The Beautiful Anarchy of Basketball

Playing basketball at the park is was one of my favorite things to do as a teen and young adult.  It's a great way to get exercise and fresh air while having fun and making new friends, and being competitive.  Never in my life did I think I would want to write a blog post about the mechanics of a game of ball but here we are.  In the following I will describe the decision making process for each aspect of a game of basketball at a park.

1. The first decision to make on a basketball court is what kind of game you are going to play.  The most popular games are "21" or evenly divided teams.  This decision is subliminally made based on the ages and number of people playing.  If only 3 people are present at the court, most likely the game is going to be "21."  Evenly divided teams are not selected usually unless there are at least 6 players willing to participate.  This decision can be made very fast: someone, anyone, on the court will say "let's shoot up a game of 21" or "let's shoot teams."

2. After the kind of game to play is chosen, the players have to pick a ball to play with, as there are likely several different ones to choose from.  Players will take a vote by passing the ball to each other for inspection.  The ball with the best grip, best size, and that bounces best usually gets picked.  The decision does not have to be unanimous, but when there's the general feeling that most people want a certain ball, that becomes the chosen ball. 

3. If the players decide to play 21, the player nearest the free-throw line sets himself up to shoot while the other players gather under the rim waiting for a rebound.  Nobody directs players exactly where to stand, everyone finds an empty space that is reasonable in distance from other players and the rim.  None of the players under the rim try to gain advantage for a rebound until the moment the ball leaves the shooter's hands.  There are no official rules in this game, however, the expected norms still apply.  Participants are still expected to dribble the ball when moving and nobody punches or trips or shoves the ball handler on purpose to steal the ball.

4. If players elect to play a game with evenly divided teams, the first decision is to pick teams.  Since players often don't know each other, what happens is they line up and take turns shooting from the free-throw line.  If there are a total of 6 playing, the first 3 to make the shot will be on a team.  Sometimes the same thing is done, only the first 2 to make the shot become "captains", and they take turns picking teams.  Once teams are picked, the have to decide whether to play full court or half court basketball.  This will depend on how many people are playing; if there are 10 players then full court will probably be the way to go, but with only 6 the game will likely be played on one half of the court. 

5. Who gets the ball first in a team game?  This one is easy.  To get the game started, almost always a player from either team will grab the ball and shoot from the 3-point-line and call out "this is for ball."  If he makes the shot, his team gets the ball first.  If he misses, the other team gets the ball first. 

6.  Let's say during game-play there is a dispute over whether or not a rule of basketball was broken.  Other players on the court who witnessed the event will chime in.  Even players on the offender's team... because everyone on an instinctual wants an honest victory.  Nobody wants to win over a cheap call.  But what happens when both sides are truly divided over a play?  Again, easy.  A player will take a shot from the 3 point line "for the ball" or they will simply restart the play in question.  Usually a shot is taken only if the decision would change which team gets the ball.

7.  If new players arrive during game play, how is it organized?  The new players will wait patiently aside the court.  When the game is over, they will say "I have next" and choose players from the losing team.  The winning team has "earned the right to remain on the court by winning."  It's true, some teams dominate the basketball court all afternoon, but everyone recognizes it would not be fair to them to have to quit playing just because they are good. 

8.  How to choose a victor.  Games at public courts do not come with timers, so what happens is the players decide on a point number to play to.  Sometimes it's 11, sometimes 11 win by 2, sometimes it's 21, sometimes it's 21 win by 2, sometimes it's 21 with 7 point whitewash (meaning the game is over if either team goes up 7-0), sometimes it's 15 or 13... the general sweet-spot is between 11 and 21; lower scores are reserved for games that appear to be lop-sided, that is, where the best players are on one side and the not so good players on the other, in order to keep from dragging out the game unnecessarily. 

The things that happen on public basketball courts can be very complex.  Since it is after all just a game, disputes are resolved quickly and grudges are rarely held...  the point in all this is, I have never in my life seen or played in a game at a park where players even chose someone as a referee, let alone sit at a table in order to attempt to plan out actions for every conceivable circumstance.  It would literally take all day and night to do that and not a single game would be played.  Instead, resolutions are decided on the fly.  Of course it's not always perfect, but unless you get hurt, you usually go home happy to have gotten to the park and played some ball.  Even in games like 21, where the defining feature of the game is there are no official rules, norms like dribbling are still expected to be followed. 

Also, again, this is just a game of basketball... some days there are over 20 people at the court wanting to play... more than enough to play full court 5 on 5 ball, and still nobody wants even a referee just to keep the game going.  This is a blog about anarchy as well so I have to ask the reader: if 20 people have a shared admission that nothing will get done if decisions and conflicts are not resolved in a timely manner to the point that they forgo even having a referee, and decide to ref the game themselves, how can a few hundred people think they can effectively plan out society with even more complexity as well as more precision?

An anarchist's position on the rights of children and animals

On a recent podcast, Tom Woods challenged his audience to put our position on the rights of animals and children into words.  I phrase it that way because almost every libertarian/anarchist I have met instinctually knows that respecting children and animals IS part of who we are, but finds it difficult to work their rights within the framework of the NAP.

The argument is essentially that parents and let owners are under no obligation under the NAP to provide for their dependents.  I know of two ways in which we can overcome this hurdle.  The first revolves around social contract whereas the second drives at the very heart of libertarian values.  Naturally, I will start with the former.

Social Contract theory of child rearing and pet owning:
     If you're new to libertarianism, chances are you are not a fan of the theory of social contracts.  I get it; you think if you concede that social contracts exist then all hope is lost and you will be obligated to accept the state.  This is wrong of course.  The most basic of all social contracts basically states "you don't hurt me, i won't hurt you."  Even statists would agree to this one, it's so simple.  As it applies to children and animals... Well, if you as an adult choose to bear children, the social contract is: i chose to have a child.  I know children cannot provide for themselves, therefore, i am agreeing to provide for this child.  This would make any negligence in parental duties a coercive act against a child, as you are not holding up to your end of the contract. (I say "your end" but since the child in question either doesn't exist or is a bit young for contracts, there is only one end so far).  The same can be said for owning a pet.  By freely choosing to have an animal in your home, you are agreeing to fulfill the pet's needs.

Now to the main argument.  I'm gonna say something here that I have yet to hear another libertarian say.  Unless i saw or read this argument somewhere and forgot, I do believe I have worked this out through my own process.

Libertarianism revolves everything around property rights... But what we need to recognize is that using property rights as the basis for our arguments is merely a tool for communicating a much larger idea.  The heart of Libertarianism is not property rights; the heart is a LOVE for LIFE.

We want our rights over the things we own and we argue that we own our bodies so that we can LIVE!  Everything you have ever owned, you customized to fit your needs; to live your life as you see fit.  Your car has your radio stations programmed, your seat is where you like it, your mirrors are setup for you to see...  The fans in your home are where you want them...  And when people take your things or come tell you the new standard for your property, what they are doing is erasing that part of your personality...  They are interfering with your right to live your life as you wish.  How does this apply to children and animals?  Come on... The heart of what we believe in is a love of LIFE.  Children are brand new to life; it is 100% impossible to love life and allow a child to starve for no apparent reason.  In a libertarian society, if you had children and mistreated them and didn't feed them, maybe someone or some group would come remove that child from your custody.  The purpose of property is life, that is why we cherish it so much.  Any person capable of starving a child has no love for life.

The same can be said for animals.  We care about them and don't want to harm them unless we have to because they are living beings...

14 Hard Questions for Statists.

Since statists, here defined as those who believe a State (monopoly of violence or a government) have posed a list of 14 questions to libertarians, I feel it prudent to return the favor.  Here is a list of 14 tough questions for anyone who believes governments are legit.

14.  If governments are legit, why do they have to force people to comply with their laws?

13.  How can someone you have never met accurately "represent" you?

12.  If governments rule only through the consent of the governed, how do you explain such low approval ratings?

11.  If people have no right to use force against each other, how did they delegate this power to politicians?

10.  If it is protection from people who want to do us harm that we seek,  why are governments defended? as it is governments who go to war, attempt genocide, develop nuclear weapons, and consider innocent deaths an acceptable circumstance to war, lock people up who haven't harmed anyone, etc?

9.  If we need protection from monopolies forming in our economy, as monopolists get out of control and abuse their power, why should we want a monopoly on violence?

8.  If theft, killing, kidnappings, extortion, and so on are completely immoral, why should it be legal for anyone to do it?

7.  If government economic programs are really wanted by people, why does it have to be a matter of law? Why don't politicians take their ideas to the market to test whether or not people are willing to buy what they are selling?

6.  Isn't the thought of the government as a necessary evil the same as saying evil is necessary?  And if evil is necessary, are we not saying the absence of evil would be a bad thing?

5.  If governments are formed to protect rights, does it not follow that rules precede governments, as well as rights, and we can have both rules and rights without governments?

4.  When statists discuss the possibility of a legit war, it is in the context of a government defending people from another government; does this not mean it is still the existence of governments that is responsible for starting wars?

5.  The United States Government is made up of a few hundred people; where do they get the information they need to effectively control hundreds of millions of people? 

4.  Every time you walk by a store and refuse to go in, or you go in and refuse to buy an item, an economic decision has been made.  How can such a small group of people account for these kinds of decisions made by hundreds of millions of people?

3.  An anarchist would not stop anyone from giving money or following who they wish; why do statists insist anyone who refuses to give money to the people they wish to follow should be thrown in jail?

2.  If all politicians are human beings, and no human being has the right to use force against another, why does calling it law change the morality of what is being done?

1.  If murder and theft and the like are truly immoral, why should we want a society based on such actions?

Questions or comments, feel free to discuss!

Common Sense

Common Sense is a phrase that gets thrown around daily, usually by people who are annoyed with other people.  It is something that everyone is expected to have in order to make rational judgments about every day situations.  For example, if it is cold outside, it only takes a shred of common sense to know you will need a coat to keep warm.  If you are thirsty, the idea of getting a drink quickly comes to mind.  But what exactly is common sense?

According to dictionary.com, common sense is defined as:

 Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.

For our purposes, we will define common sense as "judgment based on every day experiences."

The problem here is not hard to spot... in fact, anyone with common sense could do it.  Every day experiences differ from person to person, although we do share the same struggle living in a world based on scarcity, weather, and so on.  So what differences do people have which would actually cause problems?  Here a few that I can think of.

1.  Some people are religious, some are not.

2.  Some people are disciplined differently than others as children.

3.  Value ratings often change from person to person.

Religion.  Suppose two people were considering walking into a Casino to gamble.  A religious person may say "no, duh, God hates gambling so I'm not going in there."  whereas a non-religious, or atheist, may say something like "what harm can come from gambling, as long as you control yourself."  

Both people in this scenario are applying what they view as common sense and each has arrived at a different conclusion.

How about people who were disciplined differently as children?  As parents they may say something like "if your child gets out of control, threaten or issue a spanken, that'll straighten them right out."  However, someone who was not spanked may say something like "I wonder why _____ is acting up.  If I spank, it will increase the overall amount of aggression _____ is used to and may actually cause more aggression."  Again, both people applying common sense.

Value Ratings:  This is the most essential, fundamental difference in humanity.  Without differences in how things are valued, there would be no economy and no civilization.  If I am extremely thirsty, I may pay $5.00 for a bottle of water at a movie theater.  That may be common sense to me at the time, even if I do feel a bit ripped off.  However, the owner of the movie theater may say "Oh my god, these people are paying through the nose for this stuff!"

So what does all this say about common sense?  First, common sense, as defined above, does not exist.  It is just another way of saying bias.  Before it was discovered that the Earth was round, religion, along with a bit of common sense, determined it was flat.  For the religious text said the earth is flat and that is the way our interactions with the world appear at first, especially when there are not cars, planes, trains, satellites, etc.  

When I first became a parent, I asked a few people for advice...  What I basically heard was "use common sense."  If you guessed that I asked a family member, you are correct!  All this meant was "apply our family values/biases to your parenting."  I know this because I have broken with some of those biases and have been ridiculed for it.  

I am doing my best to parent peacefully because I believe it is scientifically and morally correct.  Scientifically, aggressive parenting pushes the kid into fight or flight and interferes with the ability to reason, and in the end creates robots out of human flesh... but peaceful parenting allows freedom for kids to be themselves, does NOT hamper the ability to reason and does not teach aggression.  But this information did not come to me from "common sense", it came from various people spreading the peaceful parenting message and the science behind it.  In other words, those with specialized knowledge.

How often to we find that specialized knowledge trumps biases?  The Earth is round, not flat.  The God of War did not start that war, your leaders, or their's, did.  When two people make an exchange in goods and services, it is because each values that which they gain more than that which they give up, not because one is necessarily a moron and the other brilliant.  Governments can commit crimes too (Nuremberg).  Cutting a sick person so they can bleed out their infection is dangerous!  Racism, well, do we need to go there?  The idea that a person is good or bad based on their skin color is common sense to a small percentage of people... and the depth of their cognitive dissonance is evidence in how strong these biases are.

So what do we do about biases?  We introduce philosophy.  We challenge our biases.  Some will take longer than others.  Do I really need a coat to be warm is a question that should take about 5 seconds in the right conditions.  Is spanking good or bad for kids?  That is one that should be visited by everyone, regardless of what your bias makes you lean towards.  We go to people with specialized knowledge and find out, we acquire our own knowledge and study the methods of gaining knowledge, called epistemology....  To me, this is what education is, particularly in a world where information is instantaneously delivered to our screens.  Educate ourselves in logic, and so on...  

Who in their right mind hires someone for a job and says "eh, just use common sense."  NOBODY.  I work at a Casino since I started, have gained quite a bit of knowledge in Table Games.  Someone without any knowledge may see two hands:  2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for one and 6, J, Q, K A as the other.  Someone who does not understand hand rankings, applying common sense, may guess that the second hand wins because of the Ace... not seeing the pattern of the straight in the first hand.  

My first job was as a bus-boy a friend got me at his family's restaurant.  That is a pretty simple job.  People come in and eat, and when they leave, you clean and reset the table.  Still nobody said to just go out there and apply common sense.  Even then the dishes had to be set a certain way for the washing machine to work properly, my customer relations skills had to be tested, etc.

If we define common sense as an ability to learn and use reason to be a functional member of society, parent, etc. then all we are doing is re-defining the term to mean someone who knows their limitations and acquires necessary knowledge to be effective at whatever task they are to perform, which is a way of saying philosophy. 

Granted, we may not look at what experts are saying about every detail of everything we do, but in that case, we have to be ready to be wrong on some points.  I am at a loss on how to sew a pair of boxers.  I did it once in high school and the end product came out as something, idk what it was...  I probably used a little too much common sense and failed to gain enough specialized knowledge though.  See the issue I am bringing up here?

Against the phrase 'anarco-capitalism'

Before you leave a comment saying my argument is purely semantic, please reread the title of this post.  The nature is semantics, but I do believe the argument is one worth writing about.

First, let's define our terms.

Anarchy~  a state of disorder due to lack of authority;
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.

•  I think most people agree on the basic idea "absence of government"

Capitalism~ private ownership of the means of production for profit.

• in my experience when people think of capitalism they think of business.

The business aspect is what troubles me.  When anarco-capitalists use the phrase, so far as I can tell, what they are getting at is the non aggression principle.  I know this because whenever I myself am confronted with the obvious questions people ask about a free society, what will the poor do, I revert to answers involving community and charity. 

The definition and examples of charity need not be discussed here, basically, people give stuff or money to the poor with no expectation of anything in return.

Community is a little bit more tricky. I see community as organizations in which people participate based on location with no expectation of monetary compensation.  An example is a neighborhood watch program (minus the public police involvement of course). Or perhaps your neighbor goes on vacation and you collect their mail and keep an eye on their house while they are away. 

These two examples, community and charity, by definition are not capitalist ventures as there is no monetary expectation involved, yet we use both when we answer questions about how a free society could work.  For this reason, I believe the phrase anarco-capitalist should not be used by advocates of freedom.  Especially in today's world of wall street bankers using state power to rip everyone else off...  The term may do more harm than good when naming our views. 

As for me, I simply say anarchist or anarchy. The absence of "legitimate" coercion is really what we strive for.

Please comment and share your thoughts.

You may be propagandized if....

1)  You see 6 mafia-men jump a man and take his money, but when you see the police lock someone in a cage for not giving the government tax dollars, you identify the same victim as a criminal.

2)  You gloss over every piece of evidence that says maybe your government isn't the greatest thing in the world and dismiss it as anti-american propaganda.

3)  You see a counterfeiter get arrested and quickly say "good thing they caught that guy.  Counterfeiters reduce the value of my money by injecting more/fake money into the economy... But when the Federal Reserve creates new money out of thin air, you call it "good fiscal policy."

4)  You agree with absolutely everything government does.  Remember the pledge of allegiance?

5)  Facts found on the internet are true when they point to the idea that the U. S. Government is the greatest entity on earth, and when you see facts found on the internet that contradict that conclusion, you say "anyone can say anything on the internet"

6)  You think that graduating high school/college means you are educated, regardless of how much information you remembered and forgot, how many tests you guessed on, etc.

7)  You see the civilians who die in war as collateral damage instead of people who were murdered.

8)  You think of the nuclear bombs launched on Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a testament to the government's power rather than as a testament for the government's capacity and willingness to commit evil.

9)  You are glad to live in a first world capitalist economy, which outlasted communism in the cold war, and push for regulation of business, welfare projects, wage controls, central banking, etc.

10)  You identify moral rules as being universal, but when questioned about the government's violation of those rules, you bring up the effects and dismiss it.

11)  You see government as the solution to any social problem.

12)  You know what the president's golf score is, what he had for dinner, where he ate it... all or any one of these is fine.

13)  You refuse to believe that calling government a necessary evil is the same as saying evil is necessary.

14)  You say thank you when a police officer gives you a ticket or a judge decides to throw you in a cage.

15)  You cannot conceive of any way to build roads, enforce safety standards, or make sure our food is not rotten without the government.

16) you think capitalism means government giving money to businesses.

What makes a person ethical?

For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person.  Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart.  The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.

Drugs are completely destructive.  In  my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives.  The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy.  It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better.  Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?

So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful!  we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society."  Fine.  This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs.  So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...

BUT

There is a problem with the drug war.  It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people.  Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified.  Everyone gets this.  As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint.  His actions are not causing me harm.  The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell. 

So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force.  The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets. 

"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"

Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs.  What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope.  He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs). 

This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems. 


In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know.  At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin. 

Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.

Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical.  The knowledge must be applied.

Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical.  The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.

Knowledge includes moral principles.  Most people get this principle in Kindergarten.  Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie...  Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).  The logic behind the NAP is very simple:  Man is a limited being.  Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life.  Man deals with reality the best he can.  Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives.  If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things.  If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.  If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live.  <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit.  A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action.  A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to."  And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar.  These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it. 

The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles.  Most of the confusion here rests with government.  Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail."  Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP.  Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail."  When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force! 

Force can only be aggressive or defensive.  These two categories are not hard to see at all...  Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking.  However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known. 

To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards.  Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action. 

So, who has the right to complain about politics, anyways?

Complaining... it's something everyone seems to love to do.  In fact, almost any political position known to man can be reduced to the act of complaining.  The liberals complain that people do not want to give everything they own to some charity so that mankind may have equal living standards.  The conservatives may complain that others don't want to give enough of their money to the military... the libertarians complain that both the conservatives and liberals want to steal from everyone else... and the list goes on...  but in reality, who has "the right" to complain?

In order to answer this question to the best of my ability, I feel it important to share a realization that I made recently here, and that is, politics itself is a game... a fantasy... the very word politics, in my opinion, was invented to replace the words "abstract ethics" so that sophists could avoid pointing out that it really is a question of ethics... they would rather have people debating over what should be done with tax money than debating whether or not tax money is ethical.  This debate over what to do with tax money is essentially what is known as political science. 

By calling the questions pertaining to how government should rule politics, and the study of the topic political science, nobody is studying the ethical issues.  So let's attempt that briefly here. 

Any law passed is the State saying: If you do (or don't do) ______, then you will be thrown in a cage.  Some of these laws are justifiable and some are not.  Here are a few examples of some justifiable laws:

If you murder someone, then you will be thrown in a cage.
If you set someone's property on fire, you will be thrown in a cage.
If you steal from someone, rape someone, assault someone, you will be thrown in a cage.

This list goes on.  These laws are justifiable because they all involve the criminal infringing on the property of other people.

Here are a few laws that are not justified:
If you do not give us your money, you will be thrown in a cage.
If you open a restaurant without permission, you will be forced to close it, fined, and possibly thrown in a cage.
If you do not drive how we'd like you to, you will be thrown in a cage.
If you possess drugs which are not on the list of being acceptable, or use a prescription drug in a manner other than prescribed, you will be thrown in cage.

These laws are not justifiable because the criminal in question has not infringed upon the rights of others.  Indeed, others have infringed upon his property. 

In any just society, laws are rules which involve one person infringing upon the property of another; property including the person's body, as self-ownership is where property stems from.  In such a society, the State cannot possibly exist since tax money would be unjust. 

So who has a right to complain?  Why, everyone does. Everyone is taxed or suffers from the problems involved with taxation, i.e. loss of economic opportunities. 

So, how can we say there are some who do not have the right to complain?  I wouldn't say they don't have the right to complain, but I would say that they shouldn't complain.  Those who hear these basic truths and understand them and whom still advocate the government tax others in favor of what they want should not complain.  Those who stick their head in the sand to the truth should not complain... 

As I get older and write more of these blogs and talk to people, more and more every day I believe that at some point everyone gets hit with truth... it is simply too easy to dismiss and forget about it. I write this blog because someone close to me recently told me that since my position is unpopular, I have no right to be offended with the views of others.

Let's check that.  The view of most people is that should I fail to pay taxes that help pay to blow up innocent people and throw more innocent people in jail cells, I deserve to go jail myself and possibly get raped and be ruined economically for violating the law.

What is my view?  My view is simple: nobody should be forced to pay for anything they don't want to pay for.  You don't like the wars, don't pay for them.  If those fighting them have a problem with your failure to pay, well, quite frankly, they never asked you how you felt about it and when push comes to shove, they can refuse to protect you.  If you do not want to give to charity, you shouldn't be forced to... doesn't mean the people in your community won't lose respect for you, it just means stealing is wrong. 

So to say the person complaining about the theft and violence has no right to complain and try to convince others to behave more peacefully because their view is unpopular, well, I find that quite insane.  The only way this even occurs is because of the words politics and political science, as mentioned above.

Let's be honest, nobody makes excuses for private criminals.  If a homeless person stabs me for money to feed his family, I would insist he goes to jail.  First off, beg.  Do not tell me the only alternative was to stab me.  Second, while I am sympathetic to homeless people, see first point.  I've known many of them and they did not steal to eat.

So, who let's criminals off the hook who shoot innocent people while they're trying to take out a bad guy?  Maybe that can be understandable... how about say a criminal who blows up an entire building with all kinds of innocent people in it to get one bad guy?

Suppose a criminal didn't like the way his neighbor treated his kids... he abused them let's say.  Who's letting this guy off the hook for cutting his neighbor off from food and medical care for those same kids?  anyone?

Call it politics, political science, and countries, and you will find different answers with the same questions.

I realize this blog is scattered and unorganized and all that, but it's my blog and I am awfully short on time since I have kids and everything... leave a comment if you disagree or feel you have anything to say on the topic...

Joining the Military?

                                                                     Thinking about joining the Military?


The military... trying times to consider joining...  Economically it may make sense... patriotically it may make sense...  all that may be.  I once joined the military for these reasons in 2002, after 9/11.  My experience was... well, I will explain my experience later.  For now, here are a list of questions you might want to ask yourself:

1.  What if i join the military and it turns out these wars are not justified?  How do I know they are truly justified?

2.  Joining the military means putting myself in a situation where I will be asked, nay ordered, to kill or be killed myself because the Commander 'n' Chief decided it was necessary.  That is, the President.  Is this, or perhaps future and past, presidents THAT trustworthy?  Have they/he ever lied before?

3.  No matter what anyone says, the real reasons for war are usually only known to a select few.  Am I comfortable putting myself in that situation not knowing for sure that it really is necessary?



My military experience was this:
I spent 4 years in.  The first 6mo.  consisted of basic combat training and Advanced Individual Training.  The next 2 months I waited for my Security Clearance to pass.  The rest of the time I was a part of SIGINT (signal intelligence).  I cannot go into details here, but I never saw combat, luckily.  But I did take it upon myself to pay attention to politicians for the first time in my life, as this was life and death.  Can you guess what I found?  LIARS.  The reasons for Iraq changed quite often.... I also found that the U.S. Government took credit for over 500,000 children deaths BEFORE 9/11 in the middle east, as a result of sanctions... 

I was not smart enough to think about this stuff until it was too late. When I first considered joining, all I received was praise from those around me.  My teachers at school, my military family,  some of my friends, brothers, you name it.  and now that I have been out for years, and talk about this stuff, one of two things happen.  Either 1) they tell me everyone knows this stuff but I'm just a jerk because I talk about it or 2) they tell me I hate my country.  Well, those are not arguments.  Those are statements that are either true or false...   now, I will take being a jerk or an unpatriotic jerk over having deaths of innocent people on my mind any day of the week and a hundred times on Sunday.  Use logic, think for yourself.

As you can see, I am not spreading a conspiracy theory, I'm not telling you to not join, I'm simply asking you to think about what you are doing.  Go look at the suicide statistics of soldiers in the military these days...  it is not a game.  Life and Death are literally what is at stake...  Choose wisely... and I will make this plea, do NOT sign any papers or take any oaths until you are sure... because once you are facing the gun of some foreigner somewhere, none of this will matter... your survival instincts will kick in and you may say to yourself "ya, I was duped into this mess, it's not my fault, but I am going to survive it."  Well, if you read this and still join without being certain you are doing the right thing, it will be your fault.

My God

                                                                     My God

My God is not a mysterious person in the sky... my god is called Logic.

When I disobey my God, and act illogically, there are consequences to my actions.  I do not reach my goal(s) and as a result, my life suffers a temporary or permanent set back.

My God can be proven; that is, its essence is with us every day.  If it were not, you would have no understanding of the words written here... heck, you probably would not be alive if you were completely without logic.

My God is simple.  "If A then B" is a great starting point for following my god.

My God has never killed an innocent person... although people have died as a result of not following my god in some cases... but Logic itself is incapable of killing anyone.

My God does not require me to believe many things which I know are non-sense, such as talking snakes, in order to believe its narrative.  The narrative is simple; if you want to live, follow Logic.  If you don't, and you decide not to eat when you need food or drink when you need water, you will not make it.  In fact, my god demands that I question things that sound unrealistic.

My God does not need big buildings or men and women dressed in goofy outfits to get followers.  It gets followers on its own merit. 

Unlike any other God, if children were indoctrinated with a belief in my God, there would not be such resistance as there is with the mystical person in the sky, and children would actually benefit... for raising children with a foundation in Logic may actually be useful for them their entire lives, and does not require threatening their soul with eternal damnation.

My God does not require any other God to not exist in order to be proven.  It simply says "Ok, show me some proof of that."  while other Gods(?) say "Following me is of the utmost importance, and no, I will no prove myself to exist to you, you simply must believe it."

I am not always the best follower of My God, for I am human and prone to err.  But that does not invalidate the authenticity of my god...  if anything, it reinforces it... for it takes following Logic to prove someone has acted illogically.

My God is the most powerful force known to man.  Without him we may not have ever come out of our caves.  and yet, unlike other gods, it does not require money...  Logic does not demand you to give any percentage of your income to anyone.  Rather, it would ask you to question who it is you give your money to and determine if it is what you really want.  

You may say you choose not to follow my god, but we both know that to be a lie.  You follow logic when it suits you and perhaps use energy rejecting logic when that suits you... no doubt to gain some end that you have in mind... which in and of itself is an act based on logic... it is to say "if i question this or look at it logically, I may not believe it, so I won't."  Now, there are reasons which you may do this... I am not here to question the why, but to point out the action.  See Cognitive Dissonance.

                                            Thank You for reading about My God.  

If shoe fits, wear it...

For me, the road to becoming an anarchist had many turns and twists.  I started out what people refer to now as a moderate.  Moderate meaning someone who takes on conservative ideas on some issues, liberal ideas on others.  I was more conservative on foreign policy issues and liberal on domestic policy issues.  In other words, while I thought of myself as a moderate, and was called a moderate, I was a full blown statist.  So as you can imagine, becoming an anarchist is not something that happened over night.  Since I discovered the ideas of liberty I have sought a way to describe my experience in simple terms, but that proved more difficult than I imagined it would be, despite the simplicity of some of the ideas (i.e. freedom means the absence of force; the state is the monopoly of force).  However, I think I have found a suitable analogy.

Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes.  Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop.  Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes.  As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance.  You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job.  Absolutely perfect.  But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection.  Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."  You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc.  This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions.  There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on.  At first the shoes seem constricting.  It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat.  After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot.  Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.

This has been  my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist.  The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work?  Would things such as road building get done?  But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings.  I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.

Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through.  The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.

Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them.  Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important.  But that is to be expected in such a statist world.  But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)

Is the United States a "Christian Nation"?

My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.  


There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation.  In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.

If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary.  People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies.  If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith.  Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.

So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive.  I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant.  Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues. 

It is easily  understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings.  Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things.  Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things.  Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives.  So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.

The same thing goes for abortions.  Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.

If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense:  the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe.  It never has happened and it never will happen.  If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.

Time For A New Social Contract

The social contract...  some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.

My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection.  This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract.  For example: theft.  We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft.  Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.

Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows:  The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.

Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here.  Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them.  They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm.  But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself.  The contradiction is obvious.

If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract.  Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted.  But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?  

Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around.  First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything.  Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc.  Everyone can only be in one place at one time.  So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question.  So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains?  Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism.  There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government. 

Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.

In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen.  This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking.  When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT.  That is the catch.  Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)

The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.

The Falsehood of Social Tragedy

The apologists for state violence always fall back on some form of social tragedy.  Social tragedy is always used as a way to show the state as a source of security for some extreme circumstance.  Some common examples are:

1) What happens if you are in need of some medical service you can't afford?

2) The poor will be without school.

3) The poor will be without food

4) The poor will be without housing

5) The elderly will have nowhere to go

Each of these statements is supposed to incite some sort of warming of my heart, which is supposed to lead me to changing my mind and advocating statism in these areas.  But the state's apologists make significant errors that go unnoticed on the surface. 

The statist makes the mistake of assuming having these things is a right and not a good. I will use schools as an example to discredit this assumption. 

Education is what we should all seek, whether it happens in a classroom environment, experience in the world, or a library.  Schools are buildings that have to be built and institutions that have to be managed by teachers and principals and others to provide instruction.  There is no right to possess the labor of others.  There is a right to seek it and obtain it as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights, but there is no right to force others to provide it to you.  Educational statists who argue it is a tragedy the poor will not be able to attend school ignore the real tragedy of statism.  The state provides schools by seizing money from people under penalty of the law.  They essentially say "give us your money, or you will be thrown in jail.  If you refuse to pay, and resist being thrown in jail, we will increase the amount of violence against you until we either force you to go to jail, or you are killed." 

In my opinion, anyone claiming life's circumstances as a tragedy, and as a valid reason for statism argues for the worst tragedy of all; violence committed by one human against another. 

If we truly want more houses for people, more health care options, schools... whatever it is, why not work to actually create more of it, rather than arguing for violence?  Therein lies a second tragedy in statism.  People, instead of working towards their stated goals of more homes and so forth, instead simply seek political solutions, which by definition is always a state solution, and therefore a violent solution.  Of course, it's easy at this point to make the case that the politicians will use their new-found power to enrich themselves (for instance, bureaucrats eat up 70c of every 1$ spent on welfare themselves).  

We live in a world of scarcity.  People have to create everything we consume... our food, computers, houses, hospitals... all of it.  These things do not come out of thin air like they do on Star Trek.  Man has two options in getting economic goods; the economic and the political.  The economic means is the method of creating. Selling whatever you can to trade for goods... whether it's your brains, your labor, or something someone passed on to you.  The political means is the method of violence.  It is the means of forcing other people to do what you want. 

--Apologists for statism always point to some tragic thing that has happened or would happen without the state... and curiously it is always an attempt to show people as being the victim of scarcity.  They ignore the much larger tragedy of statism, as statism requires the tragedy of people thinking actual violence committed against some humans by other humans is ok.--

Is it a tragedy that health care is not affordable to everyone?  Well, it's sad to see people suffer, but health care services have to be produced.  Their scarcity is a part of life.
Is it a tragedy that many pretend throwing someone in a rape room (jail cell) because they refused to give money to, or obey the wishes of someone else, is ok?  I would say it most certainly is.

We all must deal with the reality of scarcity on this planet.  Becoming smarter and producing more efficiently, finding new ways of doing things... these are all economic means which lead to the alleviation from scarcity.  The political means, in practice, does not lead to the alleviation of scarcity.  It leads to the spread of violence, immorality, and when there is nobody left to coerce, poverty. 

So let's not be deceived when these apologists for violence try to use some form of social tragedy to strengthen their position.  The deck is stacked in our favor; the emperor has no clothes.

Countries Don't Exist

As I watch my step kids play with their maps, it hit me like a bolt of lightning how ingrained in mankind the delusion of government is.  The propaganda machine begins almost instantly in life.  These kids, who are 2 and 3, are given these maps to play with, in order to teach them about the world and so forth.  But these maps have all sorts of lines on them which don't exist on the earth.  These lines are meant to separate the different states within the borders of the united states.  The problem here is these states don't exist, and neither does the country that they are inside of.

Sure, there is a piece of land that is shaped just how the map shows, but where the borders between the states do not exist.  When we travel from state to state, and pass where the borders on this map are drawn, we do not encounter anything but a sign to let us know... and that sign was made by man, not the Earth.  There is no gigantic wall in place in which man had to alter to get through, there is no sort of portal which takes one to the next state, nor is there any other extraordinary obstacle in the nature of the earth which separates these states.  There is ONLY a sign which reads something like "Welcome to Nebraska" or "Florida Welcomes You."
Indeed, if one looks at the Earth from space, one will not observe lines as they exist on a map.  So why are they there?

Well, the answer to that is pretty well known.  The lines are there to divide the jurisdiction of the different state governments.  The sign that says "Welcome to Nebraska" is actually just communicating "You are now subject to the laws of the government which we have named 'Nebraska.'" 

I will take a moment here to address a common objection to what I am saying.  The argument is that these borders don't exist and neither does Nebraska; all that exists is the land and the people... they are really just things man has used his imagination to manufacture for his own reasons.  Some people argue that if that is true, then Gold must not exist either, and that what does exist is the metal.  It's true that "Gold" is but a name given to the metal, but the borders are nothing physical which can be touched at all!  They are merely lines drawn on a map and signs on the road created by man... You can grab gold and touch it and feel its texture, you cannot touch a border and feel its texture.  Again, borders are imaginary lines which cannot be felt in reality like metal can.

But at a young age, we are all taught that these states exist just as sure as gold exists.  That is not the case.  What really exists is land, lines on maps, and people with guns.

If you define government as I do, "an organization made up of people who claim for themselves the right to use aggressive force against peaceful individuals" then you must admit government to be a criminal organization.  (If you are a new reader, I suggest checking out the links to the side and some of my older blog posts; I do not expect you to accept the definition I have given here at will)

So what are we doing when we talk about the different "countries" and the different "states" around the world?  We are subjecting our interpretation of the world to the imaginations of criminals. 

How radical does it sound for a person to say "I don't believe countries exist"?  Because that is the truth, they do not exist.  What exists is land and people with guns fighting over who gets to take advantage of the land and the people in a given area.  And when we teach ourselves that these countries exist in reality, we accept borders at a very early age, and actually believe they are meaningful in some way.  It is also easy for this to lead to the ideas of nationalism which are used to manipulate people into serving their "country" by killing others in its name, and pledging allegiance to it (which ultimately means pledging allegiance to that same group of criminals known as the government).

When I say I don't believe countries exist, what I'm saying is everything that divides these pieces of land up into separate countries, and in the end separates mankind as a whole, is made up by various different gangs, and I will not play along.  I will not treat others around the world as different from me just because they were born on a different piece of land. As long as people believe these countries exist in reality and not in man's mind, the human species will always be divided. 

As far as I am concerned, the belief in countries is no different than the belief and Santa Claus.  Children are taught that this jolly fat man in a red suit brings presents every year in Christmas.  Eventually, they find out that is not true, and it's really their parents doing all they can to give the best childhood possible.
Children are taught that countries and states exist, and that they are separated by borders.  Rarely do they ever come to the same conclusion as with Santa; that these borders don't really exist, and that it's really different groups of thugs dividing land out for themselves. This, despite knowing that borders have changed time and again over time.  If I say Santa doesn't exist, nobody would even acknowledge the statement having been made.  If I say countries don't exist, well, that's another story for some reason.

The State is the Embodyment of Evil

Why is politics what it is?  By that I mean, why do people get so upset and passionate when discussing their political ideas?  We seem to be able to discuss any other topic without this sort of "us versus them" mentality that tells us "anyone who disagrees with us is 'bad'".  Some have suggested parenting is just as bad as politics, but I'm not so sure about that.  Anyways, there is no doubt that politics has this sort of affect on people.  What is the big deal?

Ok, for those of you who just think I am some radical, off the wall utopian anarchist, this answer was one of the few things I took away in my college education, but a simple enough explanation to understand.  The answer is Democracy is not all it is cracked up to be.  Democracy is NOT about free choice or self government.  It is about the elimination of free choice and self government.  Every time the state makes a decision about how everyone is to behave, free choice is stolen away.  Every tax dollar that goes to a government welfare program is charity dictated to the tax payer, instead of the tax payer getting to choose for himself what charities are worth putting money into.  And the fact that these decisions are not freely made is simple to show.  Choose not to pay your taxes and see what the consequences are.  You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later your wages will be garnished, or you will be put in prison, etc.  So to answer our original question, politics is so dividing, and so able to inspire passion, because the government forces people to behave in a certain way with every decision they make.

Being forced means 1) it's not something you want to do and 2) you are NOT permitted to listen to your own conscience.  But more importantly, to tell everyone in society that there exists this power to force the world to do what you want, to force your own world view on everyone, is sure to open competition between various groups as to what that world view should be.  It is ludicrous to think there will ever be any agreement on such an end, which is why those competing for power will always be there.

And since state power always means force, or coercive power, every expansion of state power is the expansion of coercion.  If the state is going to take care of medical bills, the state must coerce others, known as taxpayers, to pay for everyone's medical bills.  There is no way of getting around that issue... even Barack Obama said that what separates the state from other entities is the "monopoly on violence."  So, is coercion good or bad?  Of course it is bad.  Yet it is the tool which the state must use with everything they do.  Because of this, the state spreads negativity even when the people who support it have good aims in mind.

I'll say it again:  The State Operates By Forcing Peaceful People To Take Some Action, Or Prevents Them From Taking Some Action Every Time They Expand.  Coercing peaceful people is the very definition of crime, and I would argue the very definition of evil... and that is how the state operates on a day to day basis, without batting an eye.

Capitalism is Socialism, Socialism is Capitalism

People do not refer to a dictionary every time they learn the meaning of a word... most words can be defined by looking at context in which they are used, and as a result, we have people using the same words with various different meanings.  For the purposes of this article, let me define the terms Capitalism and Socialism, in order to make my point.

Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands.  In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.

Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned.  The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.  

From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words.  These two definition are virtually identical. 

The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business.  The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production.  Business and production are the same thing.  Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product.  Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption.  Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning. 

If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned?  After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control.  Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not.  As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality.  Ownership is about control.  If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things?  Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet. 

Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control.  Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately?  And who among us really knows anyways?  Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for.  It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...

If these two systems are the same, why the conflict?  Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice.  But these two systems are really not the same.  There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work.  Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control. 

The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism.  Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers.  In fact, that is what fascism is about.  Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property.  As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word.  In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions.  There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people.  Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service. 

In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law. 

So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing?  Technically no, but operationally yes.  Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism.  Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler).  Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership.  Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do. 

The lesson here:  define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts.  Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country. 

---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---

Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension

 Where does tension come from, and how does it build?  Tension comes from conflict.  No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension.  The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved.  This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves.  Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant. 

Escalating such tension is a simple matter.  Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before.  If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground  randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you.  Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry. 

I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives.  They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power.  When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power.  And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger.  In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues.  Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.

And it's only going to get worse.  Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies.  The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country. 

As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight.  If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens.  I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together.  That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight. 

It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions.  If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers.  If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are. 

I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary.  What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs.  Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check.  If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check.  If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because  you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check. 

But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money. 

If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...

(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent.  This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)

In Defense of Praxeology as a Science

Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation.  The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier.  The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world.  Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them.  An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying  a purpose.  If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.

This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena.  "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time."  In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk.  We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it.  And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some.  This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity. 

The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results.  A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction."  Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results.  If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together.  This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.

But social sciences are much different.  A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will).  Human beings are different.  While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli.  For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book.  Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables."  but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom." 

A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them."  whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now.  maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books.  We should run some field tests to see what happened." 

As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy.  After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression."  (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action.  Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.) 

Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route.  The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic.  Logic is about making arguments in the following format:  "if A then B."  In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time."  A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it." 

But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method?  That is simple.  The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following:  "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change  then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance."  With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."

The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today?  What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now?  What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity?  What time did you take your shower?  Did  you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel?  As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water?  Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water?  Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst?  What would you pay for oxygen?  Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low?  Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.

But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method?  As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness.  "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi."  <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind.  My aim, however, never changed.  I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water. 

The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth.  Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering.  This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge."  The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes.  It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent. 

If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science.  But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors.  If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing). 

Thank You.

A Little Something To Consider About Jesus

At best I consider myself to be a Quaker.  I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision.  But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.

Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now."  or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..."  and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen.  (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.) 
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?

Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.

Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:

• Turning Water into Wine
• The miracle of draught of fishes
• The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
• Walking on water
• Transfiguration of Jesus
• Calming the storm
• Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
• The Cursing of the Fig Tree
• He knew he was going to be betrayed
• Raising of Lazarus
• His own Resurrection

The point here is, Jesus could most likely have done anything he wanted.  He gave his own life for our sins... but what did Jesus not do?  Jesus did not try to force a situation in which everyone knew at once that the God is Israel is indeed the one true God.  He did not try to remove man's free will and replace it with any correct doctrine so that all would be capable of going to heaven.  And he most certainly did not approve of violent solutions to problems.  As the question goes, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes?  The answer is hopefully obvious at this point.  That particular method of solving problems is wrong. 

So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state? 

I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus.  This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified." 

In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!!  Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"?  The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way. 

If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy?  Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process).  If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace. 

I just want to wrap this up by being clear:  it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity.  I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable.  My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.