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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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---

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.  

Why Limited Government Inevitably Grows

Since we are in a minority, I don't make it a hobby of arguing with other libertarians, but I feel this is something I must share.

The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property.  Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.

Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value.  This is not entirely accurate.  What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality.  After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer.  (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)

The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does.  "who will protect us from criminals?"  "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...

Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state."  Both people are consumers of anxiety relief.  And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action.  "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security.  Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts.  Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.

 Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source.  The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.

If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state.  An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you.  The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.

How Everyone can see Their Candidate Elected

It's true!  There is not a single election that has ever required winners and losers.  Every politician who runs for office can win any given election, and be replaced at any time the public disapproves of the job they are doing.  How is this so?

Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force.  Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so.  If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society.  Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society.  If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").

I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders.  Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence.  In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow.  In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process.  That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.

If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to.  If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want.  Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action. 

After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"?  Or any other plan of action for that matter.  Nobody does.  If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X.  The same can be said for every other individual in the world...  being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again.  Want to jump into the race?  Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in...  Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).

I will leave the reader with something to ponder.  If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader?  What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have?  If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer?  In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.

Statism breeds violence, Anarchy breeds peace

The most popular thought on Anarchy is that everyone would act like savages and civilization would literally crumble before our feet.  I have been sort of a student of human nature for a while now (I have a BS in Criminal Justice and am a student of the "Austrian" school of economics, which relies heavily on Praxeology in its methodology) and wish to offer an different perspective. 

All human actions are ultimately directed by human thoughts and valuations.  That is to say, it is psychological.

I have observed that most people are polite in civilized society.  Please and Thank You are quite common, holding doors open for handicapped and the elderly... hell, just to be polite, is something I observe on a daily basis.  Obeying the wishes of property owners is also something that happens with almost automatic reflex.

Indeed, if anyone needs to hear a testimony of how much embedded manners and good conduct are in society, ask anyone who works retail about their customers.  They will most likely complain about all the pet peeves they have seen during the day, all the little things they find annoying that people do, and they may even talk about how badly they wanted to quit or tell someone to leave their store.  However, in the vast majority of cases, they respond by treating all their customers with respect.  True, the incentive is not to get fired, but interaction with such people and under such circumstances is something that only happens during the work day.  Nobody is forced to spend time with people they find particularly annoying, so this is not evidence that chaos would breakout without the state, but it is evidence of incentive to be polite when you have to.

Approximately 1/3 of income taxes are implemented to give out welfare benefits.  That is an enormous amount of money being stolen from people.  Are we to believe that a polite society would be reduced to the a massive amount of people taking up arms against others in order to fund their welfare benefits?  There is no reason to suspect such a thing would happen.  I have not observed a movement of people on food stamps picking up weapons and going to maybe some of the nicer areas closeby and attempting to set up a forceful system of more benefits.

It is clear that what really happens is the State operates as a conduit for people to support the use of force, who otherwise would not.  Most supporters of welfare programs are not people who would themselves pick up a gun and go to the homes of others and demand some of their money, yet this is precisely what the state does in their name.

It is the state that justifies violence, with the help of people who support the it.  Most believe the state is a necessary evil... and that is how it is justified; through the notion that evil is necessary... that force can be justified somehow.  Without this justification, the amount of violence in society would clearly diminish.  To say that all evil is unnecessary and unjustified, the amount of evil would shrink, because actions follow thoughts... and since actions follow thoughts, the thought that evil is unjustified would lead to less evil actions.

Statism is unnecessary, unjustified,  and unwanted.

If you can speak, then you already know better than to support the state!

There are many things in life that we do without even thinking about it.  It can be very easy to dismiss some of these things as trivial and meaningless... perhaps even as unable to teach us anything about life and our understanding of it.  For example, most people do not consciously think about the fact that they can in fact think...

When it comes to speaking, most people don't consider what knowledge can be derived from the fact that we can make sounds with our mouths to communicate ideas.  One reason for this is because we know these sounds to mean definite things or ideas that we assume others,who speak our same language, can identify with.  If I say "book", you probably know I am talking about something that can be read.  You also probably know that I do not mean a newspaper, magazine, or blog.  You are able to distinguish the characteristics of "book" from the characteristics of everything else in the universe.  If you could not at least make a generalization of objects, speaking would be useless.  It does one no good to say "book" when the receiver of the message "book" doesn't know it from that of "star" or "worm", etc.  What is truly amazing is this is even true when there is a language barrier.

My own trip to China was a prime example of this.  Now, the Chinese for the most part had no idea what I meant by "bathroom", but they did know that I was looking for something specific, with definite characteristics.  Often times when looking for something, or trying to obtain something, where the language barrier was present, playing charades and drawing pictures proved to be extremely helpful.  It's true that there was occasion where miscommunications occured, but the point is, each person knew that the other was looking for something with specific characteristics, and even for a specific purpose.

When we think of the State, or "government", we often think about justice, and what it means.  Almost universally, the government is expected to seek out those who harm others and get retribution, or protect the peaceful from the aggressions of others.  These two deeds are noble enough.  The rapist must pay for his crimes.  The thief ought to return what he has stolen.  But these are not the only characteristics of the State.

While the State may offer protective services, it survives completely by threatening people in society with imprisonment for refusing to fund them through taxation.  They strive to fine those for driving too fast, having the wrong vegetation, and countless other crimes which are completely victimless.  In fact, some stats report as high as 86% of the prison community being filled with those who have never harmed another.  And since justice inherently involves protecting those who have never harmed another from those willing to harm, we must conclude that the State has characteristics that are more inclined towards injustice rather than justice. But why should we come to this finding when on occasion the State does do something to help the peaceful?

Because there are no contradictions in reality.  A tree cannot be a tree and also be a pen.  A pair of scissors cannot be a spoon at the same time it is a pair of scissors; there are no square circles.  Hence, an organization that survives through coercive methods against peaceful people cannot be an entity of justice just because it provides protection once in a while (it is most likely the case that the protection it offers is more about beating the competition, as the State claims for itself a monopoly on coercion in society).  But if speaking is all one needs to do, why is the State supported?  I have 3 theories.

1)  It is most likely the case that the state is supported, not because people actively want it, but because they value the hardship of going against it less than they value going on with life and just putting up with it.
2)  Anxiety occurs whenever one proposes abolishing the state.  If the state doesn't provide protection (which, as we have seen, the state is not even an entity of protection) then nobody will and chaos will occur.  This is really just a knee jerk reaction.  Anyone who understands subjective theory of value, voluntarism, and entrepreneurship knows that protection services can and would occur in a pure market society, and they would actually be protection services.
3)  As stated in the beginning of this blog, most people don't think about these things.  For sure, it takes more than simple thought to overcome our prejudice in favor of statism, but sitting down and giving the matter serious thought is a terrific starting place... perhaps the only starting place, and there are many who will never do it.

It is my sincere hope that with the United States in the economic condition that it's in, with all the wars spreading, loss of liberties (we now have a president who says he can assassinate American citizens if he is suspicious of them, the U.S. being defined as a battleground, and indefinite detainment without due process whatsoever) that more people will start to think about these matters.

If you can speak, you know enough to reject an institution claiming a monopoly on coercion as being an institution of justice.

The Economy is Organic!

In this blog I intend to go over the basics of how an economy works, and how some of the interventions from the state affect it.  To begin with, I will write a brief analysis of all the market actors (Consumers, Laborers, Capitalists, and Entrepreneurs). It should be noted that a single person does not have to be limited to just one of these functions.

Consumers-  For example, all people are consumers.  Consumption merely means enjoying the product of the other three functions, Labor, Capital investment, and economic development.  Everyone starts out as a consumer, and it is for the consumer that all market activity is directed.  This may seem trivial, but there are schools of thought that teach what is called the Labor theory of Value, which indicates that a thing has value simply because work was put in to it (and not because consumers choose to purchase it).  It is the labor theory of value that have lead people like John Maynard Keynes to suggest paying people to dig holes as a policy for economic recovery.  It has also lead some to fail to understand how a person could have gotten rich selling pet rocks.  If the labor theory of value were accurate, there would be no such thing as a bankruptcy.  Consumers would not ask what the use value of an item is at the store, but they would ask things like "how hard did the person who made this work?" or "how long did it take to make?"  Clearly, this is absurd.  Nobody is buying the hole I dig just because I spend time and energy doing it.  

Labor- The function of labor is quite easily understood.  The Capitalist and Entrepreneur are the ones who have the resources to open up a production line, and they employ labor to get that production line going.  But labor doesn't always mean some sort of construction.  It can be much easier things; for example, football players and other athletes are considered laborers.  

Capitalists- This function is somewhat ignored within the general public when it comes to the economy today, but it certainly is not unimportant.  In order to apply resources in the production of consumer goods, one must come up with capital (that is, one always must be a consumer, and in order to spend time producing rather than consuming, it is necessary to save and forgo consumption).  For example, suppose you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean.  If you wish to consume as fast as humanly possible, you would try to catch a fish with your bare hands and hope you catch one quickly.  If you hold off your plans to consume, you can try to find a pointy stick first, or still farther, you could spend time making a net.  The reason for production is clear; you will catch fish faster and easier with the stick or the net.  In this example, the stick and the net are called capital goods (tools that increase the production ability of the laborer, you)

Entrepreneurs- This is the function of economic calculation.  The business owner who decides what is to be made, at what quantity, sold at such and such price, etc.  As stated in the "Consumers" section, all economic activity is directed at consumption.  What entrepreneurs do is try to figure out a product people would buy, and determine if it could be produced at a lower price than it could sell for.  If the entrepreneur is correct in his calculations, he will make profits (which means the capitalists will as well, and the laborers will continue to have work), if he is wrong, the business will go bankrupt.

It should be pretty clear that all these functions are interrelated.  The entrepreneur makes a forecast; the capitalist decides to give a loan to the entrepreneur for a percentage back in return; Laborers are then hired to carry out the production process; but it is ultimately the consumers who decide if the line of production is worthy of existence (not to mention how much money labor will make and exactly how profitable it will be for the capitalists and entrepreneurs)  and the entire thing can be looked at as the workings of time preference.   

Time preference refers to how long a person is willing to wait to consume.  If you are the type of person who says "I must spend all my money now because I like to, I need to", whatever the reason, your time preference is high.  And the more you are willing to wait and save rather than consume now, the lower your time preference is.  (This should also show that investment cannot go up while consumption remains the same in an economy.  This fact was one of they key elements that lead the Austrian economists in realizing housing was indeed in a bubble almost a decade before it hit mainstream.)  So, if investment leads to more capital goods, which makes it easier and more profitable to make consumer goods, the clear way to grow an economy is to adopt a lower time preference.

Time preference also determines interest rates and profits in equilibrium.  This is quite obvious when you think about it.  It is quite natural to want to consume all the money one makes... so if I am going to forgo consumption now in order to make interest/profits later, then the money I expect in return must be enough to rank higher on my demand schedule to be worth more than spending now.  Why would anyone go through the trouble of entrepreneurial risk and forgoing consumption, if only to break even?  It's simple, they wouldn't. 

The role money plays in all this is obvious.  Money flows where actors want it to, indicating their wishes.  If consumption is wanted, with a very high time preference, money will flow into consumption goods, and only to those goods consumers want.  If there are consumers with a lower time preference, projects will be invested in and the calculation process will be undertaken by an entrepreneur.  How much money exactly will determine the length of the process, the wages for laborers, etc.  Without money communicating time preference and demands, the entire process would be reduced a primitive situation where people trade goods directly (a fish net for a lighter or something, rather than determining how many fish nets should be made, and sold at what price, and then mass producing them)

So what happens when the state intervenes and say lowers interest rates?  A facade of investment and lower time preference is created.  And entrepreneurs go through the process of calculation and hiring labor to take on new projects, based on false signals.  True preferences will prevail in the end, when nobody is purchasing the final product these new projects were aimed at creating.  This went on in the housing sector for almost 2 decades.  It happens because consumers/labor/entrepreneurs/and capitalists do not communicate by talking to each other.  The capitalists do not find the consumers and ask them what they want, nor the entrepreneurs and any other group.  Money and interest rates are the means of communication.  When the government and the federal reserve interrupt that conversation, they throw off the entire thing. To clarify, suppose you are the parent of a ten year old boy.  You send him to the store one day to pick up some bread and milk, but the boy instead spends the money you gave him on a candy bar and a yoohoo.  You said bread and milk, but the boy told the clerk candy bar and yoohoo.  The market was saying "we want to consume now" (because these days Americans do not save and invest much, so we have a high time preference) and the banks took that message, and under the direction of the government and the central bank, said "uh ya, they're investing and want to hold off on consumption."

There are really only 3 ways this situation can work itself out. 1) Everyone could become aware of what has happened and change their preferences to match the bad message sent by the fed, so a lot of people don't lose their jobs and wealth.  This situation is absolutely unlikely to happen.  2)  The bad investments will be liquidated and the production process will go back to reflecting what people ACTUALLY prefer, which is a completely necessary step for any bubble, since the preferences are not real, but falsified by poor communication.  3) When the liquidation of the bad investments begins, the government and the fed will step in and keep throwing money at those same bad investments.  This is the most dangerous situation because since those investments are not ACTUALLY preferred, the amount of money that can be spent on keeping those production lines going is literally endless.  It is dangerous because when the government spends money, they spend tax-payer money... that is, they spend your money.  Bush and Obama, and any others, are not spending all this money out of their own pockets.  When the fed spends money, they do 1 of 2 things.  They either simply type a number into a computer screen, or order new money to be printed from the treasury dept.  Either way, the money they spend gets its value from all existing money, and lowers the value thereof (making prices raise.  essentially, a more sophisticated way of taxing).  If it is the fed creating new money to make up the losses, and they never stop doing it, the end result is the destruction of the currency through a hyper-inflation, which brings the value of all money to zero.  This is how a loaf of bread in the Weimar republic came to cost billions...

Again, this is a very simplex example of how an economy is organic, and a brief analysis of what happens when the government and its central bank interferes with just 1 aspect of that process.  The process gets infinitely complex when you consider that everyone is a consumer, but laborers can be capitalists and entrepreneurs as well, capitalists are usually entrepreneurs... 1 person may perform all 3 functions...  and then you must consider how many lines of production there must be, how long they take, etc.  Indeed, the complexity of the situation is the very reason no one person could ever run it all by himself...  This is obvious even before we consider that demand cannot be measured in any way.  Are you thirsty right now?  How badly do you want something to drink?  Shall I get out my tape measure to see how badly you want a glass of water?  These questions are pretty bizarre to ask.  Yet, when we assume the government can intervene and run the economy by performing mathematical functions (ironically, functions for which no constants exist, for you will not always want that glass of water), we do so under the pretense that politicians can possibly know these things for every single line of production in existence, as well as every single demand (which, demands are themselves endless).  In essence, we must assume politicians to be gods if we believe they have the knowledge necessary to pass laws and force everyone to do what politicians claim to know they want to do.  Bizarre indeed.

Thoughts on Criminology Part I - Defining Crime

The definition of crime sounds somewhat trivial to most people.  It is commonplace to believe that the definition of crime is any action taken against the laws of the state.  This, however, barely scrapes the surface.  The state, or government, is nothing more than a body of people organizing in a certain way, and calling their organization the government, or the state.  Hence, these same people, just as anyone else, are capable of committing crimes as well.  The most obvious example of this is the Nuremberg trials after World War II.  Since governments can commit crimes as well as citizens, it goes to show that the definition of crime cannot simply be actions taken against the laws of the state (as refusing to follow orders in the case of Nazi Germany would have been considered a crime by the German government at the time).

In order to define crime, we need to explore the nature of mankind.  It is necessary to start with universal facts about human existence.  What do we know that applies to everyone in the world, and at all times?  Well, we know that people can only be at one place, at one time, doing one thing at a time (yes, I know multi-tasking is growing, but multi-tasking involves constant shifts in attention and goals rather than doing them all at once).  That being said, we may say that we know "man acts". Thanks to the contributions to the social sciences by Ludwig von Mises in the 20th century, who used the science of Human Action (praxeology) in order to build a coherent economic model, we already have the necessary axioms of human action to begin with.  Human action, which ought be the starting point of all social sciences, shows that man acts in order to improve the conditions of his life with purposeful behavior.  If there were nothing man could 'do' in order to make his life better than what it is, there would be no reason for action.  The axiom of argumentation proves that since individuals can and do argue with one another, there are cause and effect expectations in life. 

There are two distinct ways in which man interacts with the world in order to improve the conditions of his life.  These include forming relations with others, and acquiring property.  In order to analyze the aspects of crime when it comes to relationships, it is first necessary to explore the question of property. 

Since we are all in complete control of our own bodies (baring some medical deficiency of course), we may say that we own our bodies.  I am the only person with the brain required to tell my body what to do; to tell my fingers to type, my legs to cross, etc. 

Ok, so we own ourselves, but how do we gain ownership of things outside of ourselves; provided by the Earth?  One way is by homesteading property.  This means being the first to mix one's labor (that is, effort to improve one's living conditions) with the land.  Being the first to mix your labor with a piece of land means that it is your will that is at work there; you are the one using the said land in order meet your ends, and it was your labor.  Rightfully, this property belongs to you. 

Suppose you decide to use this piece of land to build a house.  Since you were not born with any knowledge on how to build a house, your venture could take quite a while.  But this is true of everyone, so how do we overcome this obstacle?  By exchanging with others.  Man cannot possibly bring into reality everything he wants throughout his life all by himself, however, if I could get someone to build this house for me, I can spend my time trying to acquire some of the other things I want.  It is easy to see why people trade with one-another (first through barter and later through the indirect money economy). 

It should be noted that before something can be exchanged, one must acquire it, that is, make it his property.  Since we have seen that property is a reflection of man's efforts to improve his own life, we may say that all actions taken against man's property, which includes his labor and his body, ought to be considered crimes.  In order to live one's life to the fullest, he must be permitted to use his property as he wills without anyone else forcibly exerting their will upon his property.

The keyword in that last sentence is forcibly because only the individual truly knows in what manner his property is meant to be used.  For example, I own a car that I sometimes let my girlfriend drive.  When she is driving my car, she is exerting her will on my property.  However, in such a case, this is in line with what I want, what I see as the best way to improve the conditions of my life, and therefore should not be interfered with.

Therefore, the definition of crime should logically be: any forcible exertion of will against another's property.

Property here being defined as: one's body, any homesteaded land (land in which the owner gained by being the first to apply his labor to it), or anything in which one received through any form of voluntary transfer (usually trades or gifts). 

I will, however, provide a few examples.  Since we own our bodies the labor they produce, nobody can own another person.  Criminal acts such as murder, rape, assault, arson are all obviously crimes by the definition we have put forth.

Here is an example that I live through every day as a security guard, which is not so obvious.  I work in the parking lot of a retail store in which a panhandler visits on a daily basis.  And on a daily basis, I have to ask him to leave.  His being there is a crime by our definition.  It is known to him that the store in question does not want panhandlers on their property, and yet he exerts his will upon their property anyways by asking people for money.  This is a little more tricky than rape or murder because there is not a clear example of force.  This panhandler has never been violent with any of the workers and usually leaves when asked to do so.  But the force can be seen in his constant defiance of the rules of the property.  His actions say "you don't want me panhandling on your property and I know it, but I am coming here and doing it anyways." 

Why is this force?  because constantly telling this man to leave the property requires actions taken by the property owner to deflect the will of rule breaker in order to use his property in the way which he wishes (and not as a place for panhandlers to annoy people, since they are his customers).

Exploring the complexity of the definitions which I have used here is an endless task, outside the scope of this little blog.  But it is important to know what to look for when we try to define actions as criminal.  The reason for this will be explored in Part II covering the methodology of providing justice.

Open letter to Occupy Wall Street

To start out, I would like first to say congratulations. You have the world's eyes on you and you also have made it known that people in the United States are getting fed up with the ridiculous system under which we live. Kudos. However, as one of the people who would surely fit in your 99% category, I must decline the idea that any of you represent me. For one thing, to claim that you are able to represent a person is to claim that you know absolutely everything about them and precisely what they would or would not do in every situation. Even the most detail oriented statisticians in the world would not be able to do this for anyone simply because human existence is qualitative, not quantitative. That is to say, our desires, wants, satisfactions, sense of justice, humanity, ability to reason... none of these things can be measured, let alone imitated by one person to another (especially when the imitator does not know the person at all, as is the case with most politicians, even though they claim to represent x number of people at any given time).

Perhaps the biggest reason I take issue with the idea that any of you speak for me is this ludicrous list of demands that you claim 99% are in favor of. From what I can gather, you simply want the state to solve all your problems. A living wage... a trillion dollars for this or that, debt forgiveness, free college, extended union rights, rights based on gender or race... you know the list. The only thing you do propose that I am in agreement with is your proposal for open borders.

If you truly want living standards to raise in this country, then from my point of view, you should want more investment in capital goods. If you want wage rates to raise, again, more investment, since investment capital is used to pay for wages during the production process prior to the consumer good hitting the market. The only way for an economy to grow is through savings and investment; that is the reality of living in a world of scarcity. Forgoing consumption in the present in order to invest in tools (capital goods) that make production of consumer demands quicker and easier. All this government manipulation of the market place will only make us all impoverished in the long run. Hence, if you really want the end to fossil fuels, you should be investing in alternatives and refusing to use fossil fuels. I wonder how many people out there who hate oil have actually refused to use it? I wonder how many people out there who think cars are causing global warming or climate change, and constantly complain about their existence, have stopped using cars themselves?

Why? because everything the government does is through force. Any proposal for a "living wage" neglects the very purpose of the pricing system to begin with. Housing, cars, healthcare, and every other good out there, does not come out of thin air. Labor, mixed with land and capital, is needed for it all. This is because we live in a world of scarcity. The affect of a living wage would simply be widespread unemployment and a situation in which big business has even more of a strangle hold on everyone else, since they would be the only ones capable of paying this living wage, and after all, not everyone can work for big business.

Rather than going through your complete list of demands, and how most of it would go a long way towards wrecking our economy and making everyone poor, I will finish off by a discussion of justice. I wanted to be a police officer once, but then I realized that all the government is is a monopoly of force in a given geographic area, marked by political borders. It's not that the government wants to end injustice, it wants a monopoly on injustice. Their theft is called taxation, their murders are called wars, their blackmail is called regulation, you get the picture. Why would anyone want to work for an entity that survives by stealing money from people who have done no wrong? This is what the mafia does... yet when the state does it, it is just. Taxes are supposed to be just a part of life, getting licenses to do anything you want to do is just another part i suppose... but my question is, where is the justice in having government in the form of a state? (state meaning a monopoly of force) What would you say if the people stopping you from driving too fast did not wear a uniform and have a badge on their chest? If the tax collector did not work for the state, what would separate that person from any other extortionist? If I cannot go to my neighbor's house and demand at gun point that he pay for my college debt, or to my boss and demand that he pay me my arbitrary estimate of a living wage, why should a person claiming to be a member of the state be able to do it??

If you can't tell by now, I am an anarchist. I do not believe the state is capable of providing justice since it thrives on committing injustices. And here you are, claiming to represent me and my voice, asking the state to inflict society with whatever injustices needed to get you what you want. Unfortunately for all of you who support the OWS list of demands, natural law cannot be repealed. Justice will be served. If, like a robber in the night, you wish to survive by inflicting injustices on everyone in society, whether it's to force them to pay for your debts or to extort money from your bosses, etc., the result will be more impoverishment. If force is your tool, in my point of view you do not deserve to attain your goals, and basic economics proves that you will not. Socialism doesn't work because the state in reality is not god. It has no possible way of turning the qualitative reality of human existence into quantitative measurements, let alone implementing a plan to keep up with the constant changes in human demands. That is to say nothing about building higher productivity through savings and investment. A society, like ours, that spends all its money on consumer goods, cannot possibly hope to develop the necessary capital goods required for the expansion of an economy. Socialism is by definition the elimination of such capital.

So please, don't claim to represent me. I am but a security guard, barely making enough money to attain subsistence. But I don't support your goals, because I find them to be evil in nature, acts of gross injustice, and quite frankly, a contradiction in their own terms. Using state power to obtain better living standards is akin to burning your home in order to maintain shelter.

***I realize not everyone in the OWS movement agrees with the list of demands, indeed there are those in the movement who are anarchists like myself... this is directed towards those who want the government to step in and control everything for them. Please do everyone a favor and at least read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises before claiming to represent 99% and thinking the state can solve all your problems***