Hell", Aaron says "the most fundamental problem that we have in America, is that it is no longer a free country". That's all well and good, but America NEVER WAS a free country. Even at the very beginning the government was too big, too centralized, too easily used by evil men for corrupt purposes

The constitution was a perfect example of creating bigger government to solve problems created by government in the first place.

Aaron and Alex, and that whole crowd of fear-mongers don't ever point out that we can't go back to some dreamy world where there was freedom and all the politicians played by the rule-book. There never was such a world. We have to look for ways to get completely rid of politicians running our lives. My big problem with Alex and Aaron is that they stir up all these fears of a "totalitarian state", but they never show the one way to avoid a totalitarian state - that is to get rid of all government and all states. And - "The only way to unseat tyranny is to unseat tyranny in people's minds".

They make this big deal of America being a "Constitutional Republic". Does anyone read enough to understand what that means, and the history of Constitutional Republics? The idea of a Constitutional Republic goes back to Aristotle, not the US founding fathers. All Constitutional Republics in history have evolved into totalitarian and/or socialist states.

A Constitution is nothing but paper. Here is a list of countries that have constitutions. I think there are almost 200 countries that call themselves a "republic". It means nothing. There is virtually no difference between the word "democracy" and the word "republic". Those two words are just words. I used to think that the difference between "a republic" and "a democracy" mattered, but I was wrong to think that way. Governments give themselves these labels for the sake of political theater.

Labels and words on paper don't matter. What matters is ACTIONS. For example; If you give money to someone else under fear of being kidnapped or worse, that is called "theft". It doesn't matter that government calls it "taxation". A "republic" is a mafia. A "democracy" is a mafia. Like Aaron rightly pointed out - government is no different than the mafia. The most important point that Aaron misses is that people know the mafia is evil, but people are taught that government is good. Government is an "Evil" that everyone is taught to see as "good". There's the Root. Education of young minds.

All of this is an endless recurring cycle, which will not end until people decide that they don't need a congress, a president, a constitution, a supreme court, or even a county commission to run their lives efficiently and fairly. It's not hard to make predictions, and I'm not impressed by Aaron's or Alex's predictions.

It's a distraction to think that "exposing" evil plots will help. What will help is changing people's minds by helping them to learn that their faith in government is what is empowering the people in the UN and elsewhere who have all the evil plots. Take away their power, and their plots won't matter.