Sunday, December 24, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Projection is a common defense mechanism. You take the flaws of your own position and pin them on your opponent, while you take the strengths of your opposition and attribute them to yourself. It completely diverts attention, and demands of your opponent to justify something which he may not be able to answer. The most blatant example of this is the Christian insistence that morality cannot exist without religion.
Many belief systems use projection extensively, and statism is no exception. The most blatant method they use is to take a current problem, and pin it on us. Of course, any current problem must be taking place in countries with a state- since right now that's all we have- so to put the blame on our ideology is quite hypocrite! But that doesn't stop them, of course.
A great example of this is global warming. Given its popularity, global warming, in my opinion, deserves to be known as a strong indictment of statism. Why? Because the state is utterly unable to moderate pollution externalities. When industrialization kicks off, a Market Anarchy justice system, or any system with real justice for that matter, would acknowledge that industries are causing damages to their surroundings, and balance this with our right to industry and production, instituting a restitution system which would have led to stronger incentives for clean production and clean cities.
But what we really got was a state which, depending on industry barons to fill its coffers, could not impose justice. The state let pollution become a matter of fact, a right, turns a blind eye to it. And now we have global warming.
"But wait!", pipes up the statist. "Without the state, corporations would be free to pollute all they want!". Projection indeed. Of course, the possibility of having real justice, not the costumed parody of justice we get with the state, does not come to his mind. Why should it? As far as statists are concerned, their theatrics is as good as it gets.
Of course, it also does not occur to them that the state is the biggest polluter of all. In the United States, the biggest polluter is the US Army. In Canada, the Nanticoke power plant, an Ontario state-ran power plant, is the biggest single polluter. Whatever happened to the state being our hero in a shiny clean green armour?
The only thing that is reducing pollution is not the state, it's progress. Air pollution has been going down in the most developed countries simply because they can afford more efficient processes. Pollution, after all, is waste, and waste is unprofitable. Once again, the profit motive does what the state can't do.
Crime is another argument the statists like to use. Without a state, who would stop crime? Well, that kind of premise is ridiculous- the state cannot "stop crime". Police can find criminals after the fact, but not prevent them from striking. A big state can make crime more enticing however, through gun control, forced poverty and other goodies. And isn't it funny that this is exactly what we observe? Funny, that. Of course I'm not saying that the state is the sole factor in crime, far from it (population density is pretty important, for one), but it is certainly one factor.
Another example, which was brought up in my debate with Nikhil Rao, is the idea that people don't want to be free because they keep voting their rights away. As I pointed out in reply, that is an absurd argument because it assumes that humans under a state behave the same as humans who are not under a state:
Of course people cheer the rise of the welfare state. They assume that the state is a permanent fixture, and thus seek to utilize as much of its power as possible to perpetuate their values against those of other people. Social warfare, after all, is the state of any society in a democratic system. And people mistakenly assume that the welfare state is good for their own security. Given this, their behaviour is not surprising at all.
So the next time a statist brings up something from the present as an argument against your position, remember that we live in statist societies. It is THEIR problem!
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Part 4: Presenting the Model
After proving anarchy, and answering the basic objections, you need to inspire and inflame your subject's mind by presenting the M.A. model as a superior, and especially more moral, alternative to today's system. You are best able to adapt your subject's context to this model, but there are a few points you should go through regardless of the context:
1. M.A. means everyone is allowed to live the way they want, according to their value system. Everyone has different value systems, and all that statism does is impose the ruling class value system over everyone, creating social warfare. In an M.A., there would be no more need for social warfare because everyone would be free to live the way they want. If you want to live in a commune, that's fine. If you want to be protected by a big corporation because it's cheaper, that's fine. If you want to live in a community in a certain way, then do it.
2. Everyone would contract with an agency, corporation, community, commune, whatever you desire. People would be free to trade for the services they want, and not trade for those they don't want, in the way they want.
3. We can solve our differences like adults. In statism, we delegate the state to threaten and kidnap (arrest) people for us. In an M.A., we have to solve our differences like adults, by settling differences in advance, through arbitration.
4. We can live in incredible prosperity. The smaller the government, the more prosperity we see in a country. The state always crushes the poor, the least powerful, the small businesses (that generate 90% of jobs), in favour of the wealthy, the powerful, the big businesses. The state bans whole markets, creates tremendous crime (War on Drugs), makes others inefficient by monopolies, takes away our constantly inflating paper money. If the state takes away just 2% of the economy a year (a low estimate indeed), that means it takes away half of our prosperity every 35 years. We can't take any chances with our society.
5. We can be happier and safer. Being free to live the way we want means that we can seek our own happiness instead of fighting against everyone else for that freedom. It also means that we are safe in our own freedom. If we take down the ruling class monopoly over the justice and police, we will have real justice, moral justice, efficient justice, and a more moral and efficient police, because they would be accountable to our demand for security and safety.
6. Crimes would still be solved. Whatever agency you are part of would have an incentive to give you a real service, to prevent and solve crimes. But people would get arrested because they break the agreements between us and our agencies, not because they go against the ruling class. I don't care what you do in your own home, as long as you don't attack me. We have to treat each other like adults.
7. M.A. is the only system we have that can effectively lower war, crime, and poverty. People do not want to live in war, crime and poverty, but the state exploits these things in order to maintain its power.
• Currently, the state can do war for its own profit and that of its corporate interests by stealing our money (taxes) to buy weapons and enslaving people (draft). In a M.A., agencies would have to bear the full cost of wars, and would have no reason to. Corporations don't declare war against each other because violence is inefficient.
• Currently, the state is the biggest criminal organization of all, because they are not accountable to anyone. In an M.A., all agencies would be accountable to their customers and to each other.
• Currently, the state uses the welfare class to prop up its legitimacy and power. In an M.A., there would be no reason to keep people in poverty. Even the greediest CEO does not want a market that is too poor to buy his products. Henry Ford paid his employees twice the average at the time so they could afford to buy his cars and be his best customers.
• State violence is win-lose, and it's us, the "common people", who always lose. Prosperity is win-win, especially for us. The least powerful always have the most to win from freedom.
Part 5: Ending the Discussion
How does understanding these things help the situation?
If, by this point, you have not successfully perked the interest of your subject to pursue these topics on his own, it may be helpful to explain the long term vision for the propagation of market anarchy and market anarchist ideas throughout society. Explain to your subject the self-destructive nature of collectivist societies. Explain that as society will be rebuilt, it is essential that the ideas of market anarchy be present, or else society will be restructured around the same false moral concepts. The more people spreading these ideas throughout society, the more they will be used to reconstruct society in a different manner.
Personal freedom in relationships
Broaching this important topic may seem difficult, as many people don't like to reconsider personal relationships which they have held for many years. However difficult, it is essential in order to become an autonomous individual. Personal freedom means taking control of the relationships you participate in on a daily basis. Explain how to look for passive aggressive behaviours, and the invocation of false moral concepts by people in everyday interactions.
This conversation as example of voluntary interaction
Another method which can be used to explain the nature of voluntary relationships is to ask your subject how he has felt throughout his discussion with you. If you have demonstrated your strong positive emotions towards market anarchy, he will be more likely to feel positive as well. He will agree that this conversation was meaningful and beneficial to him.
How do your other relationships feel?
After experiencing the positive feelings of having a mutually beneficial interaction, ask your subject to look at the facts of his other relationships, and determine if they are mutually beneficial. Being honest with one's emotions towards a person is the best way to determine if that person is benefiting you or not. If you think of a person and you don't feel excited to see them or talk with them, then this is probably not someone you should focus your energies on.
A final note
Remember to have fun throughout this process! Choosing to approach someone about the topic of market anarchy is not meant to be laborious, difficult, or painful. Don't be discouraged by negative reactions, of which you will receive plenty. However, in the experience of the authors, you will be pleasantly surprised at how well you will be received by some, especially after a bit of practice doing this.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
as a voluntary, coordinated effort between Andrew Greve, Aaron Kinney,
David Pearson and Francois Tremblay
PDF version of this pamphlet can be downloaded here.)
This pamphlet is a tool to be used by market anarchists in their interactions with collectivists of all sorts. The purpose of the pamphlet is to provide an overarching strategy to aid in performing efficient market anarchist deconversions.
Part 1: Introduction
First, remember that you should always be arguing from morality, as you have the superior moral position, and morality is easier to argue than efficacy. To you, M.A. should not only stand for Market Anarchy, but should also stand for Moral Anarchy, insofar as anarchy is the only moral system of social organization.
There are as many approaches to market anarchy as there are people, so keep an open eye for an "in"- an opportunity for you to start a discussion which will lead to the desired topic of market anarchy. Here are a few ways to look for an "in":
Find a common value
In casual interaction, our values are expressed at almost every corner. Remember, a discussion about market anarchy does not have to focus on social organizational values at all times. If you witness an interaction to which you have the same reaction as your subject, such as witnessing an adult striking a child, this is a great place to start a discussion about values. Another common place to start is to find a government program which your subject finds unfavorable, and express your agreement with his views. A good approach to getting to the root of the issue, which is the immorality of the state, is to ask your subject questions about why he finds such programs unfavorable. For example; if your subject is not fond of the War on Drugs, ask him why.
Is the person you're talking to able to empathize with others? Does he react negatively to instances of coercion? Does he react positively to instances of voluntarism? Don't be afraid to display your strong feelings towards someone else's actions during a discussion. Many times, people are afraid to strongly voice their feelings about a coercive interaction, due to their desire to conform. You can help break this trend in others by expressing yourself to the utmost. Speak up, and show your emotions as you feel necessary. You'll be surprised how easily you can bring out the same emotions in others. Once people see that you aren't afraid to express yourself, they will want to express themselves as well.
Are you treated as an individual with unique interests, needs, and values? Remember that by engaging someone in conversation, that you are beginning a relationship with that person. The type of relationship which will result is to be determined, but be mindful of this person's individuality. Don't treat a potential market anarchist candidate as a total loss the first time he does not understand something. Also take note of this person's consideration of your values. If you are not being treated as you feel you deserve, do not feel an obligation to continue a conversation.
Part 2: The Initial Approach
Asking questions - Why? How?
The most effective way to break down a person's barriers to rational thought is to question his premises. Wait until the collectivist presents a statement, and then challenge its premises with questions. If they posit a false concept, or a non-existent "right," question it. The goal of this questioning is to expose their constructs as having no validity as moral principles or agents.
If a person posits, "[False moral concept X] is good," the best way to expose the hollowness of such a statement is to simply question it. A good response might be, "What exactly do you mean when you say 'America'?"
When the statement, "America is good," is questioned, a typical retort might be the statement, "People in America are good." A good response to this would be would be to continue to question the premises of the statement by asking something such as, "Do you mean all people?"
If a person says, "Everyone has a right to housing," you can ask things like, "Whose house do they have a right to?" or, "How will they get that house?"
If a person says, "Everyone has a right to health care," you can ask, "Does this right include getting health care for free?" or, "Who pays for it?"
A person who is legitimately interested in these topics will admit, sometimes grudgingly, that their original position of "[False moral concept X] is good," doesn't mean as much as they thought it did.
Knowing when to give up!
If your subject is unable to admit that there is no such thing as the "French culture" or "black people" (in terms of moral agency), then your efforts are best spent with someone else. Such a person is merely being unresponsive and wasting your time. Don't play into their game, as you will get nowhere with them in the end. It is pointless to move on to other arguments if your subject is unable to clearly see the meaninglessness of arguing in terms of false moral concepts.
If you successfully challenge the person's premises, and get them to admit that their concepts were false, then you are ready to move on to Section 3.
Part 3: The Big Guns
At this point in the discussion, you have broken down the initial barriers and are about to present substance. This will give the subject something to ask about, or in some cases complain about. Whatever he presents to you, you should have the automatic, knee-jerk, instinctual reaction: check for projections. A projection is when a person presents an objection that in fact applies to his own side. For example:
"Without government, how do we deal with criminals? We'll just be at anyone's mercy!"
At this point in the discussion, you don't have to present how an M.A. answers the criminality problem (as well as redefines it). You will do that when you present the M.A. model. Right now all you need to do is think "projection" and see that it is indeed a projection; the state obviously does not solve crime, more state makes more criminals, and the state itself is the biggest criminal element of all. Also remember that any problem that already exists, exists with the state, and therefore the state cannot be its answer!
Here are three of the many arguments you can use at this point to prove anarchy:
Burden of Proof
Everything you see around you is made by individuals coming together. People talk about the roads as being something the state has to do. That's their big example. But individuals make roads, not states. People have to make a nice flat rock path, they have to lay down asphalt, and they have to roll it all out. People do this--people like you and me. And people can own and administer them. We already have private roads right now and they are in better shape, and give better service, than state roads. Unlike state roads, private roads are accountable to their customers. The state took over and now people believe that we need the state to have roads. But we don't need the state. It's up to the person who believes that to prove it. Until then, anarchy is all we need.
For a principle to be true, it has to apply to everyone equally. Otherwise it's just a personal opinion or a preference, like preferring chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream. I like certain kinds of ice creams, and you like others, but I'm immoral if I kill you and you are immoral if you kill me. Well, in the system we live in, the state follows rules different from ours. The police and army are allowed to have guns, but they're allowed to tell us we can't have guns. But everyone can need to defend himself. We're not allowed to steal, but the state is allowed to steal from us with taxes. They don't call it stealing, obviously, but that's what it is. You would never agree to pay taxes if you could choose, at least not to finance the state as it is.
The Geometric Argument
"Imagine you have three people on a desert island, and they are fishing to survive. If two of them decide to beat up the third and take all his fish, is that okay?" "What if they vote and the two vote in favour of taking his fish?" "Okay. What if they are ten on the island, and they decide that one guy should give up his fish to feed some other guys, and if he doesn't they'll beat him up?" "Okay. What if they are a hundred?" "What if they are a thousand people on the island? Is it okay now to beat some of them up and take their fish? Is it morally right?" "What if they are a million?" "Well, that's what the state does today with millions of people. Just because there are more people around does not make it right to steal and jail people for refusing to follow the state's laws.
After explaining an argument or two, the kind of questions you get will help you determine whether your subject is receptive, or if he is still thinking in propaganda terms. If he asks questions like "Then who will build roads?", you can see that the person is actually considering what you're saying, and trying to come to grasp with its implications. But if he asks questions like "But who would take care of the poor?", which betray statist propaganda, you might want to give him some material and get out of the way, unless you have plenty of time. There is little more frustrating than going in circles against a wall of propaganda.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
A new organization devoted to market anarchy has recently started its work: the Center for a Stateless Society. So far it's only a blog, though. Let's hope they build to something great.
Is this the beginning of the end? We are starting to see the bankrupcy at the end of the statist tunnel for "America":
Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America— Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.
A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.
And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Friday, December 8, 2006
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Mr. Jose Padilla, and American citizen, was tortured for over 3 and 1/2 years by the US Government, with no charges ever being filed against him, and no recourse to contest anything. This is worse than the torture scene in the movie V for Vendetta.
Below is an excerpt, but be sure to click on the link (here) to read the whole thing. Imagine yourself in his shoes. I did, and it filled me with terror:
All of that was done by the Bush administration to an American citizen detained on U.S. soil -- without any charges ever being brought against him, let alone convicted of any crime. All along, the Bush administration insisted it had the right to abduct and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and deny them access to any courts or even to any lawyers, to either contest the validity of their detention or the legality of their treatment. That is still the Bush administration's position, and the Congress less than two weeks ago purported to give the President the legal authority to do virtually all of that.
The case of Jose Padilla is one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time. It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding. But there has been no retreat from this behavior. Quite the contrary. The atrocity known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a huge leap forward to elevating the Padilla treatment from the lawless shadows into full-fledged, officially sanctioned and legally authorized policy of the U.S. Government. The case of Jose Padilla is no longer a sick aberration, but is instead a symbol of the kind of Government we have chosen to have.
The United States Government is a terrorist organization.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Average GDP per capita in most economically free countries : 23 325 $US
Average GDP per capita in most economically unfree countries : 3 829 $US
(w/purchasing power parity)
(Heritage Foundation, 2002 Index of Economical Freedom)
Average GDP per capita in most economically free states and provinces : 37 268 $US
Average GDP per capita in most economically unfree states and provinces : 21 056 $US
(Fraser Institute and NCPA, 2002 Economic Freedom of North America)
Average waiting times in Canadian hospitals, 1993 : 9.3 weeks
Average waiting times in Canadian hospitals, 2002 : 16.5 weeks
In comparaison, the average waiting time in the UK in 2002 was 9.4 weeks.
(Fraser Institute, annual "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada" surveys
Health Insight, "Patient waiting targets and bed blocking", January 2002)
Homicide rate in Israel, Switzerland and Austria : 1.2, 1.1, 1.5
(European countries with least restrictive gun laws)
Homicide rates in Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany : 2.1, 5.0, 1.8
(European countries with most restrictive gun laws)
Total homicide rate in United States : 7.3
Homicide rate in United States, excluding gun use : around 2.4 (one-third)
Total homicide rate in Canada : 2.0
(U.N. Demographic Yearbooks, U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice's Vienna Session, Swiss national police)
Improvement in environmental quality indicators since 1980, in US : +18%
Improvement in environmental quality indicators since 1980, in Canada : +17%
Improvement in environmental quality indicators since 1980, in Mexico : 0%
(includes air pollution levels, water pollution levels, waste management, land management, and natural resources)
(Fraser Institute, Environmental Indicators 2002)
Change in unemployment when minimum wage increases by 10% : +2% to +6%
(Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch et David Wittenberg, "Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS", Southern Economic Journal, 2000).
Approximate number of annual deaths due to War on Drugs : 15 000
(6 000 due to drug impurities, 5 000 by homicides and 4 000 due to AIDS and the laws against the financing of syringe exchanges)
Approximate number of new drug prisoners every year : 200 000
Cost of all drug prisoners to society every year : 9 billion dollars
Cost of the War on Drugs every year : 39.2 billion dollars
(Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, DRCNet 07/00, Fraser Institute, Dr. Mary Ruwart, Milton Friedman, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drucker, Dr. Ernest, (1998, Jan./Feb.). Public Health Reports,, "Drug Prohibition and Public Health." U.S. Public Health Service. Vol. 114, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Americans waiting for an organ donation, in 1988 : 16 000
Americans waiting for an organ donation, in 1995 : 75 000
Number of Americans who die on the waiting lists every year : approximately 5 000
Bloodiest tyrants in the 20th Century :
Mao Zedong - communist dictator - 40 million deaths
Adolph Hitler - fascist dictator - 34 million deaths
Josef Stalin - communist dictator - 20 million deaths
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Brooklyn Criminal Court judge John H. Wilson recently published a xenophobic children's book, The Hot House Flowers.
This loony bastard wrote the most inhuman of analogies into his children's book. He equated immigrants with weeds, and natives with pretty flowers. What a wonderful way to teach children that people who look different than you are sub-human!
Anyway, I absolutely love analogies, and I use them all the time. I am quite comfortable with them, and I believe that I can detect and correct a failed analogy more easily than I can tie my shoes. I wrote a book review at Amazon informing the buying public of his failed analogy, and correcting it at the same time in order to make a case for open borders. You can find my review if you click on the customer reviews section after clicking on the link above. I will also repost it here for your convenience:
A failed analogy; We are ALL roses
The analogy in this book is fatally flawed even on the surface. Observe:
Humans are all the same race; the same kind of flower. The different skin colors and body features would analogize to different petal colors of the same flower species, NOT different flower species alltogether.
The different human races would more properly analogize to different color roses (yellow, red, white, etc) rather than a mix of geraniums and dandelions. In this way, we can see that having a garden with many different colored roses is much prettier than a rose garden with only one color. Furthermore, different color roses don’t starve or stunt off the others. Rather, they compliment each other.
I imagine that Mr. Wilson would act like the Queen of Hearts in his own backyard, insisting that all his roses be red, and dishing out harsh penalties for those who would allow white roses in his garden. Would Mr. Wilson employ buckets of red paint or garden shears to attain the uniformity in rose color that he demands? Perhaps a combination of the two? But the Queen of Hearts was well known to be mad in Lewis Carroll's famous tale.
I don’t want a garden where roses of different colors are forbidden. Even the most vibrant red rose petals will bore a person eventually if no other rose color is to be found in the garden.
Finally, we can examine the reason for Mr. Wilson's analogy error. Why does he equate different human races with wholly different species of plants, rather than correctly equating them with mere different variations of the same plant? Because, to Mr. Wilson, those humans who are different to him are not humans at all. To Mr. Wilson, the immigrant humans are sub-human, less than human, and not to be equated in value with his own kind. Mr. Wilson simply MUST equate different humans as a different species alltogether in order to justify his xenophobic sentiments.
When I see different faces, I see different colored roses. They all smell sweet, and they all bloom beautifully. But when Mr. Wilson sees different faces, he sees weeds. To Mr. Wilson, only the red roses are truly roses, every other shade is just a weed.
The answer is simple: Open borders, open gardens, opened eyes, and opened minds.