The belief in “Authority” – “Government Grants our [inalienable?!] rights.”

anarkhos Leave a comment

Context: This was a post about the “inherent, inalienable right” to bear arms as outlined in the United States constitution. I mentioned that the constitution is referencing rights which all humans have, and is noting that the state “should” never legislate contrary to these rights.
I also mentioned that the idea that only “citizens” have this right implies that our rights come from “government.”

The entire context of this comment is self-contradictory, but the individual directly contradicts themselves, in the same sentence, with “our rights are not granted by the government, it is built into being a citizen or legal resident.”

I followed up with “Where does citizenship come from?” but as of yet have not received a reply.
The contradiction, if not obvious, is that they are saying we have inalienable rights which are not granted by government, but those rights stem from citizenship, which, of course, is a “legal designation” which comes from “Government.” “Immigration laws” factor into their process to some extent, since that is why they feel these individuals do not have the right to bear arms, but ultimately that boils down to the same source and question regarding citizenship, and the implication that our rights are either altered by legislation, or over-ruled by it.

Without a State, who will protect us from foreign invasion?

anarkhos Leave a comment

If America for example went to anarchy who is stopping Russia from taking Alaska or China invading to setup an American puppet state?

I always found this to be an odd “criticism,” since the “domestic state” is usually guilty of whatever a person might speculate would be the actions of a foreign state. The entire point of a state is that “no one else can defeat them-” including the domestic population. they are meant to maintain a monopoly on “power”/force. So any of the possibilities one might throw out there regarding some invading foreign state equally apply to any and all states (e.g., “What if the US state decided you cant own guns, or decided to tax you at 80 percent, or just outright enslave everyone,” etc.) .
It’s a lot harder to “take over” thousands of square miles when there is no centralized group claiming it is the ultimate ruler. That movie where north Korea is trying to take over the white house is a comical example of this. I understand they were worried about the nukes, but it’s not like everyone in the US would just be like “well, I guess we have to obey them, they’re our new government!” if they took over that one house- even if they got the nukes.

The main problem of the state (the belief in authority) is that people think they are obligated to obey. Nobody thinks they are obligated to obey a “foreign state.” The thing which “conservatives” propose will keep the domestic state in check is the same thing that can work to ward off any other state: people’s ability and willingness to use defensive force. Organized defense isnt a state, nor is a state necessary for organized defense.

Here are some theories regarding potential defense mechanisms within the context of a market anarchist society:

Chaos Theory, by Robert P. Murphy

The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman

Here’s a lecture I found on youtube which I also think is pretty good, though probably not as developed as some other theories may be:

A lecture by Hoppe on The Myth of National Defense

And Murray Rothbard’s excellent War, Peace, & The State

Misplaced Hate Regarding Healthcare

anarkhos Leave a comment

Democrats and others who advocate Government healthcare often accuse market advocates of being cold and heartless. They say we want the poor to die in the streets. I’m reminded of Bastiat’s The Law, wherein he observed:

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say
that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We
object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are
against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists
were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do
not want the state to raise grain.

It’s as though they think that without their particular healthcare policy, there would be no healthcare whatsoever, or that the private sector would contain no voluntary “welfare” programs (even though many already exist toward this end), they would be insufficient, or their callousness and inefficiency would reach apocalyptic levels.

Of course, this hatred is misplaced. We don’t want people dying in the streets. We want people to get the best, most affordable healthcare they can, and we contend that the free enterprise system is the best way to work toward that goal.

Despite the fact that the private sector does indeed provide substantial amounts of resources with the intent of helping the poor, the accusation that we are cold and heartless is still fairly popular. But such citations, while valuable and compelling, are offered in response to what I think is likewise a misplaced focus regarding the elements of the argument.

The argument against Government healthcare isn’t necessarily based on efficiency or quality, it’s also based on the problem of “taxation.” Libertarians and anarchists obviously have no qualms about the democrats giving more of their money to (hopefully private) programs to help the poor. I suspect many of us are sympathetic to such causes and are willing to help as well, if possible. The problem, which is so often overlooked, is that all Government programs are predicated on the idea of forcing other people to fund them. When we argue against Government healthcare, we are arguing against the fundamental nature of its funding (which is tied to the efficiency and quality arguments), not against the availability of quality, affordable healthcare for the poor. We too want the best services available for the lowest price, but we’re not willing to use the violence of the State to get them. The economic consequences will be grave, and the ethical implications are abhorrent.

I imagine most government healthcare advocates have the best of intentions, but it’s hard to view such individuals as noble and caring when their main (and often only) proposition to help the poor is to force other people to do it.

Election 2020: Collectivism in America

anarkhos Leave a comment

It seems Government collectivism has taken hold of the entire mainstream US political discussion. All of the candidates, besides Jo Jorgensen, promise outlandish Government handouts, including Trump. When I first became an anarchist, I realized how far the US had drifted from its original ideal, but there were still some people in the mainstream who at least argued against the deficit, debt, increasing taxation, the IRS, etc. Now those groups seem to have died off- perhaps due to their falling for Trump’s propaganda– or at least have been completely removed from the mainstream discussion (e.g., the “tea party,” who although were not completely consistent, at least had a general understanding of the issues of the state).

I was inspired to post these thoughts after watching an intriguing report by John Stossel, where he tallied the Government handouts promised by 2020 candidates and other politicians. You can see that report at the end of this writing.

The belief that Government can bring us prosperity will lead to the destruction of the economy and create a situation of perpetual servitude to the state. We have seen this before. Since the advent of the internet, the excuses for believing this insanity have been disappearing. The effects of Government manipulation of the economy are well documented. Soon you will have nothing to blame but your own intellectual laziness.
Keep in mind this also applies to Republicans who think taxing people and investing it in the US (e.g., trump giving 350 million to a small company that promised to produce pharmaceuticals in the US) is somehow fundamentally different than what these other socialists propose.

The US federal Government extorts nearly 4 trillion dollars a year in income tax alone. Nearly 20 percent of GDP.
These plans which propose 3-4 trillion a year eat those resources up. Some of them propose moving money around from the military, etc., but the Government still needs to cut. The military will then have less resources– they either cut, or increase taxes to operate at the same level. Im fine with the military and government having less resources generally (not fine with this method as opposed to just outright cutting it), but keep an eye to make sure if any of this nonsense gets implemented, they actually cut the other spending. I bet my “citizenship” that they don’t.

(This report doesnt specifically mention the Green Party’s 42 trillion dollar “Green New Deal” plan)

John Stossel: Free Stuff 2020 (Part I)

More Free Stuff 2020 (Part 2)