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).
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.
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.
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.
Order Without Law by Robert Ellickson
The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Word and More Fun Than You Think by Bryan Caplan.
Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships by Christopher Ryan by Cacilda Jetha
A Renegade History of the United States by Thaddeus Russell
Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes
Salt by Mark Kurlansky
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!
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!
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.
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.
Sell lemonade on the street corner.
Get shut down or arrested.
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!
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 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.
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?)
