Voluntary Police Cut Down on Violence

I'll be honest, that as much as I love anarchism as a principle for organization (if it can even be called that), I don't think that it could be adopted overnight. Before I say too much about why that is let me first point to how markets provide for statist failures.

To find this evidence, we have to look around the world for absentee government. I know Somalia makes an extreme case, but I'm going to focus attention closer to home (for U.S. folk anyway). Detroit has suffered exactly the kind of bankruptcy that happens when government promises delivery of welfare and then promptly runs out revenue it expected to garnish from an industry now in collapse. Of course, the adjustment is painful, like that experienced by an obese whale suddenly switching to a low calorie diet.

With the mass evacuation of the city, property tax revenue is down. So Detroit's city government faces bankruptcy and has been forced to practice austerity by cutting back on services such as police and fire departments. Even 911 service operates only during business hours. Oh, do I hear cries that those services are necessary for a functioning society? What would we do without Big Brother to provide them for us? Will somebody *please* think of the children?

Well, number 2 pencils important for schoolchildren to learn writing. Yet I, Pencil doesn't report of any government that plans for the manufacture, shipping, stocking, distribution, and allocation of pencils. Fortunately so, because planned economies lack price information and consequently don't work very well. Instead complex things like pencils and computers just end up being "magically" provided by the underpants gnomes of the free market. Maybe that can be the case also for services such as police and fire fighting?

Indeed, according to Robert Taylor at policymic.com, that's exactly the case!

Dale Brown and his organization, the Threat Management Center (TMC), have helped fill in the void left by the corrupt and incompetent city government. Brown started TMC in 1995 as a way to help his fellow Detroit citizens in the midst of a rise in home invasions and murders. While attempting to assist law enforcement, he found little but uninterested officers more concerned with extracting revenue through traffic tickets and terrorizing private homes with SWAT raids than protecting person and property.

In an interview with Copblock.org, Brown explains how and why his private, free market policing organization has been so successful. The key to effective protection and security is love, says Brown, not weapons, violence, or law. It sounds a bit corny, yes, but the results speak for themselves. -- This is What Budget Cuts Have Done to Detroit ... And It's Freaking Awesome

You read that right! and he explains more in the interview. Police protection can be provided on a voluntary basis. With all the recently abandoned buildings Detroit might have become a hotbed of crime and catastrophe. However, Dale saw opportunity and embraced it. His success proves that police don't have to have a "crack skulls" attitude to keep crime at bay.

Almost 20 years later and Detroit's financial mess even more apparent, TMC now has a client base of about 1,000 private residences and over 500 businesses. Thanks to TMC's efficiency and profitability, they are also able to provide free or incredibly low-cost services to the poor as well.

The reasons TMC has been so successful is because they take the complete opposite approach that government agencies, in this case law enforcement, do. Brown's philosophy is that he would rather hire people who see violence as a last resort, and the handful of Detroit police officers who actually worked with Brown in the earlier years and have an interest in genuine protection now work for TMC. While governments threaten their citizens with compulsion, fines, and jail if they don't hand over their money, TMC's funding is voluntary and subject to the profit-loss test; if Brown doesn't provide the services his customers want, he goes out of business.
 -- This is What Budget Cuts Have Done to Detroit ... And It's Freaking Awesome

So it's really just that simple. Government fails and the market steps in to provide. Doesn't seem to matter what the service is. I don't see that TMC is re-organizing itself to become the mob insurance program that it's replacing. Dale is more interested in satisfying customers than he is in extracting their wealth through intimidation. The market mechanism keeps his peace-enforcement organization in check.

This means that Brown is not interested in no-knock para-military SWAT raids, "officer safety" as the highest priority, bloated union pensions, or harassing people for what they have in their bloodstream. TMC works with its customers on the prevention of crime as well rather than showing up after the fact to take notes like historians.

The heroic Brown and TMC are a great example of how the market and civil society can and do provide services traditionally associated with the state far better, cheaper and more in tune to people's wants and needs. I have always believed policing, protection and security are far too important to be run by the state — especially in age of militarized Stormtroopers — and Brown is helping show why.
 -- This is What Budget Cuts Have Done to Detroit ... And It's Freaking Awesome

Did you catch the radical difference between the attitude and behavior of police officers that comes as a result of the different funding model? State-supplied enforcement encroaches on liberties, focuses on prosecuting victim-less crimes and permits unwarranted harassment  While the market-supplied officers help out when you call for them and otherwise try to stay out of your way. The don't treat the people as sheep. They aren't resented by the public they serve.

Police protection isn't so radically different from other goods and services that it requires government. Freedom permits emergent and spontaneous order. Let go of the state and embrace anarchism! Do it before you fall as far as Detroit!

State Brutality

When I began this blog, just days ago, I thought that I might eventually run out of content to post, but the opposite happened. It feels as though my eyes have been opening. Keep in mind that the Admiral has held steadfast to Anarchism since discovering Rothbard, von Mises, Rockwell, and Jeffrey Tucker. But, now as I get my daily dose of social media and the occasional, but highly valued and always long-winded discussion with friends, I constantly encounter material for this here blog. It's like statism has me surrounded!

Today, I'm turning my attention to the petty authoritarians employed by the state. Not the people at the TSA who cringe when they have to grope you, but those of such small character that they need to borrow state authority to embiggen their own ego. The petty tyrants at the DMV that gloat over you when you fill out the forms required to drive your own car on roads that you already paid for through taxes. And especially the Polizei.

Now, I know some of the police, especially the older ones, behave like a charming Andy Griffith and really do try to stay out of your way and return you home safely when you screw up in public. These officers of old comport themselves more as parents interested in seeing you learn from the experience than in an authoritarian intent on prosecution (read: state-sanctioned persecution).

I'm referring to the criminal element of the government's enforcement tentacles. You know, that high school bully, who isn't interested in anything else but "busting some chops" and somehow managed to get a state sanction for his (dis)service to humanity. I don't know what's so magic about uniforms, but once this character dresses up in one, he morphs from bully to self-righteous, sanctimonious asshole.

It's appalling that so many people think we need a government protection racket to save us from thugs, bullies, and thieves. But the cops themselves are all too often thugs and bullies loyal first to each other and funded through the garnishment of your hard-earned wages. A mob-insurance program if ever there was one!

This organization doesn't deliver the safety that it promises. Not even close! Consider that the Bureau of (in)Justice Statistics reports 4813 arrest-related deaths between 2003 and 2009, with a full 61% (2,931) of those being "homicide by law enforcement". These uniformed villains do not have our best interests in mind. But I don't have to resort to death to make my point. Indeed the petty brutalities that you live through can have life-long ramifications.

Weirgetinhit has a YouTube channel that collects 40 minutes of police brutality every month! And that's only the stuff he was able to gather! Imagine how much goes unrecorded! I watched only part of one episode and already felt terrible. These goons even attack a guy in a wheelchair who clearly reacted in non-violent self-defense against the unwarranted onslaught.

But beating up the handicapped in the safety of your own interrogation room isn't enough for these bullies. They have to invent ever more clever ways of finding victims.

When a half-dozen men and a woman in street clothes closed in on University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly, 20, she and two roommates panicked.

A group of state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents clad in plainclothes approached her, suspecting the blue carton of LaCroix sparkling water to be a 12-pack of beer. Police say one of the agents jumped on the hood of her car. She says one drew a gun. Unsure of who they were, Daly tried to flee the darkened parking lot.

Prosecutors say she apologized profusely when she realized who the agents were. But that wasn't good enough for ABC agents, who charged her with three felonies. Prosecutors withdrew those charges Thursday in Charlottesville General District Court, but Daly still can't understand why she sat in jail.

-- Bottled-water purchase leads to night in jail for UVa student

Nor can I.

She clearly acted in terrified self-defense. How exactly does a case of beer warrant such violent reaction? even if the suspect runs, all they have is beer! What are they gonna do? drink it? maybe all at once? give it to friends and enjoy themselves?

What's most appalling though, is this tragic experience still has not taught her that these "police" are mob goons. Because, even during the attack she and her friends dialed 911. They considered driving to a police station, and they even stopped for a different agent driving a car with lights and sirens. Even after a night in jail,

Chapman stood by the agents' decision to file charges, citing faith in a process that yielded an appropriate resolution.

She still has faith in statism after this act of domestic terrorism! What does it take for people to wake up?

Fortunately, some victims of the state know the right questions to ask. I only wish they had defenders.

Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5
Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood

Red Tape

Regulations, and the massive bureaucratic that double-checks compliance, are a drain on the economy. For some reason, that I will probably never be able to fathom, most people fear the absence of rules more than they fear the creation of rules. They seem to think that, "if everyone would just follow the rules, then things will turn out fine" but don't realize that they're committing 3 felonies a day doing completely innocent things in everyday activity.

How often will it take for sleazy politicians to campaign on promises of "cleaning up" only to create another book of ineffective rules that add to the ever-growing thicket of regulations. It could be the case that the market needs some kind of reform or other, some small tweaks and improvements, but the heavy hand of government is not the way to bring about these positive changes.

Any new regulation imposes costs. It first generates more paperwork within government, usually resulting in the employment of a few people, and sometimes entire agencies that seem to grow without bound. I'm glaring right at you Homeland Security and TSA. These bean counters do mindless paper shuffling, day in and day out, at taxpayer expense. But somehow, even this direct bureaucratic cost never seems to enter into the analysis of whether the new rules should be created. I'd much rather these people be employed doing productive and interesting work in the private sector. I'm sure they'd rather be too.

But it's not just the shifting of jobs into government paper mills that costs. We also have to factor in the additional hassle that the rules impose on private companies and individuals. It's appalling that the government can justify their need to analyse the private goods of individuals (*cough* TSA *cough*) groping for some misalignment. I'm surprised they find people willing to be employed demeaning others about not filling out all the forms correctly.

These two costs have to be paid somehow. Clearly government regulation isn't producing much of anything. The rules, and enforcement that comes with them, doesn't come for free. It must somehow come out of the profitable parts of the private sector, which means "It's a TAX!"

Regulations form a hidden tax that shows up as inefficiency creeps in due to filling out forms rather than producing the goods and services that people want. Ask any doctor how much of the hospital staff is employed for HIPAA regulation! Ask Peter Schiff why he won't hire more analysts! You don't like filling out IRS forms once a year, corporations have to do that every 3 months!

I really shouldn't have been surprised earlier, about people getting jobs wrapping everyone else in red tape. It's a natural consequence of the regulatory trend: Government regulates, increasing the cost of business. Companies hire less, so more people are desperate to get jobs. They finally resort to becoming a passenger harassment official for the TSA.

And it's not like the regulations really make anything better. The financial industry is the most regulated industry in the economy and still the biggest firms managed to need bail-outs in 2008. Regulations introduce a fragility into the market that causes failures to be more catastrophic, but I'll have to get to that in a future post.

Big Brother in the Bedroom

Note that I am neither a lawyer, nor have I read the Justice opinions on today's supreme court ruling about the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states:

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

As an anarchist, I have no trouble with Section 1. Congress can call their silly Acts by whatever name they please. But I would like to point out that politicians have a nasty habit of commandeering terms and contorting them to mean the opposite of common usage. For example, the "Patriot Act" enables the government to infringe on the privacy of American citizens, undermining civil liberties in a flagrantly unpatriotic manner. So I counsel all my friends to never let a politician define the terms of the debate.

Section 2 is nearly unparsable and took me quite some time to decipher. If I'm reading it correctly, it basically says that states are not obligated to recognize the marriages issued by other states. This point is so obvious, I wonder why it was even written down. If sovereignty means anything at all, it means the right to leave the herd and go your own way, to make your own decisions on an independent basis. But then I remember that I'm reading the words of statists, who probably assume that any powers not explicitly reserved for the people default to state control. So yeah, with this kind of thinking no wonder the Tenth Amendment is eroding.

Finally, I and the supreme court both have issue with Section 3, which defines marriage, but for different reasons. The court decided that Section 3 violates the Fifth Amendment.

 "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Clearly, they want to prevent the federal government from infringing on the marriage privileges bestowed to couples by any of the states.

I see the issue differently. And it really comes down to one question. Why would you want to let any government define marriage? If you and your partner want to live together, go ahead. You want to have a consensual harem, fine! You don't need my, or anyone else's approval, to (make) love (to) each other. To even bother asking, includes me in the relationship, and I'm doing just fine by myself, thank you very much. Do you really want the National Spy Agency with you in the bedroom?

The statist mindset runs deep in this country. Even as the gay's celebrate the "victory" that they think they've won, I bemoan the implicit loss of freedom. How do the congress-critters and senate-snakes usurp the power to craft such legislation? And why does everyone else go along with it?

Fighting the legislation through the system, by using the courts, further entrenches this problem. Should I now credit these 9 old stodgy robed figures (actually only 5 of them) for the kindhearted permission to do what I should be free to do anyway? They don't even know me! Why should they make the decisions that affect my life?!

Giving the government the power to define marriage, in any way, whether through tax codes (Arg! It's a TAX!) or civil benefits like visitation rights, insurance, and inheritance, bounds the marriage to a geographical area. These government bureaucrats must think I'm going to suddenly stop loving my spouse when we move to Burma! Marriage isn't bound in space, and shouldn't belong to any government's bailiwick!

No (Free) Lunch for You!

Earlier this month, the IRS revealed that it has an interest in taxing the free lunch (and other workplace compensations) offered by tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Zygna. Of course, both the employees and the corporate accountants are rightfully outraged that the IRS would sneak its grubby paws on their corporate conveniences. But, the IRS has long allowed for companies of any size to write off luncheons as business expenses so long as business is discussed during the meal. Tech companies specifically decided to offer the free meals to encourage workplace collaboration, coincidentally taking advantage of the write-off.

"It would be stupid to tax this food," said Sanjeev Agrawal, who ran product marketing for Google from 2003 to 2005 and whose Googler-wife still enjoys the perks today. "Free meals should not be taxed because they're not compensation. They're a phenomenal convenience, a terrific motivator and a great social thing because it gives employees an easy way to meet and pass ideas back and forth." No free meals? IRS considers taxing perks at Google, other tech firms

According to Professor McMahon, that justification is not enough.

"A company cannot provide tax-free meals if workers commute from home and have the ability to bring their lunches with them." Google, Facebook Workers Could Owe Taxes On Their Free Lunches

"I buy my lunch with after-tax dollars," said Mr. McMahon, the University of Florida professor. "And I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees." Silicon Valley's Mouthwatering Tax Break, WSJ: Taxing Lunch at Google and Facebook?

So, is the solution to this tax dilemma for a company to forbid employees from eating their own food, and force them to eat in the corporate cafeteria? And somehow, even though McMahon isn't involved with Google, he's paying for their lunches? Does he really want to interpret the lack of a tax as a government subsidy? The socialism is strong with this one!

What most bothers me about the reporting on this issue is the assumption that we need the permission of the IRS so that we can allocate our own resources. Google has made an arrangement with its employees, for mutual advantage. But Big Brother, whose outrageous expenditures have forced the conjuring of more wealth extraction schemes, doesn't benefit enough from this deal and has to act, quite literally, as the school yard bully that steals lunch money.

Under what justification can the IRS/government possibly ask for a share of this private deal?

They built the roads and subsidized the farms? Well, no. Roads preexist government, and even wild animals make trails. We'd most certainly have roads without government. David Friedman has outlined how they might be privately funded (a worthy subject for a future post). We'd even grow food and organize amounts of expected output without government intervention, as Switzerland neighbors do with their home gardens. The government has illegitimately exercised control over these areas and now it has the gall to use that position to justify further expansion. Outrageous!

They provide the money used in the exchange? Well, no. Because in this case, dollars aren't being exchanged. Employees just show up and eat.

Because it infringes on some petty rule in the tax code? Well, yes-ish. But if we permit this excuse we then submit to the underlying assumption that we need their permission to eat lunch. Who bloody cares about the particulars and details of the rules, when the entire premise for having the book is unsound? I certainly care more about my lunch than I do about the IRS.

But what about the whole can of worms surrounding the per-employee benefits? Because, surely, the IRS wouldn't wish to levy a flat average tax on all employees. That policy would negatively affect those that bring their own lunch. To properly account for the tax Google would have to track what each employee chooses to eat and maintain a running tab. But, because the IRS consumes such statistics, I think Google should tax it in return for the trouble. I mean, why should they have a free (information) lunch at Google's expense?

Beware Big Brother, he'll eat your lunch.

Anarchic Subculture

Whenever I confess to being an anarchist, I get immediate blowback from my statist conversational partner. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, despite the rather universal belief that government is broken, corrupt, and inefficient, most people experience visceral upset when they encounter an amicable and peaceful proponent of anarchy. While many can be convinced of minarchism, they seem to revile its natural extension: absence of government.

I must give an approving nod to my minarchist friends, for they want to move in the same direction that I do, and we can collaborate and support each other, sharing the train up until the far away destination of our differences. Most minarchists think, as I do, that government is evil. They only differ in thinking that it is a necessary institution, say for the management of one or a small handful of services, such as defense, roads, and/or law, etc. We can have very deep and detailed discussion on those particular markets. I believe that to convert a minarchist, you only have to show that each of those markets can be adequately serviced by a free and voluntary market rather than a coercive, bureaucratic government.

But the nature of conversation that I have with statists, doesn't revolve around particular aspects of government responsibility. Rather,  they seem to accept government, and Rousseau's Social Contract whole hog. Reasonable statements like "I don't think government should administer education" become translated to "Oh, so you must not want anyone to be educated!". Curiously, I've never conversed with a homeschooled person that made this absurd logical leap, which only buttresses my point. I find that the statist has so completely adopted the nature of government that they act and argue as if it is The Great Provider, without which we would all still be cavemen.

And even without directly engaging the statist, I can see the message has thoroughly infiltrated our media, culture, and language. For example, every day there are late night news items about how the police or firemen have "saved the day" and "we should be so thankful they are here to serve us". But I hardly ever get to hear about the police raid on the wrong house and the dog or daughter they shot.

Or what about the news items that interview people who say "There ought to be a law about X", and fail to consider the costs and impositions of their statement. Why do statists think that the economy would fail or the country would collapse if the President wasn't there to manage things? I mean seriously, would we quit trading with each other if he went missing?

This mentality is so entrenched it's also taken over the language we use. I personally find it difficult to say "The American Government attacked X" and almost always revert to those hideously collective terms "We attacked X", when neither I nor my conversational partner had anything to do with the attack, and would have said "no" if only we were asked.

I know of only one way to fight statism. That's to go my own way. To defect as much as feasible, and live my life by my own terms. Sure, I'll still pay my taxes so that I don't get imprisoned, but I'll do what I want with what I have left. I believe that independence is freedom, and financial independence especially so. The various states within the union have discovered that they can't leave because they've become dependent on federal funds for various infrastructure and social projects. I'm endeavoring not to make this financial mistake, and to preserve my ability to defect. I encourage all other anarchists to do likewise. Anarchism is freedom, and we can each live it through our personal affairs, providing a distributed example of this message to all the statists that their ideas are bankrupt.

Welcome to the High Seas of Anarchism

This past week I had a neat idea: I should start a blog about the woefully misunderstood topic of orderly anarchism. Most individuals on the street, educated in a statist indoctrination camps for 20 years, immediately associate anarchism with disorderly, destructive behavior, calamity and catastrophe. I'll be using this blog to fight against that message, demonstrating through arguments from great and esteemed thinkers like Rothbard and David Friedman, that we have a body of organized principles that can guide a restructuring of society. I intend for this blog to provide a voice and gathering for anarchists, so that we can encourage each other in the long battle against statism.

I should mention, and give a hat-tip to some inspiration for this outlet. One of my college friends and I've been mutually enjoying the message of minimalism, individualism, and independence promoted by Captain Capitalism. I must confess that I am (no suprise here) an Anarcho-Capitalist. That is, I believe anarchism to be the best structuring of social relations and capitalism to be the best structuring of economic relations. So, as Admiral, I'm hosting a platform for the other, more social half, of this political framework.

Through discussion of this platform, my friend and I morphed, via a chaotic process of free association, the admiral's name from Anarchism to Anarchbar. The end result being a memetic strategy: I can co-opt a popular Star Wars image and modify the catchphrase to "It's a TAX!". For the Admiral follows the non-aggression principle and is against all forms of coercive behavior, especially that one which funds the state.