Independence Has Always Been Illegal

But can they stop it? (DN 2.4)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4

Chapter 2.4: Relationship to the State, 2

Governments as an institution are very, very old. Their current manifestation—the large, highly centralized modern nation state—seems quite durable, and for the time being, it is.

As we will discuss later in this work, it also has vulnerabilities. Cracks are forming and will inevitably widen. This will offer opportunities for our framework to grow.

For now, however, the state is the single-biggest obstacle to our independence and the increased prosperity that would flow therefrom. The state is everywhere. And the state does not take kindly to competition of any kind.

As such, in order to continue our discussion of the framework, we must continue to examine our subset of categories that describe the challenges that independence efforts experience at the hands of governments. (See the colored horizontal stripes in our chart.)

Partially independent (disputed/illegal)

We have to face a tough fact: As a general rule, governments are not just going to let us go.

For example, as previously discussed, they will likely oppose the formation of any new polity in terra nullius. Even though they do not claim the piece of territory within which the polity is attempting to form, they still tend to be hostile to the notion of anyone else doing anything with that territory.

Yet we must also remember that governments are not omnipotent…

Take, for example, the existence of de facto autonomous zones (the Zomia region of Southeast Asia, Rojava in northern Syria, etc.). Governments may dispute or resent the autonomy of such regions, and they may deem their independent activities and decision-making to be officially illegal, but they simply do not have the power to do anything about it. The long arm of the law turns out to be not quite long enough to reach into certain places or control certain peoples bent on being free of that control.

Temporary instances of this phenomenon are also possible. In 1991, the pseudonymous Hakim Bey described a temporary autonomous zone (TAZ) as “an uprising which does not engage directly with the state; a guerrilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself, to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the state can crush it.”

——

At this juncture, we must deliver an important message, especially (though not exclusively) to conservatives and others with a law-and-order temperament…

Some of you may have a negative reaction to words like “uprising” and “guerrilla.” I completely understand—especially given the degree to which such language has been used in the past by people whose objectives and ideology I certainly do not share. Here, however, the use is different.

Every government on Earth truly is violating natural law. Claiming to be a superior landlord and then forcibly imposing that claim, and its many predations, is a moral crime. Some measure of resistance to that crime is justified. Remember: All enforced claims of overlordship are morally impermissible.

Temporary autonomous zones are a reaction to that moral impermissibility. They may be as simple as a pop-up rave or art show. Sometimes, they are encampments on public land or large-scale squatting in abandoned buildings.

Here too, please understand: Squatting in another human being’s house is a moral violation. Property is an extension of individual self ownership and, as such, a core human right. Without property, your home, your bed—even the food you are about to put in your mouth—are not safe. Property rights are, without a doubt, a fundamental framework value.

Yet when it comes to things like temporary autonomous zones, governments are a complicating factor. An airport, for example, may have been heavily funded by taxpayers. Once it is abandoned, are squatters on private property or public?

Similarly, corporations receive protections from governments that enable them to get away with things they could not do in a truly free society. People have very good reason to be suspect of, and lack respect for, that incestuous power relationship.

And then there are the banks…

All things being equal, a debt is a debt. But all things are definitely not equal.

The central banking system and its fiat currency are a legal counterfeiting operation structured to enrich bankers and government officials, and their cronies, at your expense.

This is not hyperbole. It is quite literally true…

When the monetary supply is increased, it causes inflation. Prices do not rise right away, however. Because of what is called the Cantillon Effect, the first people who come in contact with the new money (the aforementioned bankers, government officials, and cronies) reap the benefits of the increased money supply before the prices rise. Then the inflation hits and the rest of us suffer its effects.

This is not an unfortunate side effect of inflation—this is the goal. They increase the money supply in order to cause the Cantillon Effect. Inflation enriches them at your expense. Inflation and fiat currency are a racket. Full stop.

Most of the rest of the banks work with the central bank, perpetuating this exploitative racket. Throw in fractional reserve banking, which allows for extremely shady accounting; bailouts, in which you are forced to pay for the financial sector’s extremely risky—but profitable—financial adventures; and the fact that all wars are ultimately bankers’ wars, and the picture is a lot more complicated than “a debt is a debt.”

Conservative impulses on basic moral matters are correct. People ought to respect property rights, fulfill their contractual obligations, and uphold the peace and order of a community. 

But this is not a normal, organic human community. Governments, connected mega-corporations, and banksters have entirely rigged the game in their favor. We play by a set of moral rules; they play by their own rules. As a result, we are forever fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. Or we’re not fighting at all.

I am not suggesting we abandon our principles. I am simply noting that phenomena such as temporary autonomous zones and agorism (discussed below) are a reaction to a rigged game, and we ought to understand that.

Some systemic injustices really do exist.

——

Okay, that said…

Partially independent (disputed/illegal), continued

In spite of the brochure-style rhetoric of government officials and their many statist apologists, governments are not trying to make you more free. The natural tendency of all governments is to grow in size and scope. The natural incentive of virtually everyone involved is to arrogate more power. As such, quite a few framework efforts will fall into the disputed/illegal category, especially in the early going.

Sometimes, governments even try to make humans themselves illegal…

In 1982, the government of Myanmar passed a law that excluded the Rohingya ethnic minority from citizenship. The effect (and arguably the goal) of this law was to render the Rohingya a stateless people. The military of Myanmar then served as the instrument of the Rohingya Genocide, beginning in late 2016. Since that time, Rohingya refugees have been treated very badly by the governments of all the countries to which they have fled.

This is a complicated issue whose details are obviously beyond our scope here. For our purposes, one point rings clear: any entity with the authority to designate an entire group of people to be “illegal” is a fundamental problem.

Governments also tend to seize ever-greater control over economic activity.

This is forever claimed to be done to protect consumers, workers, or “the little guy,” but its real purpose is to allow government officials to keep a finger in every pie. Since governments produce nothing, they must feast off of the production of others.

Production and economic activity are the manifestation of the human drive to survive and thrive, and we know intuitively that theft of the fruits of our labors is no more justified when done by a politician than by a highwayman. As such, we will always try to avoid that theft and control when we can. Thus, it is natural that even in extreme totalitarian states with rigidly controlled economies, black markets form and often operate with near impunity.

In nations with freer economies, there is still a significant amount of economic activity that is not sanctioned by the government.

Agorism is an anarchic strategy that says the more of that, the merrier—advocating the use of underground economies, off-the-books transactions, and other forms of counter economics to deprive the state of tax revenue and the economic control it seeks to wield.

Black markets and agorism are nonviolent mechanisms by which human beings can continue to engage in organic, voluntary transactions with others, without having to pay protection money to the government mafia.

And make no mistake—it is a mafia. What else do you call a group of men with unctuous, vaguely threatening smiles who send armed goons to your house if you do not pay them the protection money they demand?

(In case you missed the metaphor—I just described taxation.)

We can do better.

---

Everyone has a contribution to make in this fight for human freedom. This work is my contribution. Help me keep doing it by becoming a supporting subscriber today.