A Free Market in Law Benefits The 99%

I hear an awful lot of socially conscious liberals bemoan the wealth/income disparity. They rightly point out the social injustice present in this disparity. The ultra-wealthy retain for themselves special benefits that the rest of us cannot afford. They "suffer" from affluenza, and live by a different set of rules.

How does the wealth disparity arise?

First, let's acknowledge that while we each may want more wealth, we do not have a guaranteed right of possession. For example, if everyone on Earth were given the same amount of wealth, knowledge, and opportunity at the beginning of a day, they would each have different levels of that wealth at the end of the day. This results in accordance with each individual's different values on how to best spend that wealth. So a disparity in wealth arises as a natural consequence of differences between individuals.

But that same disparity can grow, quite unnaturally, through political means. When society organizes itself to permit a special class of people that follow different rules of conduct, the wealthy grow to inhabit that position. They purchase favor from lawmakers and enforcers, pricing such intervention out of the reach of the masses. What starts off as unequal treatment in the eyes of the Law, results in lawmakers that twist it to enforce the inequality of means and restrict the opportunities available to the masses.

Once the rich have spent some wealth on maintaining their high standard of living, they spend their remaining funds on political manipulation, which can take the form of donations to specific charities or media produced by agenda-pushing think tanks. I don't begrudge the rich this opportunity to try and change the social fabric, as long as they pay the costs of that activity.

Why do we tolerate the disparity?

I do take issue when the rich partner with the political class and push for social change through government intervention. Using the mechanism of campaign contributions, the rich effectively steal my money. They divert my taxes into their pockets, via subsidies for protected industries, special exemption in the eyes of law, and production of propaganda that promotes their social agenda.

For example, under the politically popular support for green and sustainable energy technology, the politically connected corporation Solyndra received and scuttled the wealth of taxpayers, giving them nothing but scandal in return.

Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[20]

The majority of Solyndra funding was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Wikipedia

Though examples of political graft take place in all governments at all levels from local to national, no individual case has yet provoked the ire of the masses to abandon hope of reform and change. The public still clings to the idea that lawmakers can respond to their desires. We find ourselves distracted with promises of bread and circuses, of transparent bureaucracy, of politician accountability. On these empty promises we still hope for change.

What should we do to rectify the disparity?

Recall, that I started this article about wealth, showing how it leads to social manipulation that protects the wealthy class. We do not solve this problem by forming an organized Robin Hood force that robs the wealthy and redistributes to the poor. An agency capable of that feat already exists, and it remains under the control of the very wealthy being targeted.

Government cannot be the answer, because government exacerbates the problem. It enables the politically favored to become wealthy. It enables the wealthy to practice political protectionism. No! We must take away that tool that the wealthy have used to obtain their special status! We must dismantle the iron fist that protects them.

We can lessen the wealth disparity by privatizing law. By wresting law from the manipulation of government and putting in into the hands of individuals who need its services. We need for the law to treat everyone equally.

A Private Market of Law

The production of law requires fewer initial capital expenditures than machinery and electronics. It involves less complexity than computer operating systems and applications. It retains a similarly high cost in education and training compared to technological services. If people produce computers, cars, and most everything else using a system of private investment, why not also law?

Should we convert to a system of private arbitration, I would expect that dispute rulings become more fair in the eyes of the masses, and more accessible.

Consider that arbitrators will persist in competition with each other. We cannot expect that an arbitrator who begins systematically favoring the rich clients at the expense of the poor ones to remain in business. I conceded that the rich clients might use that arbitrator's services with each other, but they would be unable to find willing business partners among the lower economic rungs. By insisting on the use of such an arbitrator, they lose out on valuable business with the masses.

We can also expect that the vast majority of cases arbitrated will occur between people of lower economic status, simply because more of them exist, and they have more interaction with each other. Consequently, for most arbitrators, their majority of clients will be from the lower economic strata, whether directly or through legal insurance agencies, so they will have to take care to make rulings fair to these clients.

The economics of law on a free market on a free market, strongly encourages paying attention to the 99%. because they form the majority customer base. The arbitrator gets squeezed in the provision of law, for they must pronounce rulings fair in the eyes of a majority of clients. While clients get squeezed in their selection of law, for they must choose arbitrators that all parties can agree upon.

The process of the free market produces a law that represents the interests of those who elect to use it. In contrast, our current system produces law via a corrupt political process. The competition driving a free market of law treats the rich person as equally as it treats the poor. Neither one can use the difference in social status as leverage against the other.

Article about the book in The Freeman

Review at Center for a Stateless Society

Society can prosper by producing law outside of government. Within a free market of law, the rich no longer have the ability to practice regulatory capture, drafting laws that favor themselves at the expense of the masses. They no longer have the means to delegate special privileges to themselves. They no longer retain special social status and the resulting benefits. The market will make them pay for their injustices as it does all criminals.

If you don't yet believe in the practicality of a Free Market in Law, please consider the cases that David D. Friedman discusses in Ch 29. Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market, of his book Machinery of Freedom, or the chapter about Anarchy and Efficient Law from John Sanders and Jan Narveson's book For and Against the State.

Finally, it doesn't matter that you may not believe my argument. Private arbitrators currently hear more than 80% of disputes within the United States, and their rulings did not admit government guns for enforcement until recently. The Admiral himself benefits from the international market for law, which already covers 20% of WORLD GDP, resulting from international commerce. What government could make a rightful claim to use only its legal monopoly in such disputes?

Update [140105]. The 20% figure comes from the end of Peter Leeson's talk on Anarcho-Capitalism. I think that the 80% figure comes from David D. Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, but in any case it's dated, but I don't expect that it has changed significantly. Check the American Arbitration Association for more recent stats. Also read those wordy papers you signed at the dentist, doctor office, bank checking account, etc. Many of them contain an arbitration clause.

Arguing Against Inflationary Currency by Famous Example

During the last Liberty on The Rocks meeting about Bitcoin, I found myself in an argument with a fellow that claimed that a deflationary currency would harm the economy, because it discourages spending. I quickly countered this opinion by stating that I believed the opposite: that without an encouragement of savings, the economy would collapse.

Alas, he could not say why we would want to privilege spending over saving, other than to state that without spending we wouldn't have exchange. So I pointed out that spending occurs regardless: I need food, water, housing, fuel for my car, clothing, etc. No matter how the underlying currency fluctuates relative to these goods and services, I and everyone else will continue spending. The only effect that promoting discretionary spending over savings has is to promote some industries (such as entertainment) over others. Why does the economy need artificial, and preferential encouragement of these more consumerist industries?

Still, in the face of these questions, my partner in argument had not yet changed his opinion, so I tried a different approach, arguing by analogy.

Suppose that there existed an industry where consumers expected a substantially better product each year, and at a lower price! Would you, as a producer, ever choose to enter this industry, or would you instead decide on something more mundane and stable? A different industry, where you wouldn't have to work as hard at improving product and where sales kept a high price. If customers can expect to purchase a better product at a cheaper price every 6 months or so, then why would they buy today? Surely even sales in this industry would experience low volume. From looking at both sides, and in keeping with your argument about a deflationary currency, would you then predict that this industry remains quite small compared to others, because of the continuously devaluing wares?

Well, devious debater that I am, I just described the electronics/computer industry which has experienced explosive growth unlike any other, in every year since 1960! One of my favorite examples, specifically for knocking down the "we won't have spending without inflation" argument. As if the compulsive, grasshopper consumers need an additional, abstract reason not to save for the future.

Far from discouraging spending, the continuously increased quality has instead generated recurring sales. Rather than saving their ever more valuable dollar, the consumers in this market exhibit strong time preference: they don't want to wait a newer, better, fancier product 6 months hence. They want the latest and greatest RIGHT NOW! Every year a saved dollar can buy more processing power, more memory, lower power consumption, smaller device size, etc. But that incentive for saving hasn't halted the spending. Instead, the rapid pace of change drives sales: once their existing wares become obsolete (which happens quickly) consumers go out and purchase anew.



Unfortunately, I was unable to penetrate the Keynesian mythology that fogged his mind, and my colleague remained unconvinced by what I consider a remarkably compelling example.

Liberty on the Rocks: Bitcoins not Bombs

After a day of slaving my labor for The Man, I found myself with a refreshing drink of dark lager at the Bootlegger's Brewery. My favorite drinking club, Liberty on the Rocks, was hosting a Bitcoins not Bombs event. In spite of cooler weather, and a threat of rain, which remained fortunately unfulfilled, we amassed a numerous and eclectic crowd of folk. Plenty of newer faces showed up, at least 30 in all, each one eager to discuss the merits of bitcoin as a currency. Plenty of speculation about the future of bitcoin, including it's world-wide suitability, rate of adoption, and (of course) future price.

The event even attracted the attention of the CEO of newlibertydollar.com, Joseph VaughnPerling, who was kind enough to donate one of his new QR-encoded bitcoin silvers to the raffle. LoTR also gave away 3 other envelopes of bitcoin, each valued at about 10 U.S. Fed Reserve Notes (and rapidly appreciating in value), in an effort to promote awareness and use.

Bootlegger's serves only beverages and carries no food, so our group was greatly disappointed that the food truck cancelled their appearance. But, being so heavily anarchist, there were some among us who knew how to deal with a failure in planninng. They had kind generosity to order pizza. Joseph donated a couple pizzas, and pointed out his self-interest in the matter: "Hungry people are grumpy. I don't like talking to grumpy people." I'm sure our other benefactors felt similarly and took action not exclusively motivated by altruism.

During mingling, many things were discussed. We noticed a correlation between the excitement an individual had toward bitcoin and any resultant payoff. VaughnPerling discussed the case of Bernard von NotHaus, who had plenty of his wealth confiscated but is yet to be locked in a cage by the government for circulating coins which they considered similar enough to be threatening as counterfeit. (Exactly how gullible do these government judges think we are?)

Much of the conversations during the mingling I didn't catch. I received some good information from a suited fellow advertising his gun-training and shooting services (email me for more info), talked at length about why government sucks which everyone there already knew, and I tried to convince anyone who'd listen that anarchy would be better (that will be discussed in a secondary post).

So successful was our event, that a new Facebook group formed: The SoCal Bitcoin Syndicate #WeLiveFreeBTC.

Any and all are welcome to attend the next LoTR meetup: A celebration of Saturnalia at 7:00pm on Dec 5th at The Stave in Long Beach. Both #LiveFreeOC and #LiveFreeLA will attend!

Renting on the Black Market

Today, I'm complaining about an inconvenience caused by government. My landlady and I have a nice arrangement, I pay her for the roof over my head and a place to store my stuff. In my opinion, our business relationship requires no third parties. But the local politicians think otherwise.

My landlady, long ago, extended her house to include an upstairs. A living room rests over the garage and behind it two bedrooms and a bathroom sit above the living room and kitchen of the ground floor. I'm renting out one of the bedrooms and another tenant rents the other. The construction of an exterior stairway, placed alongside the garage allows for us to come and go through a side-gate without interrupting my landlady. Since I am still young enough to spend the occasional late night of anarchic drinking in town, I find this arrangement mutually beneficial, as my fashionably extra-late return home does not have to wake her.

Just last week she told me that she has decided to refinance her mortgage. Consequently, the bank will be sending an inspector. Under ordinary circumstances, I might not care, but this inspection complicates the relationship that I have with my landlady. Her son, who acts as a handyman, will stop by this weekend to take the stove out of the upstairs kitchenette that I share with the other tenant. He will also remove the partition that currently covers the indoor stairway between the two floors, lowering our mutual privacy.

Now why should he take away the stove and stairway cover? I did not sign on an a tenant to be so rudely interrupted. When I queried about the unnecessary disruption, I found out that she, in her sweet, elderly way, acts in a dark and shadowy market, subverting government and its accessory taxation. She rents out part of her home <cue revealing music> without a license!

Apparently, the city has declared a house with two stoves illegal. That body politic also declared the renting out of a room, activity requiring a license. I bet some hotel cartel or renters association put them up to it. Or perhaps they just think that they are keeping me "safe from exploitation". The government officiates probably think that my 80-plus yr old landlady, menacingly threatens society as she ambles around in her walker, wringing her hands over of all the rent money I voluntarily agreed to pay. Because if they ever found out she operates without a license, or that her house has a fire-hazard second stove in the upstairs kitchen, all manner of fines and levies would surely find their way into her mailbox.

Just who do these government thugs think they are? What right do they possess? They threaten an old lady, who's just trying to scrounge up some extra funds by renting out space she's no longer able to use, and expect me to thank them? I hate those guys.

Arguments found on Facebook, Government License.

I have a friend on Facebook (who shall remain anonymous) that occasionally posts articles which cast some topics that I have a fondness for in a negative light. In this case it was an article about How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood. I happen to sympathize with the authors opinion, for her father sounds like an ideological jerk who could might benefit from learning how to empathize with others. But I don't extend the blame all the way to Rand's philosophy of objectivism. The role of that philosophy as an enabler for poor behavior certainly forms an argument against its use as justification. But then, so do the crusades and inquisition form an argument about how the christian belief can be used to justify violence. These uses call into question the acceptability of these beliefs as part the fabric of social interaction, but should not be confused with the logical framework of religion or objectivism as a belief system. For that task, we need logical arguments that point out internal inconsistency in doctrine, not mere associations with the poor behavior of the followers.

Well, already I've said more about the article than I meant to. Let me refocus on the ensuing Facebook conversation which motivates this post.

As you may predict, I all too often take my friends bait. He posts an article critical of my political ideology, and I rise to defend it. His friends (many of them believers in democracy) also feel a need to be heard, or to hurl insults at my selfish, asinine, childlike, undeveloped, un-workable viewpoint. I might add that the insults are much to my amusement, and those who hurl them can be readily disarmed with simple questions:

I sense strong emotional hostility against libertarianism. Can you explain what you feel about libertarians? The insults you've hurled might be motivated by fear. Do libertarians threaten you?

In this case, I was met with yet more insults rather than answers, and that particular person got deleted from the thread. On the one hand, I'm consistently left with amazement at the level of hostility, and on the other I lament that these folk don't take the time to understand the Non-Aggression Principle,  for I would expect that we might have a common ground in our desires to have a society that abstains from institutionalizing theft, violence, or coercion.

Of course, I'm motivated to partake in these discussion, not just because I want to defend my position, but primarily because I find great amusement and entertainment in the arguments themselves. Those that believe in government (or the necessity of government) make some rather odd arguments:

It's so funny how that NAP of your never quite makes it to how you injure people indirectly with economics. Despite the fact that there is no inalienable right to business and since it is a LICENSED privilege, the Government is well within its right to regulate your business and your private slice of the economy any way they see fit. The economy belongs to EVERYONE, not just you. Despite how much more you may have than anyone else.

A similar viewpoint was made by Rousseau in The Social[ist] Contract regarding denial of the right to suicide and the state's claim to conscription:

Furthermore, the citizen is no longer the judge of the dangers to which the law-desires him to expose himself; and when the prince says to him: "It is expedient for the State that you should die," he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State.

It remains completely obvious to me that if I own my life then I alone have the right to take it. Obvious to Rousseau, too, for he takes great pain to assemble an argument that I do not have exclusive rights over my person, the state has a partial claim. Rather than detail his argument here, I'll handily dismiss it by pointing out that, though my life as I currently lead it depends on interaction with others (the economy, friends, family), I do not owe any of that to a government.

History and logic adequately demonstrate that humans and society existed before government, so it is certainly not government to which I owe my well-being. To believe the state's claim over my person because my labor is needed to fight in the war to end all wars, would be to believe a slave-master's claim of ownership over the slave because "somebody's gotta pick the cotton!"

The slave-master and government share another similarity in their means. In order for the master to direct the labor of the slaves he necessarily meets non-cooperation with violence in the form of lashings and hot-boxes. The government also meets non-cooperation of its citizen through violence. If I don't pay my taxes, then I will be given an extended time-out in jail. Nevermind that I didn't hurt anyone by neglecting to file, I'll certainly be raped in prison.

Now, let's get back to the economic misunderstanding in the quote from debate opponent on Facebook.

It's so funny how that NAP of your never quite makes it to how you injure people indirectly with economics.

I'm really not sure, based on the definitions, how the Non-Aggression Principle could possibly cause economic injury, directly or indirectly. If any particular act did cause injury, then it would be classified as a form of violence. The initiator of such violence is guilty of aggression, and therefore in violation of the NAP. Clearly, we have some misunderstanding of terms, but that's typical in any debate.

Despite the fact that there is no inalienable right to business and since it is a LICENSED privilege, the Government is well within its right to regulate your business and your private slice of the economy any way they see fit.

Well, technically, I can't claim the right to business is inalienable, because Government has demonstrated its ability to interfere, prevent, squash, regulate, and even license business. All actions that indeed infringe on my right to do business. But, I do strongly object to the claim that business only exists as a result of government license. Everyone has traded items in the schoolyard with friends. It may only be a small barter exchange, but it happened without government approval. That's unlicensed business!

To claim that the transactions, which form the foundation of business everywhere, only happen under government license is sheer folly. It's an empty claim that flies in the face of voluntary transactions everywhere. I see no reason to believe that the wide-spread practice of people voluntarily entering into transactions with each other, exchanging goods and services, would stop if government neglected its role of issuing licenses. Indeed even authors of fiction recognize this fact. In all the post-apocalyptic fiction I've encountered, people still conducted business. They did so before government began issuing license and continue to do so when government collapses.

The economy belongs to EVERYONE, not just you. Despite how much more you may have than anyone else.

One folly in logic births another. Again, I'm met with a clear misunderstanding of the economy and property rights. Even if I accepted the false premise that the economy belonged to everyone, that isn't enough to argue that the government is the only institution qualified to issue rights of participation (a.k.a. licenses) in the economy. What right has government to claim this monopoly on the economy? Do I have to point out that there exists a global economy wholly unregulated by any one government? International trade is responsible for 1/4th of World GDP and yet no government claims ownership over that economy.

Rather than belonging to everyone, the economy doesn't belong to anyone! It's the aggregate result of individual transactions, an emergent property of social interaction. The amount of stuff I have, and my access to credit, determine the transactions I'm able to participate in. Even the largest player in the market (up to 73 billion in a lifetime) are dwarfed by the economy as a whole (up to 70 trillion dollars exchanged per year). Everyone can certainly participate in the economy as a player, but nobody and no institution singularly determines the game.

Liberty Brunch at the Matador

It seems that all my recent posts have been about drinking and anarchy. Oh what a libertine soul I have! When the chance came up for imbibing for brunch, how could I restrain myself? No! Statism is for lazy chumps, while talk of anarchy is for the mentally active!

I showed up on time (10am) which was never a problem for evening gatherings, but proved to be 20 minutes early for this one. It seems the anarchists in my battalion lack discipline in their drinking. Nevertheless, I must concede that brunch is now my favorite of such gatherings, because it features a less crowded environment affording us more attention from the staff and only our own raucous conversation for background interference.

The Matador Cantina graciously served us brunch and booze, and even gave us all the tables in the back room. But that only makes responsible business sense, as we were the largest party in the establishment and required two tables. Unfortunately, the breakup of the party into two subgroups means that I cannot report on all the conversational topics.

A reasonable amount of discussion followed a recurring theme: The pursuit of happiness. We talked of love, relationships, group dynamics, evolution of sexual behaviors, the rough mating rituals of Ayn Rand's characters, and many other various pleasures of life.

Our fellows coming back from Libertopia regaled us with musings of some events and escapades. I really missed out, because they were twice able to breakfast in the esteemed company of the fabulous Jeffery Tucker. Fortunately, I can live vicariously through their tale, because they b(r)ought for me a lovely paisley 100% silk bowtie previously worn by the fashionable author of Burbon for Breakfast. And who said that anarchists don't have a sense of community? I flaunt my new bowtie at you!

I shall never cease to be encouraged by the average self-education level of libertarian groups. In one sense, we strongly self-select. In order to become libertarian one must live in a land of statism and somehow survive the indoctrination camps disconcertingly referred to as "schools of education." It seems that we have all managed to endure this mental handicap and found an inclination to use freely available resources (thar interwebs) to give ourselves knowledge formerly denied us. Each time these meetings have a wonderful sharing of knowledge and wisdom.

Consequently, I've never been to a meeting at without at least one book recommendation. This time I have several.

1. Order Without Law by Robert Ellickson
2. The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley
3. Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Word and More Fun Than You Think by Bryan Caplan.
4. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships by Christopher Ryan by Cacilda Jetha
5. A Renegade History of the United States by Thaddeus Russell
6. Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes
7. Salt by Mark Kurlansky
8. The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley

A civil engineer join our ranks, so I even got to learn who will build the roads! Even more fascinating he told me that raw material industries such as lumber and steel self-organize to form standards of construction. These documents make it easier for construction companies to adopt those materials for building houses and other structures. To mention a specific example: the lumber industries doesn't want wooden houses to collapse, because then people might stop using lumber for that purpose. So they helpfully provide standards of construction.

The state regulation board then takes these standards (already independently created by industry) and then gives it's magical blessing of bureaucratic authority. Clearly government regulation doesn't save us from the "evils" of these corporations. Even more to the point: good regulations require specialized knowledge. Often that knowledge comes directly from the industry being regulated. Individuals within the lumber industry knows how many trees can be cleared out of a forest without permanently damaging its ability to regrow. Government bureaucrats don't, so they rely on industry to inform them.

So I've found that where regulation is necessary and proper, industry has incentives to provide for itself. Government only adds a burden to those pre-existing market mechanisms. Government regulation: IT'S A TAX!

#LiveFreeOC and keep on keeping on.

Liberty on The Rocks, Orange County #2 - No Victim, No Crime

Drinking and Anarchy go quite well together. Last Thursday, the Admiral spent a few good hours with his mental countrymen. We challenged the great governmental attitudes of the Haven gastropub by occupying a couple of tables and paying for all of our drinks and appetizers. During the evening we heard inspiring tales of construction and investment from our resident entrepreneurs for liberty (Mona and Alexander)! Which just proves that anarchists are not at all destructive.

Of course, paving the way toward a new society based on voluntary cooperation means we have some house cleaning to accomplish. So we hashed out some plans for future peaceful disobedience, and discussed various means of spreading the word through activism strategies. Since there's nothing quite like being around friends, we even sketched out some plans for the great Libertopia down south in San Diego.

After imbibing at Haven, we went to the streets and gracefully stumbled over to the District Lounge. Of course, we arrived thirsty and ordered more drinks. At the time of our arrival, the District had not yet received it's crowd of dance patrons, and we were able to dominate the scene with a center table of rousing discussion. Our tongues were quite loosened by that time, so we opened with announcements of which victim-less "crimes" we commit, from jaywalking, speeding, and drug dealing, to their ridiculous punishments.

As natural anarchists, we allowed discussion to meander into the infinite scale of the universe, possible locations for a liberty brunch, and the nanomechanical grey goo disassembly of our homes. We were the biggest scene in the bar at that time, the bartender took a curious interest in the group, and queried our organizer for more information. He of course politely admitted that we were "individuals who want either a smaller government or no government at all." With great bemusement and a welcoming smile, he verified his suspicions "So, you're just a bunch of drunken anarchists?" proving that bars everywhere enjoy our patronage!

The Government needs your handouts

We're all familiar with the stories of criminal fraud, scandalous waste, and senseless abuse wrought by governments around the world, but how often do we seriously reflect on the driving force that preserves this institution? I've noticed that every time I eat out the state of California gets 50 cents of my purchase. Being the most populated state in the imperial union, that kind of change really adds up. I'm not going to question here the various ways and means by which this money is wasted. Rather, I'm noticing that, as powerful we might think the government is, it doesn't (nor could it afford to) do it's own collection. And that means it obligates you (and businesses) to act as tax accountants and collectors.

I've done some transactions through craigslist and noticed they were all done through cash. The practice is so well established, that participants simply assume that's the currency of choice. I'm not reporting the money I have received for the stuff that I have sold (used goods mostly sell at a loss anyway), nor do I expect that other sellers report themselves to the government. It's a beautiful anarchy!

All of the transactions that I've engaged in have been low dollar items, where the cost of reporting outweighs any benefit. The government didn't take part in these voluntary exchanges and I see no reason it should get a percentage cut. To prove that point, simply observe that the government doesn't even know about the exchange unless one of the parties turns hirself in. And where's the benefit in that?

Of course salary is different. Because my employer reports my monthly earnings, that income is not invisible to the government accountants. In order to remain in business companies have to file with a government registry that ties them to a tax ID number. Simply by being registered, companies become taxable entities. Big brother even offers two prongs of a pitchfork to get cooperation. On one prong the company avoids a swat raid by reporting on itself, while on the other it can reduce taxable profits by reporting salaries paid to employees as an expense item. Once the company reports my salary as an expense, I have to report it as income or the government trolls will notice that the finances don't balance.

But the government doesn't offer any company or individual an accountant to track and record the taxes. Instead, they rely on self-reporting, in a clear violation of the 5th amendment. Consequently, multi-state and multi-national firms have armies of accountants trying to navigate all the ambiguous, conflicting, and self-inconsistent rules. Not only is the tax itself a clear expense, but the tracking and accounting is too!

Both the size and complexity of the tax code have experience exponential growth. But you can't use that as an excuse when they pre-determine some trumped up guilt and audit your ass. US government courts have ruled, in the 1987 case Boulez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that following advice from an IRS agent in order to clarify what must be reported is not enough to avoid self-incrimination. The IRS isn't liable if they tell you a wrongful interpretation of their own rules. But you are!

So why do we each report on our own activity? Especially, with the danger of self-incrimination?

If everyone in the country decided not to rat themselves out one year, the government wouldn't have even close to the prison space or police force to round us all up. With public opinion so anti-government, they wouldn't last as long as a snowflake in hell. I can only conclude that we don't do this because government has more organization than its citizenry.

Government retains a standing army of men with guns, and they will go after me if I neglect to line their pockets. Those officers have become inured to the injustice of the situation and think it's "just part of the job" to harass me, plus the revenue pays for their own salary and pension. We freemen haven't yet found a way to band enough people together in a tax strike, so that it outnumbers government's capacity for enforcement. In valuing freedom and independence, we lack a strong forceful mechanism that might prevent defection on the agreement to neglect payment of taxes.

There is a next best step. It fortunately remains wide open, and is getting wider. As individuals who value freedom, who are too lazy for diligent accounting, and who don't like paying a third of their income to the government that represses us all, we can simply more to the black market. Earn income through cash (or bitcoin!!) in ways the government doesn't track. Then, if you don't bother reporting it, government simply won't know.

If the government wants to collect your money, the accounting expense should be on them. Don't give them the free labor of self-reporting. Calculate your hourly salary, multiply by the hours you spend on their frustrating forms, and deduct it from your taxes. If the government needs your labor, they should be made to pay for it.

And now for something completely different! All this talk of the underground market has reminded the good Admiral of his pirating experiences chart(er)ing the wide accountan-cy.

Liberty Activism

Alas, the Admiral has been negligent in his writing activities! For I have been buried deep in R'lyeh, and it took the calling of freemen to convince me that I must venture forth among the landed statists.

We gathered ourselves at Starbucks in Brea, under the auspices of planning out some activism. In attendance, were some political representatives for a local chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, a representative from the Leadership Institute Adam Weinburg, and an enthusiastic rallier Freedom Frank. All of whom had good advice how to spread the word of liberty and freedom.

For example, it helps to be able to converse in such a way that you do not alarm the people around you. The conversation and spreading of liberty happens best when you are able to lead your statist friends down the garden path of freedom. Keep up the social appearances and conversational graces so that you do not become pigeonholed as "that crazy idealistic freedom guy". Depending on the receptivity of your audience, it may be counteractive to try and spread the message by sailing our ship of ideas around with the Jolly Roger Black Flag of Anarchism flying in full sight.

Much to The Admiral's delight, we convened such a large gathering of libertines (yes we did discuss moral subjectivism) that we ended up homesteading all of the outdoor furniture at Starbucks! About 20 people attended, and half were fully anarchist! Hip, hip, hurrah! If those minimalist sate people keep showing up we'll get them converted for sure.

To promote liberty, freedom, and voluntarism, we discussed how to better our conversational approach. The fellows at the Leadership Institute offer many mechanisms, and even host some media and communication training courses. According to Adam Weinber, "You can learn these techniques from your sworn enemies." The political strategy that works for the statists can surely be made to serve the purposes of freedom. My personal friend Terry (who braved the public transportation system for a few hours just to attend) also recommends that advertising libertarian ideas to Toastmasters is sure to smooth off some rough edges.

As a group we also think that events are great fun to attend. Any peaceful activity that rubs government the wrong way, but where the majority of people will be on your side against the state is great newsworthy advertisement. For example, Lemonade Freedom Day is coming up on Aug 10th.

1. Sell lemonade on the street corner.
2. Get shut down or arrested.
3. Profit Promote Liberty

Go Robin Hooding by paying off expired parking meters so that innocent people can avoid an expensive fine. Prevent city hall from extorting those funds!

‘Robin Hood’ Parking Meter Group Sued by NH City (+Video)

Of course, given the prevalence of anarchists that attended, we also strayed off topic and into areas of moral subjectivism, the self-inconsistency of the term"intellectual property" which of course completely justifies learning promotion tactics from our political adversaries, alternative currencies and the nature of market competition for money itself.

It's truly amazing to see so much intellectual wealth voluntarily shared! When you go out there to advertise, make sure to use the tag #LiveFreeOC so that everyone can see the excitement of the limelight!

The Outsider visits Anacapolis

In a hypothetical universe, there is a wealthy arcology called Anacapolis where almost everyone gets along and follows the non-aggression principle. Those who don't are pressured into restituting the victim for their crimes, lest the courts refuse them service for all future infractions or defense.

On one fine spring day, a jovial character named Rothbard, fashionably dressed in light summer suit and bowtie, was taking a stroll through the park with ideas for articles to convince the surrounding, and less wealthy, fiefdoms that the political non-structure of Anacapolis was surely the best way to organize their affairs. The people residing in the surrounding governments were jealous of the vast wealth of Anacapolis, but were not allowed to emigrate. Occasionally, they tried to seize land belonging to community members, but have always been successfully rebuffed by a combination of volunteer militia with better weaponry and threats of embargo by corporations based in Anacapolis.

At the same time, the alien Zorg was flying through the area performing a planetary survey for the Solar Federation to discover whether these primitive humans were a threat to central command. For a week now, Zorg had been flying over the various continents and hadn't seen anything at all remarkable. Mostly, he found the planet filled with rival nations that occasionally shed blood over issues of pride and insult. They had primitive vehicles that ran on oil, slow trains that ran on coal, all of which polluted the air. In performing his research, Zorg had to lurk in street alleyways order not to reveal his presence and discovered the city streets smelled strongly of urine. He just couldn't understand why the local governments didn't prevent these people from soiling their own pens.

Even the entertainment was broadcast on bandwidth wasting mechanisms at far greater power than necessary. However, that extra power was exactly what had attracted the attention of the Federation, in spite of the fact that it was easily decoded and not very much fun to watch. Finally, his week long survey of poor technology, filthy cities, and bad television was nearing an end.

As Zorg flew swiftly across this last continent for his survey, he noticed that the technologies were much better than on the rest of the planet. It piqued his interest why these goods hadn't made it to the rest of the world. Of course his government would have solved that problem long ago with a centrally planned travel infrastructure reaching across the entire planetary surface.

The sight of some extravagant architecture in the distance disrupted Zorg's thought about systemically solving that problem. How had these people afforded themselves such a monument to wealth? He rapidly moved his ship closer to land in one of their beautiful parks, near a lone figure ambling along and clearly lost in his own head.

Rothbard shook with surprise when he first heard the thunderous noise of Zork's engines. He'd been using this park so frequently, that he'd become good friends with Rockwell, the park owner. Rockwell had never permitted such a noise disruption as this craft was now making. And, in flagrant violation of custom, it was descending to land and ruin the grounds with its weight! Clearly, this must be some outsider. But the source of Anacapolis' wealth was its technological superiority, so who had created this flying machine? Rothbard certainly wasn't going to miss out on this hullabaloo, and shuffled off to a safer distance for the landing.

The craft deployed support legs and came to rest of the grounds. As Rothbard waited in barely-contained excitement, a platform descended, with a lone and slender figure standing at the top. The figure walked down the plank, and Rothbard eagerly ran up to be the first one to speak to this stranger. He decided to put his best foot forward and welcome the outsider, in spite of the damage he'd done to the park. "Hello, there! I'm so very pleased to be the first to welcome you to the community of Anacapolis!"

Alien: Hello. I am Zorg, and have been surveying this planet for signs of civilization. Your arcology stands out as being the most wealthy of all places that I have visited on this world.

Rothbard: That's strong praise!

Zorg: Take me to your leader so that I may get more information about this shining city.

Rothbard: Oh, well that's an interesting request. Of course, I'm my own leader. What kind of information did you want? Surely, I can help direct you!

Zorg: You mean to say that I have the fortunate luck of meeting the leader of this community, even though I chose the first park I saw of a size large enough for my ship to land? That's surely a coincidence! And what would you be doing walking in the park by yourself, rather than commanding organization in the central administrative building? Where are your attendants? Surely there are many for a city this size.

Rothbard: I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm responsible for myself, and follow whomever I think has good ideas. There is no single person "in charge" here. We have many people, each worrying about their own business. Together that adds up to the beautiful city you see before you.

Zorg: That's not possible. Your city shows more cleanliness, better technology, and other subtle forms of higher organization than the rest of the areas I have surveyed. This level of organization requires an organizer.

Rothbard: We shall have to discuss this a little bit later. I see Rockwell, this park's owner, approaching us with some enforcement officers.

Zorg (under his breath): Well at least now I can get to the leader through his police force.

To be continued...

Liberty on the Rocks: Orange County Launch in Fullerton

Last night I attended the launching of Liberty on the Rocks group for Orange County. I give you land lubbers my optimistic sentiments. This time I wore a bow tie after the fashionable Jeffrey Tucker and venerable Rothbard. I highly recommend dressing up when you go out for drinks, women love the extra effort. Next time, it'll be full pirate regalia!

Although I arrived late because the government roads congested with traffic and doubled by travel time, I thoroughly enjoyed imbibing with fellow libertarians at the Liberty on the Rocks event at Bootlegger's Brewery in Fullerton. For a reboot of a club that previously petered out, I was quite enthusiastic to promote the message of anarchy to a crowd of about 25.

On our side, we had an entrepreneur designer working on projects that promote the message of liberty, an couple enjoying their beautiful anarchy as far as they can, some politically minded folk from Young Americans for Liberty chapters both Fullerton and Irvine, a local Libertarian Party leader who invited us to switch our registration an increase their statistical weight, and many enthusiastic others. The introductions were brief, probably lasting only about 10 minutes, in keeping with my experience with the LoTR LA group. This schedule left much time for chatter about many topics.

The Admiral has some extreme views (statists think so anyway) and doesn't particularly act as a compelling spokesman to potential initiates in the world of voluntary cooperation. Anarchism is really and truly a grassroots program, and the energy I get from meeting these people is a wonderful oasis in the intellectual desert of our statist culture. Of course, the best part was not necessarily talking to the like-minded, but in the opportunity to argue with fellow statist commoners that happened to be enjoying the brewery at the same time.

For example, a few voluntarists from our group had been working on getting agreement with a local government employee, an EMT for the Fire Dept. The Admiral, in his counter-productive and unapologetic manner unfortunately ruined the recruitment. I stepped in, because I really liked the promotion of voluntary ideals, but the EMT found my position far too extreme. Curiously, with a poorly consider ad hominem attack, our government employed EMT accused me of milking the taxpayers with my tuition and half-of-minimum wage salary! Oh what amusement!

A union-loving democrat and his radical motorcycle-riding friend also regaled us with an inspiring tale! He had been riding on the 91 freeway and was passed by some reckless (well, by state rules anyway) cops travelling an exhilarating 120mph. Not to be outdone by the uniformed officials, and filled with rage from their flagrant hypocrisy, he sped up to catch these two uniformed and power indulgent individuals. They promptly performed their duty and pulled him over for reckless speeding, but he was successful in negotiating his way out of their victim-less crime ticket. Let this be a lesson to us all, we can all succeed in pointing out abuse of authority!

I think it's great to have these events in public places, because it's such a wonderful opportunity to spread the word in a grassroots manner. Though The Admiral comes off abrasive and extreme, indeed I take great mirth in decimating conversation norms, our more socially fluent can get others to hate the state, and encourage them to self-empowerment against the uniformed.

Liberal Libation

Today, The Admiral will be celebrating the ideals of freedom with some libations among friends. That's right, he'll be drinking some Liberty on the Rocks, in Fullerton.  An after-event report will be issued as soon as The Admiral re-acquires his land legs.

Leading by Example

All of the anarchists that The Admiral meets are peaceful folk that follow one guiding principle: The Non-Aggression Principle. They think it is wrong to use force to get your way. And they believe that it is a great sadness for us to fight with each other and use government force to mold society. They all recognize that the market enables lasting cooperation between people that have fundamental philosophical disagreements.

But these positive and optimistic anarchists are a rare breed. So we all follow the words and teachings of a few role models such as Walter Block, David Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and the venerable Murray Rothbard. We recognize the value of voluntary cooperation and of freedom. But we find ourselves in a land of statism. How best to promote the path we know is right?

Imagine for a minute that you are a serf during the Middle Ages. You look around and find a few things that are really awesomely cool, like that band of bards that traveled through last month, and the seasonal harvest festivals. You compare that to the king and his castle, and think: every year he taxes some of my meager wealth and I'm not allowed to say what he spends it on!

So you go to your friend, also a poor serf, and suggest to him: Why don't we have a representative democracy like the Romans did? We outnumber this king and his guards, we can band together and force him to change, to give us a vote on how we want our tax money spent. We eat well only during festival, and he eats lavishly every day!

 

But your friend knows only his own experience and isn't aware of Italian history. Just as today, the people I suggest anarchy to have known only statism and haven't read Rothbard in their statist school. Your friend ponders the proposal for a bit, and then points out that this democracy idea would never work!

For one thing, we've always had a King. Without the king we wouldn't have someone to lead and protect us. We would be disorganized without his leadership. And why would anyone want to step down from that role voluntarily after four years? King is for life.

Supposing that we were able to convince our own King that it is good for him to step down and let us choose a new leader, what would stop the new guy from staying in power? He'd control the castle guard. Sure he'd say all the right things for us to elect him. But I don't think he'd allow another election. Nobody would give up the power of King.

So you think you're proposing a peaceful election, but really we'd just end up fighting a bloody civil war with each other every four years. And what if you and I disagreed about who should be next, then we'd probably end the friendship because only one of us will be on the right side of that battle. The winner would gloat, and the loser would feel soured.

No, democracy is totally unworkable. I think it's better to just keep our King and pay him the taxes. He's doing a pretty good job. Don't let the roving merriment of the bards lure your mind into some kind of unrealistic utopia.

Of course, The Admiral has invented this tale with some analogies. The friend basically argues from ignorance. He can't imagine that any other system of governance than monarchy would work. So, he invents some justification for how the current regime should remain. And it sounds reasonable!

But anyone arguing for democracy today repeats these blunders. They can't think of alternatives, because no alternatives are mentioned by the media or state education system. Instead, we are all well versed in different aspects of centralized government: representative republic, direct democracy, and monarchy. Everyone (except my friendly anarchist compatriots) think that without government to rule us society would collapse. We need a narrative that shows otherwise!

An an anarchist, I'm proposing peaceful self-governance. Yet people think I'm proposing a total lack of law and order. But law, just as any other good and service, can be provided on the free market, for less cost and at higher quality than politically-oriented monopoly government. And order is simply the natural and spontaneously emergent sum of individuals cooperating with each other.

In a world of people that think "only one ruler for life" is the only workable alternative, they will indeed take sides between two uncertain princes and fight for one to be king. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Meanwhile, today, in a world of people that think "we need to vote for our legislature" is the only workable means of organization, they will indeed assume the necessity of government, and assign to it socially necessary goods and services, such as police protection, roads, law, courts, etc. Again, when people think they cannot make do on their own with each other, government becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that's exactly why we need for anarchists to be vocal role models, walking in a different direction. Those following the non-aggression principle are a peaceful folk. Entrepreneurs, even when not specifically of anarchist mindset, can fashion alternatives to government services: Private security in Detroit, decentralized electronic currency like Bitcoin, and private education as reported by James Tooley in The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves.

With these successes, what can be accomplished when anarcho-entrepreneurs make it a point to out-compete government? Self-governance in its natural market form.

Anarchism and Self-Actualization

John Taylor Gatto

After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I've concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven't yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves. (Against School)

It took The Admiral some time to realize this, but Liberty and anarchism go hand-in-hand. By that I mean that when we take liberty, defined as independence and freedom from despotic control, to its logical extreme, we arrive at anarchism, the abolishment of government. It pays well to remember that anarchy, despite what the media portrays, is not the same as riotous, tumultuous, discord and destruction.

Think back to all the times that you were hanging out with friends in a public place. Did you notice the mass of people surrounding you were behaving themselves? That there was a complete and total lack of rioting? And did you notice the absence of police? How curious, that the majority of our lives are naturally spent in reasonable cooperation with total strangers. Does the government have to put a cop on every corner to keep people from becoming an unruly mob? Obviously not!

We don't need government nor its bully baton to get along with each other. The vast majority of people, in all cultures, simply go-along-to-get-along. We are social creatures. Were it the case otherwise, no amount of government (which must draw labor from the very people it governs) would be able to force cooperation. So government, as a mechanism of creating social order, is superfluous, for we naturally create an emergent and spontaneous ordering with each individual interaction.

So why then, do arguments about police enforcement carry such weight? Could it be, that we have a schooling system and mass media that consistently and persistently tells us that without them to tell us what to do, without their authority and direction society would collapse? Spend a day trying to spot all the instances where this message is implicitly written. The number will surprise you enough to turn off the telly.

But without the government to tell me what to do and advertisements to tell me what to buy, where would I get direction in my life? I'd be living in self-imposed anarchy! Which is really just to say: I now have to figure out on my own, what I think is best for me. Anarchy, especially personal, daily, anarchy, is about self-empowerment.

The biggest pity is, most people are so tuned-in to the authortarian message that they don't realize it's possible to tune out. That we actually, already live mostly in anarchy. So it's not hard to practice exercising control over your life. The government doesn't have the capabilities of tracking your life in every minute detail. It's reach and capabilities are still limited. The populace greatly outnumbers the police. Don't let yourself be pushed around by government, media, social pressures, etc. Their message is mental TAX that you pay for through learned helplessness. Obsequious obedience keeps you from realizing your full potential.


We don't need a bully to force us cooperate with each other. But the bully will tell us otherwise. The bully will make up scary stories to convince us we need him to protect us. But, if we give away the power to protect ourselves, who will protect us from the bully? Anarchism is about taking back from the bully what rightfully belongs to us.

Under anarchy, you direct your own life. You set the goals and aspirations that you want to achieve. It's a path of self-actualization. You get to set your value system, and take responsibility for your own success. You call the shots. And you can practice this power with every little decision throughout your day!

Anarchy isn't chaos, it's liberation that anyone can practice!

Overcome Stockholm Syndrome

Often in debates with non-anarchists, my expectations of a free, peaceful, spontaneously ordered society are met with great skepticism. I attribute this lack of imagination to the government indoctrination camps we are all forced through as defenseless children.

For example, in high school I partook in an AP Government course of United States History. For those not familiar with the Advanced Placement program, it's a statist invention that allows the more gifted students to take a course during high school followed with a test that counts for college credit, provided you receive a high enough score. I passed all of the AP tests I took except the government one.

At the time, the subject of government, particularly the lineage of Presidents, did not interest me. Now, the subject interests me in the same way that the gruesome carnage of a vehicular accident (somehow these always occur on government roads) attracts passing motorists. That is, I'm interested in government's numerous failures, inefficiencies, and manufactured emergencies. Fortunately, I can gorge my macabre attention with any daily news program. That's a market service!

But why would the high school, or more accurately the AP program, force knowledge of US history down my gullet? Instead of say, China or India, which both have 100 times longer history than the United States. They claim that it's important for me to know my heritage, but at the time I was more preoccupied with the future (and mostly still am). Yet, they didn't actually show me lessons that have ramifications today.

For example, did you know that all of the US Presidents that fought against central banking, or that tried to reduce its power have been assassinated? Is that coincidence or conspiracy? And it doesn't even have to be conspiracy, but merely self-interest. All it would take is a single individual with questionable ethics out of the affected group. Have you ever known a banker to willingly part from other people's money?

Or what about the introduction of the income tax? My parents and grandparents don't recall living without this kind of wealth slavery, but there was a time when America was a prosperous land without income tax. George Washington himself led an army against protesters objecting to an excise tax on Whiskey. (A tale beautifully recounted by Rothbard in When the Feds First Attacked the Americans) There was a time when nobody would take the job of tax collector because of social opprobrium.

I was taught to revere Abraham Lincoln as a political god that help to keep the union in tact. Whereas I now think of him as an exemplar politician, raping the constitution, violating human rights by suspending habeas corpus and imprisoning reporters, needlessly calling the country into war against itself, and stomping the basic sovereign right of secession. He even formed a special praetorian guard with initials SS. Lincoln is America's Hitler.

Ok, so the US government has an interest in all children learning a history approved by that same government. Any wonder these anti-government lessons were left out? Even in the "advanced" program I was fed mostly positive images of government, with outcomes of war written by the winners. An endless justification of criminally destructive behavior!

Also, my school didn't have any course with actually questioned the necessity of government. I was never introduced to Rothbard, Block, or David Friedman. I had to make these discoveries on my own much, much later! What I value most about my education, I cannot attribute to the state, but to my friends, myself, and my own relentless curiosity that somehow survived the indoctrination.

Sadly, I cannot say the same of those I talk to and interact with in daily life. They have been starved of these liberating ideas. And every time I suggest, even in one tiny aspect, that some service can be performed better through voluntary cooperation than through government coercion, I meet with desperate fanaticism, of the kind that can only come from 18 years of indoctrination. For the imprisoned so love the caves that protect them from outside illumination.

By finding this page, I know that your journey into mental freedom has already begun. Continue taking learning into your own hands. Don't trust the government school to accurately teach you the history of government.

Flush the state's deep programming from your mind by following a path of freedom and self-determination. Live your life as much on your own terms as practical, setting an example to others: the power of freedom!

Oregon's Educational Blunder

Last week, while I was out having fun and railing about the Authoritarian Lessons of Education, a statist education bill in Oregon passed through the legislative assembly. The advocates nicknamed it the "Pay-it-Forward Bill" because it aims to "replace current system of tuition and fees required to attend institution of higher education" (HB 3472), because the tuition fees are getting rather out of control.

I really have to hand it to these government types. They seriously think that the un-affordability of their public universities is comparable to the end of civilization. You don't believe me? Read the bill. They just added a section:

SECTION 4.  { + This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency
is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its
passage. + }

According to the plan: residents of Oregon graduating high school will be able to prolong their childhood by attending, for free, an Oregon public college or university. But watch out! Any time he government gives something away for free, you know it shows up someplace else: "It's a TAX"!.

Sure enough, they plan to pay for current students by withholding a small percentage of income after graduation. Remember when I claimed that people coming out of a state indoctrination center are unable to imagine voluntary mechanisms? Apparently, I wasn't speaking hyperbole.

The bill’s passage did not result from a multi-year coordinated effort hammered out by elite policymakers. Incredibly, it started just this past fall, with a college senior project at Portland State University. The 6-credit “capstone” course was called “Student Debt: Economics, Policy and Advocacy,” and it sought to combine deep research of the history of student debt with the real-world experience of actively seeking potential remedies. “We wanted to propose a solution to begin to resolve the issue on the state level,” said Ariel Gruver, one of the 15 students. (Oregon Students Fight Back Against Debt, And Win)

Instead of breaking up the bureaucratic monstrosity that has led to higher tuition, these people, students even! want to double down. Graduates from this program contract to pay 3% of their future earnings for 20 years, so that the proceeds can go to pay for a new generation of state captured students. This sounds suspiciously like a scholarship, except that it's not discipline specific, so it doesn't respond to market demands for skills.

And the reporting on this program is full of optimistic nonsense. Let me poke some holes: What if graduates leave the state? what if they leave the country? Does an Oregon program extend to foreign income? What if they majored in something worthless and never pay back in because they can't get a job? or they get a job within the Oregon university system and leech the program for their entire life?

I see no reason why similar contracts, individually negotiated wouldn't achieve similar goals. I mean, my parents were able to secure students loan for their tuition. These loans were not as heavily regulated at the time, so the provider had to worry about default. Because of this concern, STEM majors had an easier time getting loans. Rates followed market demand for skills, discouraging abuse on all sides.

This Oregon plan doesn't have those balances. In fact, people with no understanding of economics think of this deficit as a virtue:

This [pre-tax payroll deduction] creates an incentive to choose a career based on personal fulfillment, rather than one that earns lots of money to pay down student debt. Income-based repayment exists at the federal level, but it’s a higher percentage of income (capped at 10 percent of discretionary income) and it merely pays off individual student loan debt. It does not have Pay It Forward’s element of universality, where everyone pays into the program and attends college tuition-free. (Oregon Students Fight Back Against Debt, And Win)

So Oregon is basically toying with implementing a universal income-based repayment (IBR) scheme, something I have been (probably excessively) advocating on behalf of for over a year.
...
Additionally, because a universal IBR system requires individuals to pay back a percentage of their income, it ensures that graduates that go on to more lucrative careers effectively subsidize graduates that do not. So, it is (in a sense) internally redistributive, which is a positive from an egalitarian perspective. Finally, because repayment is based on income, no one will find themselves overly burdened by the repayment obligation. (Oregon Is Doing Free Higher Education the Right Way)

So it's egalitarian to make others pay? To force the highly skilled that are now to subsidize the mediocre. To allocate costs to society, the same one that you claim to be saving! which now has to pay for the malinvestment in worthless majors! Oh but wait, this plan is approved by politicians, who probably did pick such majors, and journalists, who undoubtedly picked such majors!

Don't do it Oregon! Free (statist) Education is a TAX!

Breaking Free of Authoritarian Schooling

In the last few posts I've recorded some ways in which the state schooling system indoctrinates its victims to respect its authority, even when that authority is later abused. This system keeps most people subservient to government bureaucrats and politicians. Fortunately for you, now that I have pointed out only a small portion of the damage, you are ready to continue breaking out of their control.

Winston Churchhill

Schools have not necessarily much to do with education...they are mainly institutions of control where certain basic habits must be inculcated in the young. Education is quite different and has little place in school.

George Bernard Shaw

My schooling not only failed to teach me what it professed to be teaching, but prevented me from being educated to an extent which infuriates me when I think of all I might have learned at home by myself.

Today, we face an entirely different world than when government schooling was first invented. In fact, the primary reasons for its invention no longer apply, for the free market (as taxed as it has been for these last 150years) has delivered several mechanisms through which we can educate our children, each other, and ourselves. We can finally be free of the government lessons. We have the opportunity to think independently, and to nurture that skill in others.

John Holt

A person's freedom of learning is part of his freedom of thought, even more basic than his freedom of speech. If we take from someone his right to decide what he will be curious about, we destroy his freedom of thought. We say, in effect, you must think not about what interests and concerns you, but about what interests and concerns us.

For the parents of young children, I strongly recommend home schooling. There are many resources online that can help out. Using the internet for tight communication and sharing of ideas, many local communities have home schooling meetups. They trade off the burden of teaching and "socialization". They share learning techniques. It's an investment that pays off over time.

For example, I know one capable and self-motivated individual who learned his skills under the direction of his own parents. By the time he was in 9th grade, he could be told "write an essay on X" without any further direction. He'd internalized the self-correction mechanisms necessary for critical thought and independence. The government didn't hand him everything on a silver platter, or force him into maladaptive behavior like learned helplessness and fear of being wrong. Rather, he learned the most useful skill of all: how to self-educate.

Isaac Asimov

Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is.

I often feel rather hopeless compared to those home-schooled, equally smart and knowledgeable individuals 10 years my junior. But it's never too late! Even as an adult you can give yourself a remarkable education. You simply have to take advantage of the materials available. These are both more plentiful and more accessible today than ever before.

For example, Scott Young, did some self-study using MIT's OpenCourseWare. In one year he did their entire 4-year CS program, and motivated himself using a website about the MIT Challenge.

MIT's not the only one. Some of my friends are using Coursera, Udacity, and KahnAcademy, just to name the biggest names. The only drawback seems to be a lack of credentialism. But these educational pioneers are working rapidly to solve that problem (and make a profit doing so). With many of these courses coming from the big-name institutions, like Stanford and Georgia Tech, you have very little reason to pay both the quarterly admission and housing fees plus 4 years of your life attending a brick and mortar. You can get nearly 80% of the quality at home, at your own pace, provided you have the self-discipline and diligence.

And it doesn't matter if you don't have credentials for the stuff that you learn at home. You can ussing the same medium that you use to acquire those skills, namely the Internet, to make a page that advertises your abilities! What employer would turn down Scott Young, after they see his page? Surely he's worth more, after a single year, than an actual MIT attendee after four years!

Stanly Kubrick

I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.

So let go the statist mentalities that hold you back. Pursue the topics that most interest you. Set some plans for self-improvement, and work on your goals a little bit each day.

John Holt

Education now seems the most authoritarian and dangerous of all the social inventions of mankind. It is the deepest foundation of the modern slave state, in which most people feel themselves to be nothing but producers, consumers, spectators, and 'fans,' driven in all parts of their lives, by greed, envy, and fear. My concern is not to improve 'education' but to do away with it, to end the ugly and antihuman business of people-shaping and to allow and help people to shape themselves.

Self-realization, self-actualization, and self-empowerment are the goals of anarchy. And they all begin with self-education!