69 Comments

It first became clear to me that I needed to live in a free country to do the work in space tourism that I was doing all the way back in 1991. So I began looking for a free country. There are none.

So I began working with groups building new countries like the New Country Foundation and the Atlantis Project. In 1996 I began working on some projects in Africa with Michael van Notten. In 2000 I joined Liberty International and attended their world congress.

At the time we called it the International Society for Individual Liberty. It is the most effective freedom group I've been in. As an indication of just how effective we are, we translated Ken Schoolland and Kerry Pearson's video on the philosophy of liberty into Arabic about 2006 and by 2010 it had over 1.6 million views. ISIL was inspirational to the Arab Spring. Obama hated us so much he began calling Daesh (ISIS) "the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant" and using ISIL in his speeches even though nobody in Daesh ever did.

Sure enough his campaign of propaganda got us a huge amount of hate mail and denial of service attacks until we changed our name and domain name.

I am in touch with the "Exit and Build " group involved in Freedom Cells. John Bush is a friend since 2009 and I met Derrick Broze at some events in 2019. Good guys.

You are not alone in wanting to be left alone. It's not easy. But it was Patrick Henry who said that we should not be surprised that so valuable a thing as freedom should come at a high price.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, brother, for all you have done, and for your encouragement.

We're going to get there. Or we shall see to it that the work we do will one day lead to our children and grandchildren get there!

And Patrick Henry was the real deal!

Expand full comment

How’s the space tourism endeavor going?

Expand full comment

I would say it is getting started again. I wrote about it at L5 News substack.

Expand full comment

Ok. So space space? As in up in the sky, beyond the Van Allen Belts?

Expand full comment

Intriguing proposals, I must investigate further. Thank you for sharing.

" ... Patrick Henry who said that we should not be surprised that so valuable a thing as freedom should come at a high price."

I hope that freedom will not be so out-of-reach that it will only be available for purchase at the ultimate price.

Though it is the birthright of all who are born, if the ultimate price is what I personally must pay so that even some of those among us may finally enjoy it some day, then I am prepared to pay. I can't imagine what better purpose there could be for a life.

Expand full comment

Why must a nonconsensual ‘social contract’ be forced upon you without your consent?

“Police protection” is an unsatisfactory answer. Security and justice can be accomplished in other ways.

Yeah, I can carry a gun and defend myself. I don't need the police.

“National defense” is similarly unsatisfactory. Governments are the reason why we have wars in the first place.

And they don't use their military for defense, as per the constitution. For example, they don't defend the border from illegal invasion.

Expand full comment
author

"Yeah, I can carry a gun and defend myself. I don't need the police."

—Yes, and in a condition of market anarchism, you could also become a customer of one of a variety of competing security/aggression-insurance agencies. And they would surely provide premium discounts for people who also were able to defend themselves and their property.

"For example, they don't defend the border from illegal invasion."

—No, they sure don't!

Expand full comment

"And they don't use their military for defense, as per the constitution."

Precisely. Standing armies were invented expressly for military campaigning and adventurism in foreign lands. See the Marian Reforms, conducted by Gaius Marius (Gaius Julius Caesar's uncle) in the Roman Republic during late second century BC.

Some other purposes of the military:

1. for the state to stand-over the people and remain at the ready as the ultimate inflicter of violence on them, especially on occasions of social upheaval, and

2. for the state to eliminate generations of young men in wars in the interests of population reduction.

Reduction of population is also effected during wars by the tacit reciprocal agreement between governments that one state's military kills the other's people, and vice versa, that way each government can duck out of being blamed for murdering the nation's own people.

Expand full comment

I'm looking forward to seeing how you solve the prisoners' dilemma. National defense is only needed because we have nations, but you only need one nation for a war.

Expand full comment
author

This book won't dive into apologetics for market anarchism too deeply (we have Hoppe, Friedman, et al for that). But I will definitely touch on everything, including that.

Expand full comment

Going through the revocation of election process brought up a lot of these questions for me. In essence, the paperwork to remove one's self from a non-consenual immoral authority that doesn't have my best interest in mind is a spiritual endeavor that brings up fears and shows the natural inclination, the knowing inside us all that says I am, or am not, free because of a piece of paperwork, nor the opposite...but something else, entirely, that starts with a state of being. Unlearning must also include unraveling what was consented to, both consciously and unconsciously...a process of clearing clutter, the kind that takes up space in the mind and upon the land. We own our mind, but only if we don't let propaganda take hold of it. None of us own the land, but we are tasked to be proper guardians of God's creation, including our own temple (body, mind and spirit)...becoming free is to recognize we are not free, it is then the journey begins and natural law reveals itself to the curious spirit desiring to walk upon the soil, living, no longer a dead entity under the thumb of something else that exists by force, consent, coercion and theft.

Expand full comment
author

"In essence, the paperwork to remove one's self from a non-consenual immoral authority"

—Are you referring to specific paperwork?

"but something else, entirely, that starts with a state of being" "We own our mind, but only if we don't let propaganda take hold of it."

❤️🔥❤️

"None of us own the land"

—Well, I may be only "renting" it from God and nature, but when it comes to all other humans, I exclusively own my house and the little plot it is on. Any other arrangement than that quickly ends up looking like the USSR or Mao's China.

"curious spirit desiring to walk upon the soil, living, no longer a dead entity under the thumb of something else that exists by force, consent, coercion and theft."

—I was sure that a butterfly said hello to me today.

Expand full comment
author

Ah. I will take note of this!

Expand full comment

There are several teaching how to do this, but this guy is a great resource from personal experience.

Expand full comment

Yes Revocation of Election paperwork to remove yourself . And yes, renting, but if it’s not in a specific kind of trust and we are paying property taxes, we don’t own it. Just like the title to the car is not the true title of ownership, you must have the Manufacturer Certificate of Origin (the true title) which dealers send to the government who then destroy it, so you can only own it if you buy new and get that document and don’t register with the state.

Expand full comment
author

"Revocation of Election paperwork to remove yourself"

—From what does it remove you?

Expand full comment

Hopefully the short vid I shared answered this.

Expand full comment
author

Bookmarked; will watch later; thanks!

Expand full comment

I think you will find useful if you haven’t explored this….also applicable to change in passport.

Expand full comment

Yes, some very good writing and thought here Chrisopher. This is one of the most galling violations of human rights to me that most seem to be oblivious to. Now we see millions being allowed into our lands without "papers" or any kind of vetting, but it's a one way door. At one time you didn't need a passport to leave or enter the country of your birth. When it was instituted it was supposed to give you the assurance that your so called "government" had your back when you were abroad. Now it is a way to control you and make sure you don't leave the plantation without massa's permission, and your entry and exit can be closely monitored.

Expand full comment
author

Sadly, I think the slouch toward that level of oppression is inevitable whenever you give anyone any political power whatsoever. It will always get there eventually.

Expand full comment

Yeah, it is like a disease or a cancer, a sign of sickness in human society. When the causes are not understood or hidden and not treated, it just goes on to the ultimate conclusion.

Expand full comment
author

That is why evolution to HumanGovernance 3.0 is the only way. Consensual only.

Expand full comment

May it be so. It is inevitable, although it may be in another place I think. The golden age will come, but there will still be a place like this where the laggards can run through the whole program again until they get it. The "graduates" who have shown they have "gotten it" will experience that wonderful condition of real freedom. May we be among them.

Expand full comment
author

🙏🏻🔥🙏🏻

Expand full comment

I think we'll be there Christopher and will have a little celebration party.

Expand full comment

Wonderful unpacking Christopher.

Expand full comment
author

Baggage must be unpacked eventually!

Thanks, MN :-)

Expand full comment

Anyone who has tried to move out of any state and move to another has to realize the truth to your point. I recently moved from a restrictive Blue State (NJ) to the Free State of Florida. A place where I can legally stand my ground and protect myself, family and possessions with deadly force if necessary. The process of selling my home was the worst experience of my life. It’s was abundantly clear that our Freedom as we know it is really just an illusion.

Truly that hurts me to say and even think. My forefathers fought in the Revolution, Gettysburg, and my father who was on the first train to carry US Soldiers through Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Bombs had been dropped. A ride that ultimately ended his life prematurely due to radiation caused cancer. I’m no longer a Happy American Citizen although I’m much happier now that I can exercise my Second Amendment Rights without impediment from the State! Recognizing that the only thing that is preventing the government from doing anything it wants is an armed citizenry!

Expand full comment
author

Powerful words all around.

Expand full comment

Your doing great work Chris, thank you. This is all very important to understand. I’m going to tag a link to an article of mine that is complementary.

It deals with dominion, sovereignty. Let’s build a multifaceted understanding of our relationship to our circumstances. Knowledge coupled with ethical behavior is sovereignty! Sovereignty is the source of justice.

https://open.substack.com/pub/sacredtrusttheory/p/gender-and-the-trust?r=30t5le&utm_medium=ios

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Brother Bill :-)

Based on the fact that that article shows a like from me, it looks like I already read it a while back. And yes, we do generally concur. Let's keep spreading the word!

By the way, would you consider yourself to be an anarchist/voluntaryist/etc.?

Expand full comment

I saw that. I really attached the link for everyone else. It seems as though my theory is pushing me towards the anarchist philosophy. Although, I hesitate to take on the label. I am a trustee of the Sacred Trust.

Expand full comment
author

Yeah, the label/word anarchist has a lot of baggage. But it is still the term of art, for now at least.

And yes, I hope others will see your link!

Expand full comment

Meh, the majority allows it to continue with their lack of knowledgeable revolt.

Expand full comment
author

The majority will likely never get it.

Expand full comment

Can you expound on the ideas of police protection and border enforcement contracted with private entities? Also, this idea seems to presume that everyone has the means and the wherewithal to contract with others. How will this system work for those who don't?

Expand full comment
author

Your first question is massively open-ended 🤣 I will be going over this in a few weeks, in some detail. Can you hold out till then?

If not, just read Chapter 12 here: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf

Your second question too is quite involved. But one quick point is that there has only ever been one force in human history that has made things affordable to poor people: the market. Nothing else has ever had the power to take things that were once luxuries, affordable only to the rich, and make them affordable for everyone. That will apply just as much to the market production of security and justice as it has to shiny boots, refrigerators, air conditioners, and safe, well-appointed automobiles.

Expand full comment

I can wait of course! I was just responding to the open ended statement you made so each one of us is being obtuse. ;-) I understand that it's hard to provide for all parts of society equally but right now, the wealthy who are taxed, pay for the roads that all use. The wealthy, who have healthcare, pay for emergency rooms to be used by all. Yep, a bit of socialism but with some market forces involved. Also, poverty has many levels. Some are very poor, some are working poor and some are way down on the end of the middle class rung. How do these service models work for them? And what if each person builds a road to their liking and doesn't allow others to use? Will we be left with only roads? How will we establish, if at all, eminent domain? OK, I'll stop. Thanks for reading.

Expand full comment
author

Roads are easily handled in a libertarian/market condition, especially now that we have transponder technology. Private entities (companies and their investors) would simply buy up sections of road and issue transponders to roads customers, who would be charged based on usage. There is reciprocity between states now, and each gets it cut when people use interstates on their section of roads. So a similar market solution would arise. Just like no one has to order lumber mills to make their studs 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 or bed makers to make their queen size beds 60 x 80. So no prob there.

As far as the rest, I stick with what I said above. Government is not the reason why poor people keep getting greater and greater access to things that were once considered luxuries. Only the market does that. Only the market has ever done that, or can do that. Government does not make that process easier; it makes it harder. Categorically.

So in order for the concerns you raise to be a real problem, we would have to assume that somehow, this affordability engine will break down at precisely the moment when its biggest impediment is removed. That seems unlikely.

Various market players—especially a robust insurance market—would offer products that would assist lower-income cohorts in getting what they need. And it would be done without the soul-crushing dependence and parasitism that characterizes government's approach now.

Expand full comment

Christopher, thank you for carefully, clearly, and in plain language examining, articulating and analysing these ideas that may only have been held by your readers as rudimentary notions. It is fully exhilarating to me personally to read your statements and arguments for things I have felt deeply, even if only in undeveloped and unrecorded form, as an awakened spirit inside me, as it were, nebulous but intense.

I understand that in order to expound the subject and do it its deserved justice, it must be dissembled and each component presented individually, also for the purpose of trying to convince those who may still be neutrally-disposed to these ideas. But there may be others besides myself for whom these ideas are natural, who have long thought about the reality of our predicament and the finality of our enslavement under the long-prevailing paradigm, and who have collided against the impenetrable barrier of the state's monopoly on violence. The state is unchallengeable in the capacity for violence, and this is the only basis of its assumed authority, however illegitimate and immoral that may be. Ultimately, any advance against or retreat from the dominion of the state will be responded to with violence. I don't wish to 'black pill,' but I can't envisage any solution to this.

Another commenter, Jim Davidson, informs of some intriguing possibilities, and I am keen to investigate them further. But I still can't see how any of those ideas will be able to get far beyond the concept phase - if at all - if/when they need to carve their space out from and under what is presently the purview of a/the state. Further, the ultimate objective of the various long-term public–private partnership (PPP) arrangements between government and private corporations are for the take-over/seizure and control of everything. And by everything, I mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, and to hold it all from anyone who might be audacious enough to seek to claim even a mote of it for themselves.

You have correctly cautioned readers and emphasized that we are doing work that will take generations to complete, that progress, if any, will be incremental and many set-backs will invariably be suffered along the way, and this is a sensible way to temper expectations. But the present situation and the direction it is developing - by now it should be clear - is towards a complete transformation of the world into a vast centrally-controlled techno-Fascist totalitarian surveil-and-command machine. All and every kind of material substance of the entire planet is being seized and hoarded into custody of an international syndicate of monied controllers. Most of the human population will eventually be eliminated, and those remaining will have nothing, and especially no power of agency in the world.

It is almost certain that this nightmare scenario will either wholly or partly fail. Those who have planned and who expect to prevail when the plans are fully worked out are demonstrating that they have staggeringly miscalculated their own prerogative, their cachet, and their own competence to effect the plans, and their breathtaking arrogance and impudence is cataclysmic hubris. Good. They are heading for downfall, and that is even better. But they are not going down alone, and it is highly likely that a lot of the world as it is and we who inhabit are being dragged into obliteration with them. There won't be much of a world left to the survivors, if any, and they will need to start from scratch to build a new world.

If that will be our destiny, is it then the horizon that you have set your sights on for the freedom you and we all hope for?

I'm sorry for the length and meandering path I've taken you on to this destination.

Expand full comment
author

It's not meandering at all. I totally get it.

We have to have hope, though, so let's try to think of all the reasons why we can have hope…

1. As you say, they may not be as powerful as they think.

2. Also, there are factions among them. They may start fighting each other.

3. Complex plans often fail.

4. The internet is (or ant least may be) waking people up faster than they can control.

5. Sudden economic collapse may render them impotent, leaving open a gap for other options.

6. Slow economic decline may leave local areas strapped for resources and open to private solutions.

7. Special economic zones/ZEDEs, free cities, etc. are already starting to form. That is only going to increase.

8. There are so many more of us than there are of them. If opting out, civil disobedience, or resistance, etc. get in any way widespread, they're done.

9. Numerous experiments in independent/sovereign living are about to start springing up like mushrooms. They just cannot stop all of them.

10. The number of normies may be shrinking. I have recently talked to two people who I totally expected to be normies who actually had made some progress away from NormieTown.

That's ten off the top of my head, before breakfast. Please think of and add more reasons for hope!

Expand full comment

I was just having this conversation on values. We may share similar values but how we implement them is the radical difference. Voluntary, or by force. And really that's how we differ. Some people think you have to enforce good values in a population. Other people believe, if good values are part of our upbringing, we don't need enforcement. Human nature is fascinating.

Expand full comment
author

It is indeed. And I agree wholeheartedly: the top-level dichotomy, before all the others, is coercer vas. persuader. Taker vs. maker. Raider vs. Trader. That is the measure of a man.

Expand full comment

Oh yummy, good stuff Sir 🙏

Expand full comment
author

There's a whole chapter on it in my other book :-)

Expand full comment

I’m going to say that the transfer of good values includes the value of freedom, first and foremost. So values can never be transferred unwillingly, but only through a process of recognition/need whereby they are accepted willingly.

Expand full comment

Agreed, consent is number one.

Expand full comment

I will be plastering this all over the place!!! Truest words I have seen!!!

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, Amaterasu!

Expand full comment

Well worth it!!!

🙏🏻 🤗 💜 🤗 🙏🏻

Expand full comment

From something or another I saw recently:(paraphrasing) “If giving up 100% of your wages is slavery, at what lesser % does it become acceptable taxation?”

Useful easily understood concept to toss into the analysis somewhere or another.

Expand full comment
author

Yes!

I think you will like this post very much:

https://christophercook.substack.com/p/animals-government-farm-laffer-curve

Expand full comment
founding

Beautiful Christopher!

Expand full comment

Who knew that those precious words from the Eagles song "Hotel California" hitting the airwaves around 1977 would speak volumes in today's wacky technocratic prison? The only purpose we serve as slaves to government is to fight in their oppressive wars, vote for more slavery from a different master, pay taxes on everything imaginable, work ourselves to the bone for 45 years and then hopefully we die off before collecting too much SS and Medicare.

You can check out then, but leave your wealth at our door sayeth the psychopaths running the salve machine. That is your contract from birth to death. I guess you can always move to another country but there is no way to be sure their governments won't sell out to the global technorats and the big pharma medical terrorists.

Expand full comment
author

It has to end.

Expand full comment