Ode To No Government At All, Ever Again

Economics Political Theory
, ,
1

Hello all

I am new here, just stumbled over the site from a forum post about the hypothesis that there is no longer a federal government - from doing a search on the topic to see what sort of activity is happening from those for and against any federal government. I’ve spent a little time browsing but now I’m impatient and want to jump right in with my 1500 questions and give you guys something to do!

As for me, the only label I can rightly find to describe myself would be Patriot. So my perspective on total freedom matches the philosophies here in various respects, whether it is free market, libertarian, anarchist, or some other label I probably couldn’t point to since I’ve never been one to slap a label on my forehead to describe my point of view. It’ll come up naturally anyway before long.

What motivated this quest was being sooo exasperated by the current state of government corruption and exploitation, as well as the infuriating cowardice displayed by practically every citizen in this country, but one of the top 2 thorns in my ass is that there is this befuddling tendency in most everyone who fancies themselve “freedom minded” to continue on in one form or another attempting to solicit the permission of ‘the government’ to grant them permission to be free. I find that sickening. I am very much pro Constitution, but there are aspects of it I feel should be changed completely for the sole reason that they perpetuate nothing more than a slave mentality, and likewise with the Declaration of Independence in particular, that all men are “created” equal and are given these rights by a god. The entire presumption that man serves a god is still perpetuating slave mentality.

I appreciate very much my fellow citizens out there protesting and campaigning for this or that cause or freedom and protection, but I have - with Obama’s support over FISA had it driven home that all of these efforts are ultimately futile and those protesting are considered annoyances to the ones who have the powerball. It was mostly watershed moment, this revelation that they’re missing the forest for the trees - how can they defend Liberty and at the same time beg and plead some political gang to give them their rights back? They’ve protested rather loudy that “they have destroyed the Constitution! They’re taking away our rights! We must stop them! Send letters now!” but the foundation of the document is just an Idea, and that Idea offers a simple solution - this “government” is only as powerful as the willful consent of the people. It astounds me how many people will wig out over the Constitution and “what it means” yet haven’t bothered to read it, let alone take it seriously…or accept fully that they can.

This epiphany I have had recently stemmed from an idea of - since there is no actual specification in the Constitution that states the current body of individuals being called government is, in fact, the government being referred to by the Constitution, a possible solution would be to disavow all of them entirely and proceed to set up a whole new body of government, as if the current one no longer exists, right down to the president. They would essentially be shunned and defunded - and the same funds would be moved to our actual new body of government…but 24hrs later the rest of the epiphany erupted and I had to ask myself wasn’t this also more of the conditioned slave mentality?

Aren’t we grown adults here? Do we even need a government at all? My answer was a resounding no. The very idea of abolishing all forms of government in this respect is, however, in opposition to the precepts of the Constitution as it declares the lawful installation of a central government to handle the affairs of the people. Well, maybe I don’t support the Constitution in its entirety after all! (It came as a shock, considering how much I harp on it).

It came clear that the people in this country need very much to grow up and learn how to take care of themselves. There will always be exploiters, it is part of our biology/psychology, but that same biology will give rise to measures of detoxification when the exploitation threatens the host - this is pure nature and no law will ever subvert it. It isn’t a social ordinance, it is built in, hard wired survival dictate. Barring that, the Constitution itself, while well intended, isn’t without an inherent acceptance that someone more qualified should be in charge of us…and as a woman who is a slave to nobody, and will fight or kill to maintain that right, I can’t help think that unless the people get up off their knees and learn to take care of themselves for their own interests, (and develop a large dose of self esteem in the process), this twisted nightmare will continue on its loop.

If American citizens could pull their heads out of their asses, get up off their knees and handle their own affairs as grown adults, this country would set the example, raise the bar and the standard for other nations to figure out that no man is a slave unless he chooses, it is by his own consent, and as long as he runs around with posters begging permission he will fail at his struggle for freedom.

The law of natural selection will weed out the population that is unfit to keep itself alive…whether that population is made up of exploiters or feeders or sloths, and even if it is made up of defenders and fighters.

I am so passionate about this, it’s burning holes in my fingers! Instead of focusing on trying to get some Libertarian or Green or Indy voted in (when it’s pointless as the whole thing is a scam anyway) what should be focused on is waking people up to the reality they are NOT SLAVES, and the second people rise up and refuse to bow to any master is the second the whole idea goes extinct. Will there be bloodshed? Probably so.

But if there is to be pure Liberty, that is the only way…everything else is asking permission, which means you are not free. Freedom is first a state of mind. Then it is manifested out here in the world. When you set your own boundaries, the majority will respect them. Those who do not will face the consequences in some measure or another. There are those who are still conditiioned to believe we need people to govern us, and they will be resistant, but this isn’t an inherant nature - this is brainwashing and it can be dissolved with the correct education.

I am interested in feedback on various ways and means of promoting pure freedom, abolition of all forms of government (as a ruling entity, not necessarily as an organizational one), and basically scrapping this whole thing and starting over with the correct foundation of pure freedom…and on into issues of law and order, rights, economy, free market - all of it being developed under this mainline theme.

Thanks for hosting these forums - many outstanding discussion from some truly lucid people. Glad I found it!

FTR: I am married, female, 44, 3 sons, live in Tx, husband’s military and about to launch my own campaign of sorts pushing pure freedom.

2

PS Case In Point - not that you need one, but apparently I’m not done!

There is a woman I’ve sort of met via online - she’s local, we haven’t met face to face but have been developing an email budship and getting better acquainted - I opted to correspond awhile first to see what she was about before diving into some friendship. She’s a very cool person but could be easily considered one of those who are so completely not plugged in anywhere with what’s going on all around her. Her entire focus is her immediate life, and interestingly, with regard to this subject, a personal battle with her oldest son, early 20s. The gist of it is they’re smack off in this hostile, potentially violent escalation over his perception of her as a parent - which from her descriptions is largely how most of America views the government. By analogy, her son is in the midst of anarchy and revolt. She’d asked my advice on how to deal with him, I offered some based only on what she shared, but also urged her to set some boundaries and stand firm. It took her a few tries but she did let him know where her line in the sand was and wrote later pleasantly surprised that things settled down - granted, the correspondence/communication itself tapered off as he opted, it appears, to just abandon protesting against her, but it brought her a little respite, and gives him time to chill out and either drop the whole thing or work within her boundaries, etc.

So our last exchange was mostly about this topic of pure freedom and I was basically sharing with her the same info I put in the post above, and when I read her reply, initially I was irritated it was more of the same, but after the ‘reaction’ I understood where it comes from. Having removed any identifying information, I am adding an excerpt of her response to the idea of abolishing all forms of government as it’s a great example/illustration of one of many fundamental protests people will indeed have to the whole idea. I wanted to share and request feedback on how you all would possibly respond if she’d written it to you - when she’s not a stranger anymore but someone in your actual lives somewhere…that you know you handle far differently than strangers on the net! I’ll respond later but if anyone bothers reading this at all, please comment. The following is, I feel, is fundamental to what prevents legitimate action on any front…and this also needs to be abolished!

I’m going to sound like a contradicting pessimist here…the world is in chaos, I agree, but without a government, president, congress, etc…this world would have more chaos and destruction…people would just go crazy without law and order…think of mass destruction…so in a way..WE DO need them to tell us how to live…but we need to get someone elected that will right all the wrongs…I understand your concerns, although I don’t think about it as much as you do…I just kind of feel “what will be, will be”…were the little people…no one is going to listen to us…how can we possibly make a difference? unless you get massive amounts of people together and go have a rally in front of the white house or something…

What would you say to her if it was you?

3

People have gotten by without a congress, presidents, and government alltogether before and there wasn’t massive destruction and chaos, why now?

Law and order does not equal government

We need an enlightened dictator?

4

My advise to the parent, and the kid, would be to both read “On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion”. It’s free at this website, together with some of his other books (they’re good!). Before you give that advise though, read the book first lol (it’s short)

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/

As for needing government, without going into detailed explanations, I’d like to make the following observations:

  1. Asimov said “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”, and while I doubt he meant the government, think about it. The government violently enforces a monopoly on the services they provide. If they were competent and efficient, they wouldn’t need violence, and they could compete on a free market. The very fact that the government does not compete on a free market, and instead uses violence to maintain monopoly power, is direct proof that they are incompetent relative to any market institutions.
  2. Would you rather have an iron fist (dictator), or an invisible hand (market)?
  3. Mutual voluntary exchange in a market means that both parties gain, as otherwise they would not agree to trade. A government, by default, uses coercion to enforce its programs, and collect its revenue. Since it requires violence, and not voluntarism for sustenance, then we know that at least one party is disadvantaged in the transaction…you!
  4. Governments are as insatiable as the fire. Fire, like the government, grows the more it consumes. It is inevitable that no matter what idealistic government you set up, it will grow into leviathan. There’s an article about this on the frontpage I think.
  5. Corruption occurs because of this simple dilemma: “Who watches the watchers?”. This can only be solved by free market competition. When the cops, or the doctors, or the teachers, or bureaucrats, screw up in a government enforced monopoly, you’re stuck with them. You may vote in a different leader after a few years, but everytime on false promises, and the bureacracy never changes its nature, its incentives. In a free market on the other hand, when one firm screws up, you go to another. It is not only a way to combat corruption, it is also an excellent preventine measure, creating preliminary disincentives, as competitors will know they will lose customers when they screw up. Governments never lose customers are they use violence to maintain their tax payers.
  6. What we have today in no way resembles a free market. Arguably, a free market has never really existed. So any critisicm of the government-induced chaos today as a critisicm of market anarchism is a result of propaganda. What you are demonstrating is direct proof of government brainwashing. After all, how could you be so certain about the outcome of market anarchy without experiencing it, or at least learning its theoretical basis?
  7. Market anarchism is the only moral political system. The moral double standards of “Citizens can’t steal, but government officials can” or “Dressing up a thug with a uniform and a badge makes him less of a murderer” does not exist without government, which claims ultimate moral authority (whether from god or unto themselves).

Hope this is food for thought.

5

Yes, in fact law and order is directly opposed to government. Anomie is chaos and lawlessness. Since the government creates an entire political layer of archos, who are above the law themselves, then government is actually anomie, while anarchy, the absence of this moral dichotomy, is law and order!

6

Ask yourself this simple question, Do people have the right to take things from you without your permission? Most would consider this to be theft. If one person forces you at gunpoint to give up your property we would all agree it is wrong. If 50 people force you at gun point to give up your property then that is still wrong. So it doesnt matter how many people are forcing you at gun point to give up your property it is still wrong. Government forces you at gunpoint to give up your property. So there is no moral justification for government. That is the only simple concept you really need to understand.

Once you take this concept to heart then discussions of whether the governement should do one thing or another is irrelevant. All answers about government activity come down to simple questions, is the governement doing less, then it is beneficial to me if it is doing more then it is not. Keeping in mind this only means if given the choice I preferred to be robbed less rather than more. Ideally, I prefer not to be robbed at all.

So imagine you are now at the understanding that all governement action is a result of coercion and that the ideal society is one without coercion. Now what? This is the real question that most freedom lovers have difficulty answering. How do we create a society without government? What actions can I take?

Four basic options:

  1. Do nothing go on with your life, forget about it.

  2. Flee in place, stay where you are try and make some money, avoid taxes where you can limit your exposure to the government and give support financially or otherwise to other liberty movements.

  3. Flee to another place, go and live somewhere else that has less government control or in a place that you think a truly free society can be created. The Liberty Colony falls into this category. www.libertycolony.com

  4. Resist in your current place. Openly violently resist in your current location.

If you are living in the US the only realistic option for actually creating a free society is option 3. Option 2 may increase your personal freedom but you will still be living under the burden of the state. Option 1 does nothing to advance your own freedom. Option 4 is possible in some places but unlikely to be successful in the US.

7

You might be interested in reading about agorism. Look at the “Best of FSK” list on my blog for other interesting stuff.

I’ve concluded that agorism is the only means of resistance with a chance of success. Others on this forum strongly disagree. Currently, I’m spending all my effort raising awareness. I haven’t tried practical agorism myself yet.

Via agorism, you’re denying the bad guys resources and showing a profit at the same time!

If you restrict yourself to purely legal means of protest, such as voting or writing your Congressman, you’re wasting your time. Such actions are fighting the bad guys on their turf.

8

Great, thanks!

Okay…I read the information on both links suggested, and the responses. Good info, and the first one I could’ve written myself, changing only the gender of the author, changing the mother to father, and adding in an extra brother. [:P] Other than that, it’s identical to stuff I’ve written many times in various forms. The one area he should’ve added was an additional treatise on sheer denial, though he covered it well enough. I’ll forward my friend the link - fortunately she does love to read.

I think what got me most in her reply was that it was so typical and so glaringly a reactionary protest clearly based on the very sort of conditioning and teaching, but I also recognize in her some lucidity, reason and objectivity. Asking my advice on how to deal with her oldest son was appreciated and aren’t we all happy to spout adice any chance we get! But again, the email itself was mostly coming from her frustration and was wholly reactionary overall. Once she settled down off the rant, she seems quite capable of eventually arriving at correct solutions. In my next reply to her, after posting here but before anyone posted, I did pose most of the same sentiment and it was met with an agreement that she is aware of that really, she gets it - but in her particular life it’s not more relevant to her than the immediate conflicts, which is totally understandable. She could acknowledge it was fear based and that in more practical terms, she doesn’t need a babysitter. It left me feeling more that this was a case of bad timing on the idea than actual resistance to it because of a secret need or belief that a government anywhere is better qualified to serve her interests than she is.

In fact, she made that point pretty well by her sheer resistance to exploring this topic for now, in favor of handling a real conflict with her son, most of the conflict boiling down to her son’s drug addict wife’s negative opinions of her and the wife’s attempts to emotionally manipulate the son into hostility toward the mom because she, the parents, refused to fund the wife’s drug habit…that, unfortunately, the son refuses to accept as ‘real’ so insists his mother is only being hateful, and then going on to dredge up every instance of “bad parenting” he felt she’s ever made. I can see where it’d get old after awhile and it’s exasperating trying to balance being a “good mother” and handling it all productively while being assaulted with every little thing he seems to think she does wrong. After reading the book from the one link, which I will definitely pass along, I think I would suggest she say to both of them: “If you insist I failed you as a parent, then stand up and parent yourself. If there is something specific you want me to do, then knock off the drama and attacks, settle down and clearly define what that is, and I’ll see about it.”

Now, as for the topic of agorism - I can see a lot of merit there in principle, you made a clear argument in favor of it, but in another aspect I can see where it could be interpreted as simple “ways and means of tax evasion” - not that I’m against it. You mention that many people on this forum seem to think it’s a bad idea, I’d be interested to see some of the protests against it - if you could supply a link to another topic/forum where the subject is discussed, unless continuing it here is okay. As for practicing the whole of it, not specifically the taxation issue because at this point there are taxes imposed in practically everything. In my current situation I don’t personally pay them anyway, being exempt, but then it’s made up for in the products and services as a consumer. Other than that specific aspect, I practice that just as a natural way of life but if I had to classify it or ‘teach it’ I wouldn’t know really how to go about it. You just kinda “do it” in the course of daily living and it results in having next to zero conflict with or interaction with any form of federal government - which is another motivation beneath the epiphany I’ve had recently, in retrospect over my life thus far, I can count maybe half a dozen times I’ve had any real direct interaction or dealing with any form of federal agency for any reason. Passively, however, until there is no FG, then it’s unavoidable but the gist of it is that this provided enough evidence that it can be done, I am not dependent on the government for the sustainment of my life and affairs, I simply do not need them…and the times I have, few and far between, not only was it a pain in the ass, what “assistance” was supposedly offered would’ve complicated and compounded the original situation…I’d have been far better off leaving well enough alone!

What are some of the arguments against it? And more importantly, the overall agenda - in a practical sense - to dismantle governments entirely, what would be some due courses of action in an application sense? How would we go about actualizing this option as a society to ultimately disband all forms of governance over the people? Ideas?

9

I wrote an “answers to criticisms of agorism” post. The critcisms I’ve seen trolled here are:

  1. Agorism is too risky. You’ll wind up in jail if you try it.
  2. Agorists are all talk and no action. (That’s true in my case, but not for other posters here. I plan to change that in the next few years.)
  3. Anarchy won’t work. People need a government in order to have a stable society.
  4. Agorism is not a proven success. Therefore, I don’t want to consider it.

I’ve concluded that agorism is the only sensible strategy a freedom-loving individual can pursue. If you want to start an agorist trading group, you only need a handful of people to get started. Regrettably, I don’t have any friends who are interested.

10

Ms. Patriot,

Don’t let the agorists on this site fool you. Agorism is absolutely fantasy. I have repeatedly demonstrated in these forums the complete lack of action of agorists, the complete incoherent nature and incosistent nature of the agorist philosophy. If you want to not comply with government rules and regulations because you want more personal freedom that is fine but you need to adopt the agorist mindset to do that. Agorism is just an excuse for people to pretend that by not paying a few taxes that they are engaged in a great venture to bring down the state.

Just as a note, the guy FSK has a blog that if you type in the word Agorism comes up about 5th in Google and he doesn’t know any agorists. What does that tell you? Agorism has been around 30 years and no one can point to one place in the world where it has had any impact.

Most agorists are opposed to the state but the philosophy has no chance of achieving its goals and many agorists openly admit it maky take many generations for it to have any effect. So forget about freedom in your lifetime with the agorist strategy. Agorists as people opposed to the state, ok, as a philosphy to remove the state, it’s ridiculous.

On an unrelated note, to FSK…I see that you are a programmer in one of your blogs…would you be interested in a real world freedom project such as developing an online gold currency platform?

11

Considering that E-Gold already failed, I don’t see the point in pursuing that. What’s wrong with trading with actual physical gold? I don’t see the advantage of an E-Gold system compared to using physical gold.

If you try to manage an E-Gold system as a legal on-the-books business, you’ll be shut down by State violence.

I considered writing some software that would help a gold/silver/FRN barter group. However, you could easily manage that by keeping track on a piece of paper. The valuable part would be the network of buyers and sellers, and not the actual software.

I considered developing a decentralized hawala-like system. However, you don’t need software to implement that. You need a network of trustworthy contacts.

Anyway, I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. Debating trolls and fools is pointless. (You consider me to be a fool and I consider you to be a fool.) There is reason to believe the future will be different than the past, because the Internet is enabling freedom-seekers to share information.

Even though Maxliberty and liberty student are trolling the anti-agorist foolish position, there are other people besides me intelligently defending agorism. I interpret this as a sign of progress. A year ago, when I was posting on the Ron Paul forum, the trolls merely ignored agorism instead of attacking it.

Also, I’m not violently preventing you from preventing you from conducting your Liberty Colony experiment, even though I think it’s pointless. Similarly, you aren’t violently preventing me from experimenting with agorism. If I was victim in a tax evasion trial, and you were on my jury, would you vote to acquit me?

12

Oh gimme a break. I am actually engaged in counter-economic activity, you are not. You’re a “theoretical agorist”. Your prose to action ratio on the topic is off the charts, and then you want to call my position foolish, without even debating it?

13

So those usually opposed to the concept of agorism would basically fall into two groups -

  1. it simply can’t be done, there’s little chance of abolishing the government, and

  2. there are some valid reasons to have a government to do what the people cannot do

Is that the gist of it?

If so, and whether it’s via agorism or some other means, I strongly disagree that there is little chance of abolishing all forms of government; the problem is determining the best way to go about it. Agorism seems to me - from just the small amount I’ve been introduced to so far - more intended to take the individuals off the grid than to take the beast off the map. I will continue reading up on it and am aware that there may well be more to it than this small amount I’ve seen so far.

As for #2, I looked at the link about the pro state criticisms, and couldn’t get half way through them before having to conclude the same thing - there simply is no good reason for the ‘state’ (and by state I presume you mean governing bodies, whether federal or state? In any case, that’s what I mean) to intervene or even to exist.

Such as with needing the state to build roads. State doesn’t build roads. State merely contracts out to “regular Joes” to actually do the street building, and then takes the majority of funds that should be going to Joes. Well, if there is no government body, who will build the roads then? Same regular Joes who were already building them. If there is no government involved, and a road gets washed out, either it will be abandoned in favor of a different route or the citizenry who prefer that route will ultimately intervene to make sure the road is repaired, and would turn to the Joes to handle it, at which point the Joes would keep all of their income.

What about the disabled who depend on government income for their very survival or other necessary equipment, etc. Who would provide that? In this case the issue is one of providing care and assistance, which the state/govt clearly does not provide in any measure - at most it provides funding to the actual caregivers…and again, eliminating the middle man allows the families or the individuals themselves to fund the caregivers without being robbed.

Most of these extraordinary fees and charges would be eliminated instantly without the govt entity involved which would reduce the costs considerably to something far more affordable, and as for the notion there should be a governing body involved to determine whether or not the caregivers are qualified, that presumes the ones who will be using them are incapable of making that judgment. Without someone telling them either way, the responsibility falls directly on the ones seeking the caregiver to cautiously research the options before going forward, which is in their best interest and would serve them far greater in the long run.

There is simply no good reason for there to be any form of government in the context of a “ruling body” making decisions on behalf of anyone else, or regarding the best interests of others. Having governance however is a productive, rational and needed thing that will happen naturally as people organize their skills and such to be able to do business at all, to keep things running smoothly and to handle problems, etc - but it would be in the context of management than a ruling body of control.

I also checked out the Liberty Colony - and for those who are looking for that sort of solution I don’t see any real problem with it - it would be cooperative. My personal feelings on it are such that while co-ops can be good, sustainable communities, etc. are fine, the same issue of differences will crop up, and the less conscious and educated people are about reality and how they function, the sooner conflicts will arise that cannot be handled by voting - but in a civil way by abandonment. If the colony were in fact likemined, it can work.

An example I came across while looking at it, all looked fine until I came to the laws aspect. I am not against having laws, rules, guidelines - and overall, had no issue with the rest of it on the whole - but where I had a personal obstacle would be in their presumption that life begins with conception, something that is factually untrue when presented in that specific context. Those who feel life begins at conception are those who simply do not have the proper education of the entire function and purpose of sexual reproduction, or the actual processes and stages involved - as opposed to “this is our opinion and if you disagree, you’re free to not participate.” Perhaps had it been presented this way I could’ve overlooked it (if I had more serious intention of participation down the road - and I do admit that I was liking the idea enough to consider it very seriously). Also, overall I could personally overlook it considering I am 44 and no longer intending on getting pregnant if I can possibly help it and if I did, I’d most assuredly seriously consider abortion at this late date (another “law” I’m sure would come in conflict).

But in a potential real life scenario of someone still primed for reproduction who got pregnant, the factual reality of conception does not equal living human being…and to suggest “life” begins at conception in any other context is to also accept that clipping toenails, coloring hair, blowing your nose, or tattoos, piercings or anything else that changes the absolute construction of the body is on par with murder…the cells are living, all of them, and the death of any cell would have to also be considered killing. This is something about the conception argument that is uneducated - which leads to the 2nd big problem I had with it…the “laws” proposed for the act of rape.

Rape, in fact, is not a sexual act in and of itself, it’s a control/power act and more accurately would fall under the heading of enslavement. The sexual act is on par with using ropes to restrain - but the act itself is enslavement, not sexual.

Add to that, on the one hand I was giving the lawmaker/s credit when they set the minimum age at 14, but it was lost with the ‘law’ of any sexual activity with anyone 15-16 by anyone 18 or older, consentual or not would be rape. This alone indicated to me that the lawmaker/s have no real idea as to the role of sexual reproduction, and that the age a female is ready naturally is the instant she begins menstruating, period, which is biological and for the sole purpose of reproducing the species, and as such, males - who have begun producing sperm at all, are ready in the same sense to impregnate her for the same reason. The only relevance age makes is what specific year this happens in either one. This is entirely the domain of the female in question, and no one has any right to prevent her freedom to choose for her when she is “ready” or “old enough” and further walks into the whole dangerous area of presupposing a specific psychological preparedness for sexual activity.

The fact is - there is none.

I know males and females in their 30s who clearly are too psychologically immature and silly to be having sex, let alone raising children. Nevertheless, for the purpose in which it was intended, Mother Nature has decided that the age of readiness, and therefore consent solely by that individual is the onset of menstruation in females, and the production of sperm in males. Finally, on that note, the most nonproductive thing people do is attempt to legislate sexuality - which is what the laws for LC appear to be bordering on, and sadly their laws will prevent nothing, because laws will never subvert human nature…most especially sexual nature that is there for the sole purpose of acquiring mates via the mating ritual behavior, courting rituals, mating dance and on to selection and intercourse FOR reproduction.

The Liberty Colony law may as well openly state that any recreational sexual activity is prohibited by anyone we feel shouldn’t have sex…which is highly hypocritical because recreational sexual activity will most assuredly happen, even with any 13 or 14 year olds who are there - and very likely at the suggestion of the 13 -14 yo who has entered into sexual awakening, which will physiologically compel them to start the mating cycle. And passing a law to not mess with a 14yo, who is ready to be sexually active, is not only futile, it shows a clear lack of comprehension about human nature.

Those two really were my deal breakers, and as they would surely point out - I am certainly free to pass if I disagree with their laws. I do, I would in this case, but while I wish them luck and the best, and do hope they make it successful, I see a very real area where they’re asking for major trouble when human nature trumps man made law in order to appease a strong misunderstanding and lack of awareness of what one group thinks another group needs to be doing for their own best interest - which will inevitably lead to the same problem we face here and now.

What will the solution be, then when the 13 yo who is now sexually active slips off a romp with the local 24 yo (say because they are the youngest and most sexually appealing to one another naturally), both consentual, and the 13 yo ends up pregnant and has made it clear she does not want to even deal with being pregnant, let alone taking care of a kid at 14? One group who has assumed they know what is in her best interest will prevent her from abortion, because of their opinion that life begins at conception and they must protect the unborn child (who doesn’t actually become a “child” for a good 2 trimesters), at the expense of the current material life of the 14 y/o they’re likewise indebted to “protect” by merit of the laws they installed to begin with, that failed.

There is a reason, a natural, healthy, productive, quite sound reason why the awakening happens at these young ages - and it is not to inspire child molestors. Child molestors is another groupthink label by people who clearly have no comprehension of why the human species “awakens” at this age period…and the whole life beginning at conception just reeked too much like there would ultimately end up being a god in there somewhere before long that I’d be expected to honor or obey and that was the line in the sand for me.

A productive solution would be to reconsider that law to make it aligned with factual reality and human nature:

Any sexual activity, consentual or otherwise, with any individual who has not yet begun menstruating, or sperm production is forbidden, period.

Nix the rape law completely and go instead with any act perpetrated on another without their willful consent or permission, that brings harm or injury, distress, etc. is forbidden.

And for those who are coming of age, educate them about why they came of age, explain to them the purpose of their sexual urges, how this will manifest, and the result, and provide them with birth control if they choose to prevent the pregnancy, or leave them alone if they choose to let it happen. The LC will incur far less horseshit, far fewer unwanted pregnancies by anyone, and a much more responsible and mature mix of young people who have a proper understanding of their own bodies and of life itself.

Oh, and the other one drawback was aside from Fiji Islands, which sounded cool, I couldn’t find 3/4 of those loctions on a map if I tried! That’s about as off the grid as you can get, I do believe!

Anyway, that’s my take on the LC…not knocking it at all though. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen, but the risk of implosion would be where the ones in charge begin smelling like the old way in new clothes. If people are free, then leave them alone and stay out of their personal business…even with killing…sometimes it’s just warranted. You’d have far less trouble collectively working out the various predicaments and settling on an amicable compromise, resulting in very few killings, than you will just outlawing it for defense, which is also entirely subjective and prone to power wars on whose subjectivity wins in any conflict.

Just my take.

14

The arguments against the Liberty Colony are:

  1. They haven’t chosen a location. You have to pay $100 merely for the right to vote on the location. There is no suitable unoccupied space to set up a “liberty colony”.

  2. Suppose the Liberty Colony were successful. You have a group of 200 people in the same area. They will be a tempting target for invasion. Even 200 determined and suitably armed individuals could not hold off a military assault. The State would say “Those Liberty Colonists are drug dealers! They are child pornographers! They must be eliminated!”

  3. To participate in the Liberty Colony, you have to move to a 3rd world country. I want to fight for freedom where I’m living right now.

Via agorism, you succed via stealth. You don’t have to move. Agorism is more than merely tax evasion. It’s a plan to completely replace all functions currently provided by the State.

If anyone has a functioning underground economy, I’ll join it. Until I hear of one near me, I’ll work on raising awareness. I’ll start one myself in the next few years. I’m trying to figure out ways to raise awareness and run a profitable business at the same time.

15

It’s a plan to completely replace all functions currently provided by the State.

Ahhh, okay…that makes sense. I don’t see where that would be that difficult to manage actually, on a very local scale…suggesting private barter happens all the time, and while I can’t point to any documentation, that it happens at all would validate that there is some imposed damage done to the ‘state’ when it loses income. The ‘industry’ oriented businesses would be the more challenging to replace but if it was done more covertly I could see how it could be accomplished.

16

Yes, you can do nothing and the state will fall down. In fact, agorism is so flexible, you can retreat to the state systems whenever you need to. There is no permanent withdrawal or active resistance. It’s all passive, secret, hidden, casual.

You always gush about how profitable Agorism is. Why not practice agorism, which accomplishes raising awareness and making a profit. Or are you not so sure it is as profitable as you thought it was once risk was factored in?

17

Am I correct in assuming that you both are shooting from two completely different angles? Is there any sort of common ground you could point to between both approaches that could feasibly accomplish the overall agenda? The concept itself is familiar but I want to be sure I am correctly understanding the agorism itself.

18

I don’t believe in what my government is doing. So I resist. I don’t vote, I don’t participate and I try to economically secede, which is easier said than done because I have dependents, one of which has a complicated medical situation.

The “Agorists” are usually (but not always) followers of the NLM (New Libertarian Manifesto) written by Samuel Edward Konkin III, a good Canadian prarie boy as my grandfather was. They believe that through economic secession, the state can eventually be made to be irrelevant, as people stop paying into, and accepting the authority of the state.

However, there is dispute as to whether or not economic secession on a mass scale necessary to achieve success is possible. There are some situations which undermine the premise of undermining authority by secession, and there are some situations where it’s so open to interpretation, that the followers seem to see that as a cue that Agorism is not urgent, and can be done quietly, inconspiciously and casually.’

I take visible risks, and I make honest arguments. For this, I have been called a fool and a troll.

I just wish the people who will not say if they are doing anything, or what they are doing, would shut up. It’s beyond annoying to read theory after theory from people who do not do as they say. And I’m not talking about FSK but several others on this forum.

19

Being that FSK obviously has been an Agorist for a while, I think the logic used to invalidate Agorism by using him as an example is perfectly sound.
(.end sarcasm)

20

It’s good you deleted the rest of your post, it was as misguided as what I have just quoted.

FSK is an “expert” on Agorism, but he doesn’t practice it. He’ll tell you to practice it, tell you it’s profitable etc. But he doesn’t do it.

For whatever his reasons, I don’t blame him for having reasons. But at the same time, it seems a little (a lot) unethical to advise other people to act counter-economically (see: risk) when that person has no experience with the risks or pitfalls themselves.

It would be no different than getting stock advice from a guy who manages an online play money portfolio and won’t tell you how he’s doing with it.

But I do resent being called a fool and a troll, when the person calling me that, has less experience about the subject matter, and is less willing to have a serious conversation about it, than I am.