The following was originally written during the era of 9-11 boogeyman terrorism. For the purposes of modernization, please replace any mention of the word ‘terrorism’ with ‘bio-terrorism’ and any mention of the word ‘security’ with ‘bio-security’. None of this has ever been about safety, it has only ever been about control.
______________
We no longer know the meaning of freedom. We have traded away everything to a false prophet. We refuse to see that belonging to a government is a fate far worse than any terrorist can reap; than any madman can sow.
The word of a terrorist has no power over us. The government's word is law.
In the name of security we will lose our security. In addition to the terrorist we will have the relentless uncompromising gaze of the government.
The power of the people is born from its freedom, and it is the people who must be the guardians of that power. It is from our freedom that we draw the authority to force our government to abide its boundaries. Through the guise of security we are slowly allowing our government to relinquish that authority, and ultimately, the government will know no boundaries.
Once we allow our freedoms to categorically run dry, we, as a people, will no longer have the authority to stand up to our government.
______________
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. —Thomas Jefferson
I am ashamed that I was once one of those who feared terrorists more than the government we (supposedly) empower to protect us.
No longer.
Now, I do not believe it is even possible to make and keep any government whatsoever sufficiently "limited" and restrained. They will always grow, and grow quickly, from any original limited condition.
I am sure civics education would constitute an improvement. However, I do not believe that even the American system, as good as it may have been, is ultimately morally permissible, since it imposes involuntary governance by force. I do not believe it is morally appropriate to deem a captive citizen's consent to a social contract to be "tacit" or "implied." That may have been the best that our Founders, and the philosophers from whom they drew, could have done at their moment in history. But it isn't good enough, and classical-liberal thought has advanced since then.
That being said, I wish you Godspeed in your efforts!
I hear you and agree that being baptized into a system you never agreed to is morally wrong. The only problem is two words: power vacuum --> the strong will ALWAYS prey on the weak. Whether it be government (mind control) or roving gangs.
From the article:
___
It would seem that mankind is doomed to repeat the same mistakes of inaction over and over. Always hoping against hope that we can comply our out of tyranny, even when the wolf is at our neighbor's door.
The predators encroach, and we do nothing. The predators advance, and we do little. The predators take off their sheep masks, drop all pretense, bare their teeth, and halt the charade that they are not out to consume us - and we go on pretending that they are still sheep and not the ravenous wolves they’ve exposed themselves to be.
fabian wolf in sheep's clothing
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
And all during this dance between predator & prey - between their revelation of what they are and our rejection of it - our liberties and securities are corroded, eroded, dissolved, and disintegrated.
And thus all of the above - that dance that has been danced time and time again down the corridors of history where mankind refuses to acknowledge the pack of snarling wolves encircling him for what they truly are (perhaps because the trauma of such a reality is too overbearing to confront) - raises an important question. Is mankind just a herd of sheep that can be led to the slaughter at the whims of the tiny parasite class at the top - lacking any agency, awareness, or willpower to revolt and seek greener pastures?
___
What do you suggest as an alternative to the systems we have now?
How much do you know already about market anarchism (anarchocapitalism) and panarchism?
There is so much literature on how those concepts have worked in the past, are working in limited fashion now, and could work at scale in the future, but before I actually started reading the literature, it seemed so impossible. Now I am sure that it is not only possible, but it is whether things are headed.
I am always open to new ideas, and what you suggest I have not heard of. If you have some literature to send, I would like to read it.
Please just know: I've been down this road ad infinitum and I have found that any theory or model of how best to conduct ourselves can be dismantled with "what if" questions.
Think of mankind in the middle of the ocean fighting tides and waves and storms. Each one of which is desperate to devour him (the psychopathic mind - the circling wolves). If you theory can overcome that, count me in.
Better still to get rid of the "prussian model" of education...teach people to actually THINK, rather than be told WHAT to think...(of course, no government is EVER going to do that...yet we hand responsibility for
Our Authority only exists if we are not to lazy to wield it. It's on us. Everything is on us.
If we fail to adequately wield our authority (by sleeping in late, drinking, being lazy, watching the idiot box) then we give it back to the government.
We, as libertarians and anarchists, look at government as an evil (and it is) but government is the free market response to a demand. Tyrants demand power and others demand safety. Those who want power provide a variable amount of security to the citizenry for that privilege - the people who just want to be left alone.
I think the Founding Fathers intuitively understood this, which is why they created a system to pit power centers against each other. They hoped that such a system would provide security and some measure of stability while reducing the tendency of government to centralize power and tyrannize their citizens. The fact that we are relatively safe and can still speak our minds in public is a tribute to their genius.
So long as there are people in the world who want power, so long as others feel that they are entitled to the property of others and so long as we desire to be shielded from such people, the free market will provide something to satisfy that demand.
I have looked at anarcho-capitalism and as far as I'm concerned, it's simply a transfer of power from governments to corporations and cartels, such as insurance companies. Once tyrants have gained control of these entities, I foresee that they will become little kingdoms in their own right, forcing those within their influence to pay protection money... or else. I don't believe we would be any better off under anarcho-capitalism than the system we already have.
The bottom line is, there is no permanent utopian ideal, not with Marxism and not with capitalism and we should stop wasting lives and resources seeking for one. In the 20th century, we have witnessed how the Marxist search for utopia has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. I suspect that every search for utopia leads to the same end - death and misery and soul-crushing poverty. We would be wise not to continue that search.
President Trump is attempting to reduce the power of the central government and for this he has my complete support. The redistribution of power to the individual states, the elimination of our role as the world's policeman and the reduction of socialist centralization and productivity punishment is the key to restoring hope and prosperity to the citizenry.
That's really what it's all about, isn't it? The ability for the individual to live unmolested in the manner that he feels best fits him, so long as he does not infringe on the rights of others? I think that this ideal is the best we can strive for.
government is the free market response to a demand. Tyrants demand power and others demand safety.“
—Ahh, very interesting point. I had not thought of it that way.
So basically, those of us who want actual freedom are outnumbered by the tyrants, moochers, takers, virtue-signalers, etc. It certainly would seem that way.
It just occurs to me, though, that this isn’t really the market so much as it is a perverse sort of “democracy.” In a real market, our needs would be met too. Yes, since we are smaller in number, maybe the market solution would be more niche and thus more expensive, like an artisanal coffee table instead of a Mainstays one from Walmart. But the market would provide, just like markets always do. But, since our needs are clearly not being met, then perhaps the analogy is democracy rather than the market. We are just being outnumbered.
Of course, that is just a metaphor- the rest of your point is more important.
Let us first set aside what Trump might or might not do. I had high hopes the first time around, and it was all “trust the plan” and “he’s playing 4d chess” and “any minute now…” I am less hopeful this time. I hope you are right, of course, but I fear we will be disappointed again. But let’s put that aside and look more generically.
I do not think that market anarchism is utopian; I simply think it would be better. But let us even set that question aside and just consider our two options:
1. We keep what we have. We attempt to restore what we believe to have been an earlier vision of a more limited government.
2. We reject the notion that involuntary governance is necessary to keep order and allow consent-respecting market solutions to create order in other ways.
There is much to say on #1.
Can we keep government limited? How, exactly? It has been growing nonstop since Hamilton defrauded farmers and Revolutionary War veterans and scammed the country out of the Articles of Confederation. A couple of things have gotten marginally better here and there, but these are improvements in an overall worsening trajectory. Even if there were something to restore, how would we get it there? How would we keep it there?
Next, are we actually safe? The risk of violent death at the hands of another human has been dropping since the 1400s. The big exception is war, and war is the business of the state. We presume that without the state, and in the absence of any market solutions whatsoever, there would be total chaos. Do we know that for sure? Our fears say so. “The Walking Dead” says so. But are we sure? The state murdered 400 million people in the 20th century, between world wars and democides. Half a billion in 100 years. Even without some market solutions, could we even come close to that?
And there would be market solutions. Which brings us to 2. Market forces do everything better. Why wouldn’t they do security and justice better too. Yes, psychos exist. Yes, they could gain control over corporations or whatever. But why trade that unknown possibility for the known certainty of what we have now: giving psychopaths legitimate license to tax, print, and conscript slave soldiers. To build world destroying nuclear arsenals and species-destroying bio weapons. All legitimately, with our money. They benefit, and they can outsource the costs to us.
Same with fiat currency. They get rich off the Cantillon Effect and we get poorer. Inflation isn’t an accident—it is intentional.
The unfunded liabilities crisis is going to sink the economy. They benefitted from doling out promises and goodies at our expense for 100 years. And when it all goes belly up—and it will—they will cover their assess and we will suffer for it. And we are going to suffer greatly.
All of this is baked into the cake of what we have now. I just don’t see the reality of that outweighing the fear of what might happen in a circumstance in which they have none of those powers. Psychos, subject to market forces, will have to work a lot harder to get 1/100th the power that they get automatically now. Power we grant them. Power we say we cannot possibly live without.
Then, there is the fact that in a consensual order (a better term than “anarchy”), there wouldn’t only be market anarchism. The Amish wouldn’t subscribe to any aggression-insurance agencies. A private-law jurisdiction might have its own rules. A for-profit micro-country might too. There would be many different kinds of polities. That is real competition.
We extol the virtues of the system the Founders devised, of pitting this faction against that. For the time, it was truly genius. But it is all happening within a single system. Far greater would be to have true competition between systems. That is what a consensual order would give us.
The Founders were genuinely brilliant. But if we extrapolate their positions and personalities and correlate that with the development of classical-liberal thought that has taken place in the subsequent two centuries, I believe it highly likely that Jefferson, and all the Antifederalists, would be on my side of this notion. Jefferson was already talking about “ward republics” and the like while he was alive. I think they would look at the situation we have now, carry their principles out further, in the light of new innovations in our philosophy, and conclude that it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with some new ideas!
I entirely understand and respect your contention in this matter. I just don’t think we have to settle for what we have now forever. I think we can do better. Not utopia, but better.
I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't do better. I have weighed different forms of government in my head for many years and the problem is always the same - people.
Your average run-of-the-mill human being doesn't really care about what happens at the top. What they care about are things like: "is my roof watertight?" or "will I be able to provide for my family?". So, by the time something does come along that makes them stand up and take notice, it's too late. It was almost too late this time except that the tyrants overplayed their hand. They did things that affected people's day-to-day lives and that's what woke up the masses to push back. Next time we may not be so fortunate.
We will always have tyrants and sociopaths among us and they will always gravitate towards the seats of power. The issue will ever be how to limit them.
The Founders thought that carefully circumscribing and dividing up federal and state powers would prove to be a powerful limiting factor - and it has been. It is failing, not because it's a bad system but because the federal government has grown so powerful that those in control feel they can largely ignore it.
There may be superior ways and perhaps anarcho-capitalism would be more self-limiting then I imagine but I personally don't see it. The Dutch had a form of government by corporation and it was both better and worse then what the Founders provided. As long as imperfect people are involved, every form of government will have its pros and cons.
All governments are monopolies of force and the only thing any government is truly capable of is killing people and breaking things. Therefore, government should be limited only to those functions where killing people and breaking things is absolutely necessary; such as the protection of property rights.
Too many people look on government as a provider or a regulator - and there are even aspects of the Constitution, such as coining money, that are outside the purview of killing people and breaking things. We can draw from this that either the Founding Fathers did not fully understand the purpose of government or compromise was necessary in order to finish it.
If we do decide to make changes to the Constitution or adopt something different, like anarcho-capitalism, we must remember that all governments are capable only of killing people and breaking things and plan accordingly.
"I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't do better."
—Understood!
"Your average run-of-the-mill human being doesn't really care about what happens at the top."
—True, and they have every right to feel this way. I used to be angered by people not being political. But now I think, "Why should they have to be?" See the first Spooner blockquote here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/voting A system that forces people into political combat with their fellow humans is a bad system. I just cannot accept that that is the best/only way to do it.
"We will always have tyrants and sociopaths among us and they will always gravitate towards the seats of power. The issue will ever be how to limit them."
—Indeed! And I just feel that the way to do that is not to grant them massive power out of the gate. And the power to tax, print, conscript, and create any law is exactly that.
"It is failing, not because it's a bad system but because the federal government has grown so powerful that those in control feel they can largely ignore it."
—But then how can we say that the Founders' system did what the Founders' intended? We must return here to Spooner. The constitution "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." In either case, it has failed.
I understand the desire to believe that it was good, and has simply been perverted. But I don't think that makes logical sense. If we assume the Constitution was supposed to have prevented what we have now, then it has clearly failed.
Of course, I think Hamilton—who foisted the Constitution upon us through the sleaziest of actions—would like what we have now. So maybe it is doing what he intended.
"There may be superior ways and perhaps anarcho-capitalism would be more self-limiting then I imagine but I personally don't see it."
—Well, as I mention, others could choose ways of life that are not market-anarchic. But setting that aside, I go back to the known vs. unknown. We know that the system we have not is not good at limiting tyrants. As you noted above, Covid may have just been a dry run for something much worse. All they have to do is say, "Emergency" and they will do what they want. And they are doing what they want—using OUR money—behind the scenes right now. (And let us not forget their power to make world war.) So I do not see any reason to continue with this KNOWN situation out of fear of an UNKNOWN. I say we'd be better off stripping them of automatic power and trying something new. I just do not believe that our current situation is restraining them at all—I think it is empowering them.
"government should be limited only to those functions where killing people and breaking things is absolutely necessary; such as the protection of property rights."
—Where has such a limited government ever existed? How long has such a government been kept so?
"Too many people look on government as a provider or a regulator"
—Ain't that the truth, brother!
"We can draw from this that either the Founding Fathers did not fully understand the purpose of government or compromise was necessary in order to finish it."
—They were brilliant, but they were just people, and also products of their moment in history.
"If we do decide to make changes to the Constitution or adopt something different, like anarcho-capitalism"
—It shouldn't have to be all or nothing. If people don't want to live ancap style, they should not have to. Ideally, people should be able to choose.
In other words, we always think in terms of single-solution systems. We either ALL adopt, adapt, or abolish the constitution or we all do not. It should not have to be that way. Before Germany was one country, it was many tiny states. It should not be all or nothing. And bigger isn't better.
Complicated issues we are discussing, eh? But at the end of the day, we are allies in a cause greater than ourselves.
>Complicated issues we are discussing, eh? But at the end of the day, we are allies in a cause greater than ourselves.
Of course we are. We aren't even really disagreeing - we're discussing ideas to clarify the issues and brainstorming ideas to make things better for everyone.
Chris, by the time we finish discussing this, I fear we'll be at least a hundred comment layers deep. I suggest you either create a thread and copy our discussion to it or, if you are so inclined, you could join us at The Catamount Tavern (https://open.substack.com/pub/wouldhebearitail/p/the-way-to-the-tavern) where all are welcome and others may freely lend their opinions to the discussion.
Although I'm always happy to welcome new people to the Tavern (I and another gentleman are the administrators there) it needs to be their choice. The Tavern was created during the dark days of COVID as a bellwether against cancellation and censorship - a place where people could freely speak their minds (although we did decide to throw out one gentleman who wanted to sell us drugs) and we continue to maintain it even though cancel culture seems to be on its way out and censorship in the US is lessening.
That is a kind offer. As you have probably noticed, I am of a sociable turn, so joining such a group is just my sort of thing. However, after covid, some friends and I did the same thing. Then I did the same with another group of colleagues. And now I am in several!. So I cannot add another one or I will never get any other work done! But seriously—thank you; I am honored.
The article is, needless to say, written from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, and is partially a jeremiad against all the different excuses people make for the state.
At its core, the problem is the assumption that we are slaves in need of masters. That we are such rotten beings that the only hope we have is to give inescapable power to the most rotten among us. It is utterly illogical, but we almost all believe it. Indeed, we will defend our own enslavement by psychopaths as being necessary and good. And in the process, we enslave our fellow man.
So the first practical change is attitudinal. Stop believing that. Stop defending it. I am not saying you in particular, but everyone. If there are any last vestiges of this illogical belief remaining, we must shed them. Because clinging to even a shred of it keeps us from moving on and evolving.
The next practical change is to educate oneself as to alternatives. That way, one is not at sea—hating what is, but not knowing what could be.
And finally, support practical efforts by others wherever possible. Join in on ones that you believe in. Respect the many pathways people are trying to build to the new world.
(You are one of my oldest supporting subscribers, so thank you for that!)
Does that properly answer your question? I am happy to dig deeper if it does not.
My eyes were opened more than 40 years ago to the legalized mafia that is our government at multiple levels. I don’t like it, and I don’t defend it—but I also don’t do much to fight it. The most conspicuous way in which I don’t fight it is by paying taxes, including the property tax we’re charged every year even though we “own” our home, and including taxes on my puny piano teaching income.
Occasionally I’ll hear about someone having a run-in with a local bureaucracy over a home based business. If the Village of Downers Grove, or the County of DuPage, or the State of Illinois decided to create a bunch of hoops for me to jump through in order to teach music in my home, I’m not sure what I would do. I would certainly not want to comply, but I’m not sure how much grief I would be willing to take on to fight it. I’m hoping it never happens.
In the meantime I guess the most radical thing I do is to support your efforts!
Would you say that many—perhaps most—people in this country are fairly comfortable and not engaged in a daily battle with the government mafia, and therefore not inclined to pick a fight?
“ most—people in this country are fairly comfortable and not engaged in a daily battle with the government mafia, and therefore not inclined to pick a fight?”
Yes, I think that is a truism for any population. If people’s bellies are full and the laws are not too odious, few are going to care.
And to a degree, that makes sense. We want to live our lives, and if there aren’t too many impediments to that, why go knocking things over, tilting at windmills, or martyring oneself? It’s just not worth the effort.
The problem is that this attitude permanentizes the master-slave/mafia relationship. So what do we do?
Somehow, we have to work with this tendency, not swim upstream against it. A revolution is not desirable, for reasons I will be laying out soon. And in general, a lot of hoo-hah will just freak out the normies.
The key is to proceed peacefully and incrementally. Do not antagonize our overlords or our fellow humans. And then we build. We build parallel institutions. We offer something better. We succeed by succeeding. By being better.
Can we create our own mutual aid societies? Medical facilities? Rights-protection/security agencies? Not at first. But eventually? Yes, for sure, if our numbers have grown and we get investment.
There is nothing we cannot do if we have time (patience), money, and people. So we offer attractive alternatives. We don’t rush it. We don’t fling ourselves in mad opposition to a jealous government, or be rude to the normies. We commit to a generational project. We build de facto independence where we can, look for de jure opportunities, and build build build.
And then maybe 100 years from now, our new kind of nation (I am currently leaning toward the name Freehold) may be so large and widespread that when we declare real independence for our millions of individuals, there won’t be a damn thing any government can do about it.
Note: the “we” is individuals, acting organically. Though there will be guidance from the think-tank-like entity I have proposed: the Alliance for Human Independence.
There is appeal to your arguments for the ideal. Problematically, the ideal is something to strive for but is never obtained through human agency. Like utopians, the author seeks an ideal that is unobtainable. When we see wild areas devoid of governments, we see the strong governing the weak through violence. In governed areas, we see the weak governed through violence. In a functioning republic, the strong are more restrained in their coercion of the weak through the redress the rule of law. Violence is inherent in the mammalian world, of which humans are a part. Disagree? Spend an hour at a pre-school and you will be disabused of the notion that humans are peaceful at heart. People act within bounds when bounds are not only defined but enforced. Only when one's consciousness has been refined through the hard work of introspection and maturity, can the first impulse of peace be realized. If we could go back to the original intent of the Constitution and run our government by design, we would likely have an ideal balance of restraint and freedom. However, if that happened today and all of the extra-coercive controls were removed instantly, within several generations, they would arrive at the coercive mess we have today, especially that which the Left in Europe, Russia, China, and Biden Administration is/was attempting to impose. That the is natural system of humans - the strong coercing the weak. Striving to be better as has been attempted in the US is an outlier in human history. We can only hope that the current Administration can set back that impulse and reorganize our highly coercive, meddling government it has evolved into and create a version of a smaller, less vicious system (that's the reluctant optimist in me speaking - the more realist in me says that's not likely and the American experiment, without a drastic reset that NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE THROUGH, is probably over). I miss the freedom I had in the 1950s and 60s.
The substance of your reply is predicated on a couple of erroneous notions.
The first is that I am proposing a utopian solution. I am not, nor is any serious market anarchist. We do argue that a market-anarchic condition would be better; we do not argue that it would be perfect or ideal.
The second is the notion—common enough, but also erroneous—that what we propose is the absence of order. That we want to remove restraints and then just trust that people will be nice. We do not. The market-anarchic argument is that order can be produced in different ways.
Right now, what we have is a single entity forcibly imposing an inescapable, involuntary monopoly of authority over a given territory and captive people. The market anarchic solution is for private agencies to offer security and justice services to willing customers.
We know (as conservatives, libertarians, etc.) that free markets do everything better. But there is this pervasive assumption that that ceases to be the case when it comes to security and justice. All the objections that seek to justify that assumption have been answered by some very creative and intelligent people, who have also gone on to show how private law systems have worked in the past and can work at scale in the future. But it does all seem rather alien until one has heard some of those market-anarchic arguments.
I'll do further research into the subject. I agree that free markets do everything better. I need to better familiarize myself on the subjects you mention. I'll keep an open mind. And I admit that I have a bias toward anarchic solutions.
I could not have asked for anything more than that polite, earnest, and honest response. Thank you. I am going to comp you a paid sub for a little while, as a way to say thank you, and so you can see this, which is a decent enough starting point:
I listened to about 20 minutes of the video/audio you provided. I still find the idea of anarchic-markets and society without a means of uniform enforcement of contracts and laws (as imperfect a system as any human system is), is a hypothetical idyllic system. For example, violating the "I won't steal from my employer" contract, and having an arbitrator rule I owed money, I decide I won't pay. Who or what enforces my payment? The idea that a company and arbitrators who are corrupt will go out of business because their corruption will become known denies what we see today: construction businesses incorporate, do shoddy work, declare bankruptcy, disincorporate, and the owner starts a new company, continuing the dishonest business cycle. And the whole idea of businesses and neighbors and organizations convening private courts holding trials would create a dizzying variance in both "laws" and punishments. No one could be certain what behavior constituted an offense, much like those states presently that do not have firearms pre-emption laws, allowing cities and counties to have a hodgepodge of laws ranging from permissive to prohibitive, creating unknowing criminal offense because someone pulls off the freeway to a gas station.
Human nature represents a wide scale of behaviors, impulses, and drives, from the lowest, most cruel and depraved, to that of enlightened beings. Corruption will always be a part of every population. Any system without severe consequences, as we see now, e.g., in the governments in the US (federal, state, county, and local) throughout the country. Politicians have rarely been held to account for their behaviors and corruption is now endemic. We have seen in the last 10 years, an increasing lawlessness due to many factors, likely primarily to a lack of consequences for violence and theft.
I could go on, but I recognize my striving for the ideal is likely what is driving you. I see this as hoping to somehow create a heavenly realm on earth where perfect justice exists and all flows smoothly between peoples. This world is, IMO, better likened to a purgatorial realm where our behavior is refined by rewards and consequences. I believe we need as small and limited a government as reasonably possible to create boundaries and enforcement criteria. And it may be that I do not have the imagination or openness to grasp this concept. It's interesting but, in my judgment, impractical for the real world.
I wish you well in your attempt to convince others. I am out on this conversation and will let you have the last word. Again, I appreciate the discussion. Take care.
Thank you again for you pleasant politeness. This is a habit that ought to be cultivated.
I can only assure you that every one of your objections is answered in the literature, and 100 other objections you have not yet thought of. I was the same way until I allowed myself to fully dive in. 20 minutes of one vid isn’t enough.
Think of it this way: the Federalists took eight months and 80 papers to justify the Constitution to a people who were already largely sold on a similar system (the Articles of Confederation). This is a larger leap than that—it just cannot happen in a few words. (Note also that it has been impossible to keep any government limited, including this one, thoug That is a separate discussion.)
I do know how irritating it can be to have someone say, “Bro, you just can’t understand unless you’ve read these three books…” And I don’t want to be irritating. 🤣
If you change your mind, I am always here.
(Oh, and this does motivate me to write some sort of primer that progressively guides people through deeper layers of explanation/responses to objections. So I don’t have to continue to be irritating and suggest 8 months of study!)
The meta-problem is the desire for social engineering. Even people who claim to advocate for liberty can be closeted (or not-so-closeted) cheerleaders for social engineering (they merely want it done with "freedom").
Too many people want a system to believe in. And genuine advocates for freedom can get sucked into this scam, too, by claiming that freedom can be systematized, as if there's an instruction manual for "How to Freedom" and some sort of overarching implementation of it.
Governance, whatever its form, feeds a divisive egregore when we pour our energy into conflict. Like you said, fear drives many to cling to broken systems, resisting change. Perhaps resolution lies in redirecting that energy to dismantle the egregore, fostering unity and understanding instead. We can't expect to convince others by simply learning and understanding, but we can ourselves, quite feeding an alternative egregore and just be. FTW
Yes, this definitely requires some sort of evolution along those lines. I would not say that we need total unity, or that everyone must have the necessary revelations, or be forced to go along with everything. But peace, understanding, knowledge of one’s own sovereignty and respect for the sovereignty of others—these things would indeed create a better egregore, and start to break the cycle.
Just getting people on the same page on meaning of words is a hard part (e.g. liberal, anarchy, democracy, republic....) sadly news channels have become the new Jerry Springer show, so we can't expect truth from it as a source. I think if just 1/3 of the population quite feeding into "us" vs "them" tribal trap led by government and corporate lobbyists, would disrupt the whole game. People would start talking to each other, not at each other, and that’s where real solutions begin. The hurdle is getting folks to see through the noise without adding more of it. Question is, how do we get 1/3 turned out and off the rulers egregore.
When all of Humanity can live as richly as They choose, there will be no foreign threats...
- Free riders who don’t pay their fair share.
Already We only use about 20% - or less - doing necessary work. The rest move money about, and overall upwards to the moneyed psychopaths in control. With automation of needed work no One wants to do, there will be no "fair share" to add. We could become couch potatoes and no issues would be seen. But of course, most of Us want to create - and the arts and sciences will burgeon.
- Corporations just waiting to be freed from the shackles of government so they can abuse and mistreat us all.
Without money, corporations will not exist.
- Warlords just waiting to seize power and usher in a new dark age.
And no One will have the power to come after Others on a widespread basis. No way to pay "recruits."
So many problems are created by the need for money... And... Yeah. We can obsolete that tool.
Bravo! I believe this is worth reading over and over and considering before making any major life decisions (or if there's a better on point essay, let me know - Thomas Paine was a master, but times are profoundly changed) . What is the purpose of the these current crises if not to wake us up to these fundamental questions? I believe we've got a bit of a respite here (if you're in the West) to soberly reflect - why not use the time?
Paine was a giant, but yes, their time has passed, and smart people have built on their work since.
That is arguably the biggest thing that drives me batty about conservatives: they cannot seem to let go. They revere the Founders so much that they cannot see that classical liberal thought has grown since their time!
Great write up Christopher! The problem is most certainly ourselves. We, the subject populations of nation states tolerate them, admire them, and even worship them. As I wrote in "Successful Statelessness in History" (https://open.substack.com/pub/appliedlibertarian/p/successful-statelessness-in-history?r=ad948&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false) the "decline in free communities was not because the people and institutions of medieval Europe did not know how to resist the centralizing tendencies of kings; they had effectively done so for centuries. The new absolute monarchs were not stopped simply because the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural will to resist them had diminished. Why did this happen? Basically, new issues and opportunities had taken center stage while the once fiercely guarded freedoms of the towns, universities, and monasteries were deprioritized." Your article serves as part of a cumulative process to turn the tide back in favor of freedom. Hopefully more voices join yours in extolling the benefits of freedom and calling out statism for what it truly is, criminality.
Fascinating! (And thank you.) What do you think drove that deprioritization?
I mean, you did say,
“These influences included the wars of religion that followed the Protestant Revolution, which weakened and often subjugated church authorities to secular rulers, removing a significant bulwark to state authority. Also, the discovery of the Americas and new sea routes to Asia led to the development of maritime empires with wealth flowing to the European kingdoms of the Atlantic seaboard. These developments tended to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of monarchs, which proved all too alluring for those aspiring to prominence to focus on aligning with royal courts rather than resisting them.”
Sorry if this response is a bit long winded but its a topic I am particularly interested in. I think the two biggest drivers were indeed the religious dislocation of the Reformation and the discovery of new continents and sea routes. But several other forces, arriving in roughly the same period, reinforced this shift. The adoption of gunpowder weapons undercut the military dominance of the knightly class and favored massed infantry and artillery—tools most effectively wielded by powerful monarchs rather than dispersed local lords. The wars against the Ottomans and the Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean, along with the long-term enslavement of perhaps a million Europeans between the 16th and 19th centuries, disrupted long-established trade routes and drained southern Europe of people and resources, weakening resistance to royal power grabs. The Black Death had more ambiguous effects: it decimated local populations, arguably making it easier for monarchs to impose control over a diminished populace, yet it also boosted productivity and wealth for many survivors. Finally, the spread of nominalism from thinkers like William of Ockham contributed to the erosion of belief in universals and natural law as objective standards above rulers, making justice more a matter of will and command. Combined with the centralizing pressures of plague, war, and fiscal strain, this philosophical shift weakened local courts, guilds, and charters. The Reformation further fragmented appeals to universal authority, allowing princes and kings to claim religious as well as political supremacy. Later, thinkers such as Hobbes gave theoretical justification to the idea that order and justice flowed from the sovereign’s will, laying the groundwork for legal positivism and the nation-state, where legitimacy rested not on universal truths or local traditions but on the authority of a single political center.
That wasn’t long; that was fantastic. Rarely are comments so informative!
Right before I got to the part about nominalism, I thought to myself that a way to cure some of this would be to instantiate the concept of natural law/rights so strongly in people’s minds that individuals themselves (rather than local princes) become the locus of resistance. That the best work could be done with IDEAS in people’s minds.
It seems the spread nominalism did that, but in reverse :(
Agreed. Its an intellectual and spiritual battle first and foremost. If we can win that I believe a free society can accommodate almost any set of circumstances be it technical, demographic, economic, or geographic.
Good stuff, Chris - as usual! However, I bristled a bit at these words about the Founders & Framers:
--------------------------------------------
"At their moment in history, at their stage in the development of classical-liberal philosophy, they believed that it was necessary for humans to “surrender” some of their freedom in order to “secure the rest.” Are you sure they were right?
"They held that it was necessary for people to surrender to an imposed “social contract,” and to pretend to believe in the demonstrably false notion that our consent thereto is “tacit” and “implied.”
"Are you sure they were right? For all time?"
-------------------------------------------------
I think "surrender" is too strong a word -- it implies permanence and abdication. I much prefer to use the word "license". That is, to secure their natural rights they agreed to *license* enumerated powers to a central government.
(Example: When I rent a car from Hertz, Hertz doesn't surrender ownership to me -- they grant me a *license* to use the car, but they retain ownership.)
The important thing about a license is that it can be modified or withdrawn. A "surrender" implies an abdication for all time. That's not what the Founders & Framers did, although I agree it's come to be assumed by most that that's exactly what they did. How unfortunate -- we need a major attitude adjustment.
That's why I've been drawn to the Constitution's Article V, which grants our state legislatures the power to amend the Constitution without the permission or approval of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. The "Fiver" movement is still ongoing.
Locke said, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”
“Under” government may be even stronger than “surrender”!
License would be better, for sure. But the implication that I think you want out of that word actually goes beyond what the Framers thought. Or at least beyond how they actually behaved. The implication that you want seems to be that consent to the social contract should be TRULY consent, not the “tacit” consent that Locke and the Framers believed in and imposed.
There is no way that Washington would have accepted any claim by an individual, or group of individuals, that they were withdrawing their license. The Whiskey Rebellion, and all his statements about his distaste for disorder, make that clear.
Hamilton? No flipping way. Hamilton engineered Shay’s Rebellion to cram the Constitution past the Articles, and to enrich himself and his buddies. They lied about the Yeas and Nays of the Constitutional Convention and threatened Rhode Island with violence if they did not comply.
Madison? On paper, arguably, but when he had a chance to put his values to the test, he sided with Hamilton, and against the Antifederalists.
J. Adams? The Sedition Act is all you need to know.
Jefferson? Mayyyyyyybe. If a state, during his presidency, had said they wanted to secede, he is the only one who MIGHT have allowed it on principle.
The ones you are looking for are the Antifederalists (Henry, Mason, S. Adams, etc.). But they lost. And even they were products of the Enlightenment and the belief of that era that social contracts could be tacitly consensual.
I think what is happening here, my dear old comrade, is that you have moved beyond the Founders, but a lifetime of reverence for them and their accomplishments is keeping you from accepting that. From accepting that you are more ready for anarchism than they were, in their moment in history.
The moral conclusions banging around in your head are telling you something. Listen to them. They are not wrong. Classical-liberal thought has advanced significantly since 1800. We can revere what the Founders did without being paralyzed by it.
Perfect Christopher - Time is very short! Very soon (And actually being enacted now) we won't be able to speak out, we will have martial law, no Bill of Rights and rule by dictator!
Except that I am already being starved like a Gazan in California. That slavery is here. And you won't bother doing anything about it but type in the box. Where is your movement to free the slaves?
Well, I do have plans to take all this from the theoretical to the practical. However, my particular plan won't involve a single moment, but rather a long-term strategy.
I'm sorry that it is taking me so long to get to the practical portion. I am spinning a lot of plates!
The following was originally written during the era of 9-11 boogeyman terrorism. For the purposes of modernization, please replace any mention of the word ‘terrorism’ with ‘bio-terrorism’ and any mention of the word ‘security’ with ‘bio-security’. None of this has ever been about safety, it has only ever been about control.
______________
We no longer know the meaning of freedom. We have traded away everything to a false prophet. We refuse to see that belonging to a government is a fate far worse than any terrorist can reap; than any madman can sow.
The word of a terrorist has no power over us. The government's word is law.
In the name of security we will lose our security. In addition to the terrorist we will have the relentless uncompromising gaze of the government.
The power of the people is born from its freedom, and it is the people who must be the guardians of that power. It is from our freedom that we draw the authority to force our government to abide its boundaries. Through the guise of security we are slowly allowing our government to relinquish that authority, and ultimately, the government will know no boundaries.
Once we allow our freedoms to categorically run dry, we, as a people, will no longer have the authority to stand up to our government.
______________
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. —Thomas Jefferson
https://tritorch.substack.com/p/the-false-prophet-of-security
I am ashamed that I was once one of those who feared terrorists more than the government we (supposedly) empower to protect us.
No longer.
Now, I do not believe it is even possible to make and keep any government whatsoever sufficiently "limited" and restrained. They will always grow, and grow quickly, from any original limited condition.
Excellent that you woke up to what government is! Here is the only way I know of to contain their power (you may find this worth your time):
https://tritorch.substack.com/p/apathy-is-the-fire-in-which-we-burn-v3
Three words: civics civics civics. Without that, the "wolves will circle"
I am sure civics education would constitute an improvement. However, I do not believe that even the American system, as good as it may have been, is ultimately morally permissible, since it imposes involuntary governance by force. I do not believe it is morally appropriate to deem a captive citizen's consent to a social contract to be "tacit" or "implied." That may have been the best that our Founders, and the philosophers from whom they drew, could have done at their moment in history. But it isn't good enough, and classical-liberal thought has advanced since then.
That being said, I wish you Godspeed in your efforts!
I hear you and agree that being baptized into a system you never agreed to is morally wrong. The only problem is two words: power vacuum --> the strong will ALWAYS prey on the weak. Whether it be government (mind control) or roving gangs.
From the article:
___
It would seem that mankind is doomed to repeat the same mistakes of inaction over and over. Always hoping against hope that we can comply our out of tyranny, even when the wolf is at our neighbor's door.
The predators encroach, and we do nothing. The predators advance, and we do little. The predators take off their sheep masks, drop all pretense, bare their teeth, and halt the charade that they are not out to consume us - and we go on pretending that they are still sheep and not the ravenous wolves they’ve exposed themselves to be.
fabian wolf in sheep's clothing
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
And all during this dance between predator & prey - between their revelation of what they are and our rejection of it - our liberties and securities are corroded, eroded, dissolved, and disintegrated.
And thus all of the above - that dance that has been danced time and time again down the corridors of history where mankind refuses to acknowledge the pack of snarling wolves encircling him for what they truly are (perhaps because the trauma of such a reality is too overbearing to confront) - raises an important question. Is mankind just a herd of sheep that can be led to the slaughter at the whims of the tiny parasite class at the top - lacking any agency, awareness, or willpower to revolt and seek greener pastures?
___
What do you suggest as an alternative to the systems we have now?
How much do you know already about market anarchism (anarchocapitalism) and panarchism?
There is so much literature on how those concepts have worked in the past, are working in limited fashion now, and could work at scale in the future, but before I actually started reading the literature, it seemed so impossible. Now I am sure that it is not only possible, but it is whether things are headed.
I am always open to new ideas, and what you suggest I have not heard of. If you have some literature to send, I would like to read it.
Please just know: I've been down this road ad infinitum and I have found that any theory or model of how best to conduct ourselves can be dismantled with "what if" questions.
Think of mankind in the middle of the ocean fighting tides and waves and storms. Each one of which is desperate to devour him (the psychopathic mind - the circling wolves). If you theory can overcome that, count me in.
Better still to get rid of the "prussian model" of education...teach people to actually THINK, rather than be told WHAT to think...(of course, no government is EVER going to do that...yet we hand responsibility for
'education" to the government...go figure...
Homeschooling parents are the tip of the spear..
It's our best, last hope ;)
To quote Yoda, “No, there is another.”
In fact, we have many different areas to hope. And the first one is to place our hope in ourselves and not despair.
What confers the "authority" to stand up against an enemy...?
Who is the authority and who granted it, and who is the enemy and why?
You said, "Once we allow our freedoms to categorically run dry, we, as a people, will no longer have the authority to stand up to our government."
I asked "What confers the "authority" to stand up against an enemy...?"
I guess "enemy" was not clear enough. Let Me rephrase:
What confers the "authority" to stand up against a governmafia...?
We The People.
Who else Solar?
If it is Us who confer the authority, how can We not have the authority? Not following.
Our Authority only exists if we are not to lazy to wield it. It's on us. Everything is on us.
If we fail to adequately wield our authority (by sleeping in late, drinking, being lazy, watching the idiot box) then we give it back to the government.
It's on --> US <-- NO ONE ELSE.
I want to be put into no political class or belief. I just want government to go away. It can never serve the needs of the free man.
If everyone, or even a plurality, felt as you feel, things would be much better.
Nice to see that SOMEONE else gets it ;)
Perhaps there are more of us than we think…
It's the only hope we've got, but were in a bitter fight with our 'educational' system...
From a few thousand homeschoolers in 1970 to five million now. Keep pressing, keep pulling kids out. Starve the beast.
Chris, the way I look at it is this.
We, as libertarians and anarchists, look at government as an evil (and it is) but government is the free market response to a demand. Tyrants demand power and others demand safety. Those who want power provide a variable amount of security to the citizenry for that privilege - the people who just want to be left alone.
I think the Founding Fathers intuitively understood this, which is why they created a system to pit power centers against each other. They hoped that such a system would provide security and some measure of stability while reducing the tendency of government to centralize power and tyrannize their citizens. The fact that we are relatively safe and can still speak our minds in public is a tribute to their genius.
So long as there are people in the world who want power, so long as others feel that they are entitled to the property of others and so long as we desire to be shielded from such people, the free market will provide something to satisfy that demand.
I have looked at anarcho-capitalism and as far as I'm concerned, it's simply a transfer of power from governments to corporations and cartels, such as insurance companies. Once tyrants have gained control of these entities, I foresee that they will become little kingdoms in their own right, forcing those within their influence to pay protection money... or else. I don't believe we would be any better off under anarcho-capitalism than the system we already have.
The bottom line is, there is no permanent utopian ideal, not with Marxism and not with capitalism and we should stop wasting lives and resources seeking for one. In the 20th century, we have witnessed how the Marxist search for utopia has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. I suspect that every search for utopia leads to the same end - death and misery and soul-crushing poverty. We would be wise not to continue that search.
President Trump is attempting to reduce the power of the central government and for this he has my complete support. The redistribution of power to the individual states, the elimination of our role as the world's policeman and the reduction of socialist centralization and productivity punishment is the key to restoring hope and prosperity to the citizenry.
That's really what it's all about, isn't it? The ability for the individual to live unmolested in the manner that he feels best fits him, so long as he does not infringe on the rights of others? I think that this ideal is the best we can strive for.
government is the free market response to a demand. Tyrants demand power and others demand safety.“
—Ahh, very interesting point. I had not thought of it that way.
So basically, those of us who want actual freedom are outnumbered by the tyrants, moochers, takers, virtue-signalers, etc. It certainly would seem that way.
It just occurs to me, though, that this isn’t really the market so much as it is a perverse sort of “democracy.” In a real market, our needs would be met too. Yes, since we are smaller in number, maybe the market solution would be more niche and thus more expensive, like an artisanal coffee table instead of a Mainstays one from Walmart. But the market would provide, just like markets always do. But, since our needs are clearly not being met, then perhaps the analogy is democracy rather than the market. We are just being outnumbered.
Of course, that is just a metaphor- the rest of your point is more important.
Let us first set aside what Trump might or might not do. I had high hopes the first time around, and it was all “trust the plan” and “he’s playing 4d chess” and “any minute now…” I am less hopeful this time. I hope you are right, of course, but I fear we will be disappointed again. But let’s put that aside and look more generically.
I do not think that market anarchism is utopian; I simply think it would be better. But let us even set that question aside and just consider our two options:
1. We keep what we have. We attempt to restore what we believe to have been an earlier vision of a more limited government.
2. We reject the notion that involuntary governance is necessary to keep order and allow consent-respecting market solutions to create order in other ways.
There is much to say on #1.
Can we keep government limited? How, exactly? It has been growing nonstop since Hamilton defrauded farmers and Revolutionary War veterans and scammed the country out of the Articles of Confederation. A couple of things have gotten marginally better here and there, but these are improvements in an overall worsening trajectory. Even if there were something to restore, how would we get it there? How would we keep it there?
Next, are we actually safe? The risk of violent death at the hands of another human has been dropping since the 1400s. The big exception is war, and war is the business of the state. We presume that without the state, and in the absence of any market solutions whatsoever, there would be total chaos. Do we know that for sure? Our fears say so. “The Walking Dead” says so. But are we sure? The state murdered 400 million people in the 20th century, between world wars and democides. Half a billion in 100 years. Even without some market solutions, could we even come close to that?
And there would be market solutions. Which brings us to 2. Market forces do everything better. Why wouldn’t they do security and justice better too. Yes, psychos exist. Yes, they could gain control over corporations or whatever. But why trade that unknown possibility for the known certainty of what we have now: giving psychopaths legitimate license to tax, print, and conscript slave soldiers. To build world destroying nuclear arsenals and species-destroying bio weapons. All legitimately, with our money. They benefit, and they can outsource the costs to us.
Same with fiat currency. They get rich off the Cantillon Effect and we get poorer. Inflation isn’t an accident—it is intentional.
The unfunded liabilities crisis is going to sink the economy. They benefitted from doling out promises and goodies at our expense for 100 years. And when it all goes belly up—and it will—they will cover their assess and we will suffer for it. And we are going to suffer greatly.
All of this is baked into the cake of what we have now. I just don’t see the reality of that outweighing the fear of what might happen in a circumstance in which they have none of those powers. Psychos, subject to market forces, will have to work a lot harder to get 1/100th the power that they get automatically now. Power we grant them. Power we say we cannot possibly live without.
Then, there is the fact that in a consensual order (a better term than “anarchy”), there wouldn’t only be market anarchism. The Amish wouldn’t subscribe to any aggression-insurance agencies. A private-law jurisdiction might have its own rules. A for-profit micro-country might too. There would be many different kinds of polities. That is real competition.
We extol the virtues of the system the Founders devised, of pitting this faction against that. For the time, it was truly genius. But it is all happening within a single system. Far greater would be to have true competition between systems. That is what a consensual order would give us.
The Founders were genuinely brilliant. But if we extrapolate their positions and personalities and correlate that with the development of classical-liberal thought that has taken place in the subsequent two centuries, I believe it highly likely that Jefferson, and all the Antifederalists, would be on my side of this notion. Jefferson was already talking about “ward republics” and the like while he was alive. I think they would look at the situation we have now, carry their principles out further, in the light of new innovations in our philosophy, and conclude that it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with some new ideas!
I entirely understand and respect your contention in this matter. I just don’t think we have to settle for what we have now forever. I think we can do better. Not utopia, but better.
I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't do better. I have weighed different forms of government in my head for many years and the problem is always the same - people.
Your average run-of-the-mill human being doesn't really care about what happens at the top. What they care about are things like: "is my roof watertight?" or "will I be able to provide for my family?". So, by the time something does come along that makes them stand up and take notice, it's too late. It was almost too late this time except that the tyrants overplayed their hand. They did things that affected people's day-to-day lives and that's what woke up the masses to push back. Next time we may not be so fortunate.
We will always have tyrants and sociopaths among us and they will always gravitate towards the seats of power. The issue will ever be how to limit them.
The Founders thought that carefully circumscribing and dividing up federal and state powers would prove to be a powerful limiting factor - and it has been. It is failing, not because it's a bad system but because the federal government has grown so powerful that those in control feel they can largely ignore it.
There may be superior ways and perhaps anarcho-capitalism would be more self-limiting then I imagine but I personally don't see it. The Dutch had a form of government by corporation and it was both better and worse then what the Founders provided. As long as imperfect people are involved, every form of government will have its pros and cons.
All governments are monopolies of force and the only thing any government is truly capable of is killing people and breaking things. Therefore, government should be limited only to those functions where killing people and breaking things is absolutely necessary; such as the protection of property rights.
Too many people look on government as a provider or a regulator - and there are even aspects of the Constitution, such as coining money, that are outside the purview of killing people and breaking things. We can draw from this that either the Founding Fathers did not fully understand the purpose of government or compromise was necessary in order to finish it.
If we do decide to make changes to the Constitution or adopt something different, like anarcho-capitalism, we must remember that all governments are capable only of killing people and breaking things and plan accordingly.
"I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't do better."
—Understood!
"Your average run-of-the-mill human being doesn't really care about what happens at the top."
—True, and they have every right to feel this way. I used to be angered by people not being political. But now I think, "Why should they have to be?" See the first Spooner blockquote here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/voting A system that forces people into political combat with their fellow humans is a bad system. I just cannot accept that that is the best/only way to do it.
"We will always have tyrants and sociopaths among us and they will always gravitate towards the seats of power. The issue will ever be how to limit them."
—Indeed! And I just feel that the way to do that is not to grant them massive power out of the gate. And the power to tax, print, conscript, and create any law is exactly that.
"It is failing, not because it's a bad system but because the federal government has grown so powerful that those in control feel they can largely ignore it."
—But then how can we say that the Founders' system did what the Founders' intended? We must return here to Spooner. The constitution "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." In either case, it has failed.
I understand the desire to believe that it was good, and has simply been perverted. But I don't think that makes logical sense. If we assume the Constitution was supposed to have prevented what we have now, then it has clearly failed.
Of course, I think Hamilton—who foisted the Constitution upon us through the sleaziest of actions—would like what we have now. So maybe it is doing what he intended.
"There may be superior ways and perhaps anarcho-capitalism would be more self-limiting then I imagine but I personally don't see it."
—Well, as I mention, others could choose ways of life that are not market-anarchic. But setting that aside, I go back to the known vs. unknown. We know that the system we have not is not good at limiting tyrants. As you noted above, Covid may have just been a dry run for something much worse. All they have to do is say, "Emergency" and they will do what they want. And they are doing what they want—using OUR money—behind the scenes right now. (And let us not forget their power to make world war.) So I do not see any reason to continue with this KNOWN situation out of fear of an UNKNOWN. I say we'd be better off stripping them of automatic power and trying something new. I just do not believe that our current situation is restraining them at all—I think it is empowering them.
"government should be limited only to those functions where killing people and breaking things is absolutely necessary; such as the protection of property rights."
—Where has such a limited government ever existed? How long has such a government been kept so?
"Too many people look on government as a provider or a regulator"
—Ain't that the truth, brother!
"We can draw from this that either the Founding Fathers did not fully understand the purpose of government or compromise was necessary in order to finish it."
—They were brilliant, but they were just people, and also products of their moment in history.
"If we do decide to make changes to the Constitution or adopt something different, like anarcho-capitalism"
—It shouldn't have to be all or nothing. If people don't want to live ancap style, they should not have to. Ideally, people should be able to choose.
In other words, we always think in terms of single-solution systems. We either ALL adopt, adapt, or abolish the constitution or we all do not. It should not have to be that way. Before Germany was one country, it was many tiny states. It should not be all or nothing. And bigger isn't better.
Complicated issues we are discussing, eh? But at the end of the day, we are allies in a cause greater than ourselves.
>Complicated issues we are discussing, eh? But at the end of the day, we are allies in a cause greater than ourselves.
Of course we are. We aren't even really disagreeing - we're discussing ideas to clarify the issues and brainstorming ideas to make things better for everyone.
Chris, by the time we finish discussing this, I fear we'll be at least a hundred comment layers deep. I suggest you either create a thread and copy our discussion to it or, if you are so inclined, you could join us at The Catamount Tavern (https://open.substack.com/pub/wouldhebearitail/p/the-way-to-the-tavern) where all are welcome and others may freely lend their opinions to the discussion.
Although I'm always happy to welcome new people to the Tavern (I and another gentleman are the administrators there) it needs to be their choice. The Tavern was created during the dark days of COVID as a bellwether against cancellation and censorship - a place where people could freely speak their minds (although we did decide to throw out one gentleman who wanted to sell us drugs) and we continue to maintain it even though cancel culture seems to be on its way out and censorship in the US is lessening.
That is a kind offer. As you have probably noticed, I am of a sociable turn, so joining such a group is just my sort of thing. However, after covid, some friends and I did the same thing. Then I did the same with another group of colleagues. And now I am in several!. So I cannot add another one or I will never get any other work done! But seriously—thank you; I am honored.
And, of course, I will always answer you here.
So, Christopher. What should I do differently tomorrow? I don’t disagree with you. I just don’t understand exactly how my behavior should change.
Ah, what an excellent and practical question.
The article is, needless to say, written from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, and is partially a jeremiad against all the different excuses people make for the state.
At its core, the problem is the assumption that we are slaves in need of masters. That we are such rotten beings that the only hope we have is to give inescapable power to the most rotten among us. It is utterly illogical, but we almost all believe it. Indeed, we will defend our own enslavement by psychopaths as being necessary and good. And in the process, we enslave our fellow man.
So the first practical change is attitudinal. Stop believing that. Stop defending it. I am not saying you in particular, but everyone. If there are any last vestiges of this illogical belief remaining, we must shed them. Because clinging to even a shred of it keeps us from moving on and evolving.
The next practical change is to educate oneself as to alternatives. That way, one is not at sea—hating what is, but not knowing what could be.
And finally, support practical efforts by others wherever possible. Join in on ones that you believe in. Respect the many pathways people are trying to build to the new world.
(You are one of my oldest supporting subscribers, so thank you for that!)
Does that properly answer your question? I am happy to dig deeper if it does not.
My eyes were opened more than 40 years ago to the legalized mafia that is our government at multiple levels. I don’t like it, and I don’t defend it—but I also don’t do much to fight it. The most conspicuous way in which I don’t fight it is by paying taxes, including the property tax we’re charged every year even though we “own” our home, and including taxes on my puny piano teaching income.
Occasionally I’ll hear about someone having a run-in with a local bureaucracy over a home based business. If the Village of Downers Grove, or the County of DuPage, or the State of Illinois decided to create a bunch of hoops for me to jump through in order to teach music in my home, I’m not sure what I would do. I would certainly not want to comply, but I’m not sure how much grief I would be willing to take on to fight it. I’m hoping it never happens.
In the meantime I guess the most radical thing I do is to support your efforts!
Would you say that many—perhaps most—people in this country are fairly comfortable and not engaged in a daily battle with the government mafia, and therefore not inclined to pick a fight?
“ most—people in this country are fairly comfortable and not engaged in a daily battle with the government mafia, and therefore not inclined to pick a fight?”
Yes, I think that is a truism for any population. If people’s bellies are full and the laws are not too odious, few are going to care.
And to a degree, that makes sense. We want to live our lives, and if there aren’t too many impediments to that, why go knocking things over, tilting at windmills, or martyring oneself? It’s just not worth the effort.
The problem is that this attitude permanentizes the master-slave/mafia relationship. So what do we do?
Somehow, we have to work with this tendency, not swim upstream against it. A revolution is not desirable, for reasons I will be laying out soon. And in general, a lot of hoo-hah will just freak out the normies.
The key is to proceed peacefully and incrementally. Do not antagonize our overlords or our fellow humans. And then we build. We build parallel institutions. We offer something better. We succeed by succeeding. By being better.
Can we create our own mutual aid societies? Medical facilities? Rights-protection/security agencies? Not at first. But eventually? Yes, for sure, if our numbers have grown and we get investment.
There is nothing we cannot do if we have time (patience), money, and people. So we offer attractive alternatives. We don’t rush it. We don’t fling ourselves in mad opposition to a jealous government, or be rude to the normies. We commit to a generational project. We build de facto independence where we can, look for de jure opportunities, and build build build.
And then maybe 100 years from now, our new kind of nation (I am currently leaning toward the name Freehold) may be so large and widespread that when we declare real independence for our millions of individuals, there won’t be a damn thing any government can do about it.
What do you think?
May it be so!
You are helping by keeping me going; thank you!
You’re welcome ☺️ I hope you don’t get discouraged.
Note: the “we” is individuals, acting organically. Though there will be guidance from the think-tank-like entity I have proposed: the Alliance for Human Independence.
Very good
🔥🙏🏻
There is appeal to your arguments for the ideal. Problematically, the ideal is something to strive for but is never obtained through human agency. Like utopians, the author seeks an ideal that is unobtainable. When we see wild areas devoid of governments, we see the strong governing the weak through violence. In governed areas, we see the weak governed through violence. In a functioning republic, the strong are more restrained in their coercion of the weak through the redress the rule of law. Violence is inherent in the mammalian world, of which humans are a part. Disagree? Spend an hour at a pre-school and you will be disabused of the notion that humans are peaceful at heart. People act within bounds when bounds are not only defined but enforced. Only when one's consciousness has been refined through the hard work of introspection and maturity, can the first impulse of peace be realized. If we could go back to the original intent of the Constitution and run our government by design, we would likely have an ideal balance of restraint and freedom. However, if that happened today and all of the extra-coercive controls were removed instantly, within several generations, they would arrive at the coercive mess we have today, especially that which the Left in Europe, Russia, China, and Biden Administration is/was attempting to impose. That the is natural system of humans - the strong coercing the weak. Striving to be better as has been attempted in the US is an outlier in human history. We can only hope that the current Administration can set back that impulse and reorganize our highly coercive, meddling government it has evolved into and create a version of a smaller, less vicious system (that's the reluctant optimist in me speaking - the more realist in me says that's not likely and the American experiment, without a drastic reset that NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE THROUGH, is probably over). I miss the freedom I had in the 1950s and 60s.
Thank you for your thoughts.
The substance of your reply is predicated on a couple of erroneous notions.
The first is that I am proposing a utopian solution. I am not, nor is any serious market anarchist. We do argue that a market-anarchic condition would be better; we do not argue that it would be perfect or ideal.
The second is the notion—common enough, but also erroneous—that what we propose is the absence of order. That we want to remove restraints and then just trust that people will be nice. We do not. The market-anarchic argument is that order can be produced in different ways.
Right now, what we have is a single entity forcibly imposing an inescapable, involuntary monopoly of authority over a given territory and captive people. The market anarchic solution is for private agencies to offer security and justice services to willing customers.
We know (as conservatives, libertarians, etc.) that free markets do everything better. But there is this pervasive assumption that that ceases to be the case when it comes to security and justice. All the objections that seek to justify that assumption have been answered by some very creative and intelligent people, who have also gone on to show how private law systems have worked in the past and can work at scale in the future. But it does all seem rather alien until one has heard some of those market-anarchic arguments.
Thanks for the reply!
I'll do further research into the subject. I agree that free markets do everything better. I need to better familiarize myself on the subjects you mention. I'll keep an open mind. And I admit that I have a bias toward anarchic solutions.
I could not have asked for anything more than that polite, earnest, and honest response. Thank you. I am going to comp you a paid sub for a little while, as a way to say thank you, and so you can see this, which is a decent enough starting point:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/how-anarchist-society-work
Thanks for the offer. This is generous of you.
I listened to about 20 minutes of the video/audio you provided. I still find the idea of anarchic-markets and society without a means of uniform enforcement of contracts and laws (as imperfect a system as any human system is), is a hypothetical idyllic system. For example, violating the "I won't steal from my employer" contract, and having an arbitrator rule I owed money, I decide I won't pay. Who or what enforces my payment? The idea that a company and arbitrators who are corrupt will go out of business because their corruption will become known denies what we see today: construction businesses incorporate, do shoddy work, declare bankruptcy, disincorporate, and the owner starts a new company, continuing the dishonest business cycle. And the whole idea of businesses and neighbors and organizations convening private courts holding trials would create a dizzying variance in both "laws" and punishments. No one could be certain what behavior constituted an offense, much like those states presently that do not have firearms pre-emption laws, allowing cities and counties to have a hodgepodge of laws ranging from permissive to prohibitive, creating unknowing criminal offense because someone pulls off the freeway to a gas station.
Human nature represents a wide scale of behaviors, impulses, and drives, from the lowest, most cruel and depraved, to that of enlightened beings. Corruption will always be a part of every population. Any system without severe consequences, as we see now, e.g., in the governments in the US (federal, state, county, and local) throughout the country. Politicians have rarely been held to account for their behaviors and corruption is now endemic. We have seen in the last 10 years, an increasing lawlessness due to many factors, likely primarily to a lack of consequences for violence and theft.
I could go on, but I recognize my striving for the ideal is likely what is driving you. I see this as hoping to somehow create a heavenly realm on earth where perfect justice exists and all flows smoothly between peoples. This world is, IMO, better likened to a purgatorial realm where our behavior is refined by rewards and consequences. I believe we need as small and limited a government as reasonably possible to create boundaries and enforcement criteria. And it may be that I do not have the imagination or openness to grasp this concept. It's interesting but, in my judgment, impractical for the real world.
I wish you well in your attempt to convince others. I am out on this conversation and will let you have the last word. Again, I appreciate the discussion. Take care.
Thank you again for you pleasant politeness. This is a habit that ought to be cultivated.
I can only assure you that every one of your objections is answered in the literature, and 100 other objections you have not yet thought of. I was the same way until I allowed myself to fully dive in. 20 minutes of one vid isn’t enough.
Think of it this way: the Federalists took eight months and 80 papers to justify the Constitution to a people who were already largely sold on a similar system (the Articles of Confederation). This is a larger leap than that—it just cannot happen in a few words. (Note also that it has been impossible to keep any government limited, including this one, thoug That is a separate discussion.)
I do know how irritating it can be to have someone say, “Bro, you just can’t understand unless you’ve read these three books…” And I don’t want to be irritating. 🤣
If you change your mind, I am always here.
(Oh, and this does motivate me to write some sort of primer that progressively guides people through deeper layers of explanation/responses to objections. So I don’t have to continue to be irritating and suggest 8 months of study!)
Oops, I think you have to be a free sub before I can comp you a paid sub. Your call! 🍻
The meta-problem is the desire for social engineering. Even people who claim to advocate for liberty can be closeted (or not-so-closeted) cheerleaders for social engineering (they merely want it done with "freedom").
Too many people want a system to believe in. And genuine advocates for freedom can get sucked into this scam, too, by claiming that freedom can be systematized, as if there's an instruction manual for "How to Freedom" and some sort of overarching implementation of it.
Almost as if the totalitarian temptation is woven into human psychology…?
Governance, whatever its form, feeds a divisive egregore when we pour our energy into conflict. Like you said, fear drives many to cling to broken systems, resisting change. Perhaps resolution lies in redirecting that energy to dismantle the egregore, fostering unity and understanding instead. We can't expect to convince others by simply learning and understanding, but we can ourselves, quite feeding an alternative egregore and just be. FTW
Yes, this definitely requires some sort of evolution along those lines. I would not say that we need total unity, or that everyone must have the necessary revelations, or be forced to go along with everything. But peace, understanding, knowledge of one’s own sovereignty and respect for the sovereignty of others—these things would indeed create a better egregore, and start to break the cycle.
Just getting people on the same page on meaning of words is a hard part (e.g. liberal, anarchy, democracy, republic....) sadly news channels have become the new Jerry Springer show, so we can't expect truth from it as a source. I think if just 1/3 of the population quite feeding into "us" vs "them" tribal trap led by government and corporate lobbyists, would disrupt the whole game. People would start talking to each other, not at each other, and that’s where real solutions begin. The hurdle is getting folks to see through the noise without adding more of it. Question is, how do we get 1/3 turned out and off the rulers egregore.
“how do we get 1/3 turned out and off the rulers egregore.”
—By building a more attractive lighthouse.
Interestingly, when money is obsoleted, all the "bad apples" will effectively vanish.
- Psychopaths, sociopaths, and control freaks who are drawn to power and will always seek to dominate others.
Without money, They can only dominate Individuals locally. No widespread power to buy things and People to Their agendas.
- Criminals who don’t care about social norms and will trample the rights of others to get what they want.
Where would be the point of doing criminal things when One can have all One needs and most of what One wants?
- Foreign enemies lurking beyond our borders, eagerly waiting to invade.
When all of Humanity can live as richly as They choose, there will be no foreign threats...
- Free riders who don’t pay their fair share.
Already We only use about 20% - or less - doing necessary work. The rest move money about, and overall upwards to the moneyed psychopaths in control. With automation of needed work no One wants to do, there will be no "fair share" to add. We could become couch potatoes and no issues would be seen. But of course, most of Us want to create - and the arts and sciences will burgeon.
- Corporations just waiting to be freed from the shackles of government so they can abuse and mistreat us all.
Without money, corporations will not exist.
- Warlords just waiting to seize power and usher in a new dark age.
And no One will have the power to come after Others on a widespread basis. No way to pay "recruits."
So many problems are created by the need for money... And... Yeah. We can obsolete that tool.
Bravo! I believe this is worth reading over and over and considering before making any major life decisions (or if there's a better on point essay, let me know - Thomas Paine was a master, but times are profoundly changed) . What is the purpose of the these current crises if not to wake us up to these fundamental questions? I believe we've got a bit of a respite here (if you're in the West) to soberly reflect - why not use the time?
Thank you, and well said.
Paine was a giant, but yes, their time has passed, and smart people have built on their work since.
That is arguably the biggest thing that drives me batty about conservatives: they cannot seem to let go. They revere the Founders so much that they cannot see that classical liberal thought has grown since their time!
Great write up Christopher! The problem is most certainly ourselves. We, the subject populations of nation states tolerate them, admire them, and even worship them. As I wrote in "Successful Statelessness in History" (https://open.substack.com/pub/appliedlibertarian/p/successful-statelessness-in-history?r=ad948&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false) the "decline in free communities was not because the people and institutions of medieval Europe did not know how to resist the centralizing tendencies of kings; they had effectively done so for centuries. The new absolute monarchs were not stopped simply because the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural will to resist them had diminished. Why did this happen? Basically, new issues and opportunities had taken center stage while the once fiercely guarded freedoms of the towns, universities, and monasteries were deprioritized." Your article serves as part of a cumulative process to turn the tide back in favor of freedom. Hopefully more voices join yours in extolling the benefits of freedom and calling out statism for what it truly is, criminality.
Fascinating! (And thank you.) What do you think drove that deprioritization?
I mean, you did say,
“These influences included the wars of religion that followed the Protestant Revolution, which weakened and often subjugated church authorities to secular rulers, removing a significant bulwark to state authority. Also, the discovery of the Americas and new sea routes to Asia led to the development of maritime empires with wealth flowing to the European kingdoms of the Atlantic seaboard. These developments tended to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of monarchs, which proved all too alluring for those aspiring to prominence to focus on aligning with royal courts rather than resisting them.”
But was there more that you can think of?
Sorry if this response is a bit long winded but its a topic I am particularly interested in. I think the two biggest drivers were indeed the religious dislocation of the Reformation and the discovery of new continents and sea routes. But several other forces, arriving in roughly the same period, reinforced this shift. The adoption of gunpowder weapons undercut the military dominance of the knightly class and favored massed infantry and artillery—tools most effectively wielded by powerful monarchs rather than dispersed local lords. The wars against the Ottomans and the Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean, along with the long-term enslavement of perhaps a million Europeans between the 16th and 19th centuries, disrupted long-established trade routes and drained southern Europe of people and resources, weakening resistance to royal power grabs. The Black Death had more ambiguous effects: it decimated local populations, arguably making it easier for monarchs to impose control over a diminished populace, yet it also boosted productivity and wealth for many survivors. Finally, the spread of nominalism from thinkers like William of Ockham contributed to the erosion of belief in universals and natural law as objective standards above rulers, making justice more a matter of will and command. Combined with the centralizing pressures of plague, war, and fiscal strain, this philosophical shift weakened local courts, guilds, and charters. The Reformation further fragmented appeals to universal authority, allowing princes and kings to claim religious as well as political supremacy. Later, thinkers such as Hobbes gave theoretical justification to the idea that order and justice flowed from the sovereign’s will, laying the groundwork for legal positivism and the nation-state, where legitimacy rested not on universal truths or local traditions but on the authority of a single political center.
That wasn’t long; that was fantastic. Rarely are comments so informative!
Right before I got to the part about nominalism, I thought to myself that a way to cure some of this would be to instantiate the concept of natural law/rights so strongly in people’s minds that individuals themselves (rather than local princes) become the locus of resistance. That the best work could be done with IDEAS in people’s minds.
It seems the spread nominalism did that, but in reverse :(
Agreed. Its an intellectual and spiritual battle first and foremost. If we can win that I believe a free society can accommodate almost any set of circumstances be it technical, demographic, economic, or geographic.
And we don't even need everyone on board. We just need >some< people. Especially effective people.
Good stuff, Chris - as usual! However, I bristled a bit at these words about the Founders & Framers:
--------------------------------------------
"At their moment in history, at their stage in the development of classical-liberal philosophy, they believed that it was necessary for humans to “surrender” some of their freedom in order to “secure the rest.” Are you sure they were right?
"They held that it was necessary for people to surrender to an imposed “social contract,” and to pretend to believe in the demonstrably false notion that our consent thereto is “tacit” and “implied.”
"Are you sure they were right? For all time?"
-------------------------------------------------
I think "surrender" is too strong a word -- it implies permanence and abdication. I much prefer to use the word "license". That is, to secure their natural rights they agreed to *license* enumerated powers to a central government.
(Example: When I rent a car from Hertz, Hertz doesn't surrender ownership to me -- they grant me a *license* to use the car, but they retain ownership.)
The important thing about a license is that it can be modified or withdrawn. A "surrender" implies an abdication for all time. That's not what the Founders & Framers did, although I agree it's come to be assumed by most that that's exactly what they did. How unfortunate -- we need a major attitude adjustment.
That's why I've been drawn to the Constitution's Article V, which grants our state legislatures the power to amend the Constitution without the permission or approval of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. The "Fiver" movement is still ongoing.
Locke said, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”
“Under” government may be even stronger than “surrender”!
License would be better, for sure. But the implication that I think you want out of that word actually goes beyond what the Framers thought. Or at least beyond how they actually behaved. The implication that you want seems to be that consent to the social contract should be TRULY consent, not the “tacit” consent that Locke and the Framers believed in and imposed.
There is no way that Washington would have accepted any claim by an individual, or group of individuals, that they were withdrawing their license. The Whiskey Rebellion, and all his statements about his distaste for disorder, make that clear.
Hamilton? No flipping way. Hamilton engineered Shay’s Rebellion to cram the Constitution past the Articles, and to enrich himself and his buddies. They lied about the Yeas and Nays of the Constitutional Convention and threatened Rhode Island with violence if they did not comply.
Madison? On paper, arguably, but when he had a chance to put his values to the test, he sided with Hamilton, and against the Antifederalists.
J. Adams? The Sedition Act is all you need to know.
Jefferson? Mayyyyyyybe. If a state, during his presidency, had said they wanted to secede, he is the only one who MIGHT have allowed it on principle.
The ones you are looking for are the Antifederalists (Henry, Mason, S. Adams, etc.). But they lost. And even they were products of the Enlightenment and the belief of that era that social contracts could be tacitly consensual.
I think what is happening here, my dear old comrade, is that you have moved beyond the Founders, but a lifetime of reverence for them and their accomplishments is keeping you from accepting that. From accepting that you are more ready for anarchism than they were, in their moment in history.
The moral conclusions banging around in your head are telling you something. Listen to them. They are not wrong. Classical-liberal thought has advanced significantly since 1800. We can revere what the Founders did without being paralyzed by it.
Perfect Christopher - Time is very short! Very soon (And actually being enacted now) we won't be able to speak out, we will have martial law, no Bill of Rights and rule by dictator!
Except that I am already being starved like a Gazan in California. That slavery is here. And you won't bother doing anything about it but type in the box. Where is your movement to free the slaves?
Well, I do have plans to take all this from the theoretical to the practical. However, my particular plan won't involve a single moment, but rather a long-term strategy.
I'm sorry that it is taking me so long to get to the practical portion. I am spinning a lot of plates!