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?

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!

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 :)

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)

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.

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.

Thoughts on Criminology Part II - Measuring Crime and an Alternative to Authoritarian Law

In the first part, I stated that a crime ought be defined as any forcible exertion of will against another's property.  Although the state operates as the monopoly of force in a given geographical location (border), not everything the state does need be considered a crime.

I defined crime as a matter of forcing one's will against another and their property because it interferes with the right of a person to live their life.  It logically follows that during the time the action of the crime is taking place that the victim of the crime has the right to use defensive force to protect his life against the unwanted intrusion of the criminal.  Therefore, when members of the state, or anyone in general for that matter, operate in such a way that protects a victim from a criminal (such as apprehending a thief in a store or preventing a rapist from attacking someone, and all other criminal acts against innocent people) a noble deed has been done. 

However, the state itself infringes on the lives of innocent people.  Taxation is just another word for theft committed at large by the state.  Wars that involve "collateral damage" define the state as an entity of people who commit murder (even assuming the war is justified in some way).  The state is also known for what is called eminent domain; an action that involves members of the state seizing land from innocent people for the ends the government has in mind.  The drug war has lead to force being used against people who have done nothing more than use or possess things members of the state do not think they should, regardless of whether the user has actually harmed anyone else.

Logically, it goes to show that multiple crimes are being committed at every second of every day, by the state alone.  every arrest made against someone who has not committed a crime against another (popularly referred to as a victimless crime) is a crime.  Every sales tax paid, income tax collected, contraband arrest, speeding ticket given... the amount of crime and force in society by the state alone is off the chart.

To realistically measure the amount of crime, one must take the number of forceful acts against peaceful people committed by the state in conjunction with acts against peaceful people committed by private citizens.

Most people I have met often say "but what is the alternative" when confronted with the criminal nature of the state.  Or say "it's not perfect, but that's life" to the same issue.

True, it's not perfect, and there will never be a perfect system of government... but do we really want an entity like the state, who's job is to monopolize and magnify the imperfections of humanity?

To the second problem, finding an alternative, I have found that most people like to sound like they're being logical in making this complaint, but when the alternative is presented, they prove that they are usually just acting out of anxiety.  Nevertheless, if  you truly are interested in alternatives to top-down authroitarian law, I would recommend looking into customary law.

Customary law, being an alternative to authoritarian law, is essentially a voluntary form of law.  Private arbitrators make decisions in which the plaintiff pays for, whereas the defendant can choose to show up or not show up, comply or not comply.  The check on the defendant is the rest of society.  As ALREADY HAPPENS with merchant law, still practiced today, those who are unwilling to comply are ostracized by the rest of the community.  Imagine trying to go the market place and buy goods, only to find nobody will trade with you.  Could you imagine being  a business man and having everyone whom you trade with turn their backs on you?  In such a situation, failure to comply would mean failure to get gas for your car, food for your stomach, etc. 

There also remains the idea that Insurance companies, due to their profession in risk assessment and asset protection, would provide policing/security, and the idea of private communities forming where the property owners make the funding of protective services as a requirement of living in the neighborhood.  Let's not forget neighborhood watch programs.

Perhaps the most important thing in all these situations is that the community really does have to be much more together in the decision making.  There would be much more solidarity than what exists when the state steps in and makes laws and forces everyone to behave in this or that way.  Not to mention the complete lack of all the corrupt things we do not want with authoritarian law (the taxes, eminent domain issues, arbitrarily locking people up for possessing the wrong things, etc.)  AND, due to the voluntary nature, members of society COULD sort of ostracize unwanted people who haven't committed crimes, such as drug users. 

Customary/voluntary law is the true socialized man's choice. Authoritarian law in many cases only demands a minority of politically engaged people bind together and tell everyone else in society what to do.  Customary law is based on the feelings of those in society as a whole, and how they interact, and more importantly, what they think.  Who has more virtue;  Those who want to force others to do the right thing, or those who wish to convince others of the virtue of doing the right thing?

It should be noted that this is an imperfect and abbreviated description of customary law, so if you think of something here or there that would not be attended to, consider doing more research rather than just relying on my blog.  But keep in mind, other people are thinking people too, and things may be better if they are free to think and act on what you believe to be just, rather than being restrained by arbitrary authoritarian laws.

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.

Free-Market-Security

Recently I began reading a book dealing with security in an anarcho-capitalist world. The author, whom I will not reveal, was writing as if he had to make the case that security would be better in a market setting due to competition and peaceful incentives inherent in the marketplace. While this is all good, it got me wondering: why do libertarians/voluntaryists/anarchists feel the need to make the case for SUPERIOR security in the marketplace at all?

The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.

So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.

So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?

So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.

I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!