The alienation of man from his labor, which Marx contended was the result of treating labor as a commodity of production, no longer played such an explicit role as it had in the above quotes from his then-unpublished “The German Ideology.” Instead, the theme of his work began to analyze class struggle as the moving force behind history, and he extended his continuum of thoughts on alienation with his critique of the division of labor. It was these early manuscripts that would become unified in the first volume of “Capital.” His thesis was that private property had an inborn tendency to become more and more centrally managed due to the antagonistic relationship between capital owners and propertyless laborers, who were left with no option but to sell the only commodity they had — labor power. Marx reasoned that like any commodity, the average price of labor would fall to the average cost of its production, which for the laborer meant the cost of a subsistence living in society.

It was an ingenious revelation, and one on its face that was perfectly plausible according to the prevailing theory of value at that time. The capitalist could appropriate labor for the cost of maintaining a subsistence living and then sell the products of that labor for the market value set by supply and demand, reaping the “surplus value” of labor without doing additional work. Marx was not content with just ensuring higher wages for labor; he believed wage labor itself was abominable.

Except, Marx acknowledged that contrary to his theory, by historical records, the “surplus value” of production was in direct proportion to the total capital invested, not just the labor power invested in production. He said, “It appears therefore that here the theory of value is irreconcilable with the actual movement of things, irreconcilable with the actual phenomena of production, and that, on this account, the attempt to understand the latter must be given up.”

A Libertarian Theory of Exploitation

Communists are right in viewing the state as exploitative, but not because it upholds property rights, but because the state exists only by systematically usurping those rights. What would prevail in a stateless society — one without government propaganda championing that “taxation is voluntary,” “voting is freedom,” and “government is security” — is a strengthened sense of property rights and individual autonomy.

Despite the obstacles of state coercion, we create society anew each day for the mutual benefit of all; what makes this social cooperation possible is the existence of a medium of exchange. I do not mean to say that the desire for monetary gain should be the focus of our social relationships either. My point is that you cannot have meaningful and enduring fraternity without private property, firsthand, and an independent means of economic calculation, secondly.

Without money, sunk is a division of labor, which more easily enables seemingly opposing economic interests to become complementary to one another for the benefit of the whole of society and themselves. Competition within a market framework has to do with excelling to the utmost and providing an understanding of who best serve at any particular position. Without such a division of labor, there would be no society, and mankind would exist in a literal Hobbesian war of all against all. Yet, our productive capacity allows us to transform less valuable resources into more valuable resources for consumption and savings (later consumption). This means that life does not require the sacrifice of others. This understanding allows us to plan for long-range goals to achieve prosperity. A secured sense of private property rights permits such long-range thinking.

Please note that this is not an apology for the current economic model. I am calling for a radical break with statism and collectivism. In fact, I agree with Marx’s major historical tenets describing the development of economic history, yet his explanation for class exploitation, the rise of class privilege, the cartelization of power within the state and business, and the imperialist conquest to stifle foreign competition all fall short because he falsely pinpoints “wage slavery” as the culprit for those evils.

This is partly forgivable since his economic model was based on the labor theory of value, which predated other classical economics as far back as Adam Smith. Marx failed to account for the time dimension in the relationship between the capitalist and laborer. In theory, Marx should witnessed that the laborer is receiving a present good (his wages) at a discounted rate of interest for the time until the capitalist is able to bring the product to market in the future. Wages are in effect an advanced payment on future revenues.

In practice, today’s “capitalists” are able to create greater demand for their services through legal tender laws and restrictions on the availability of cooperative credit. Existing anti-labor laws, direct and indirect corporate subsidizes, monetary inflation by the central bank, and the general insecurity caused by government manipulation of the consumer and employment markets also put employees in less of a bargaining position to their bosses. In a genuine free market, one without government privilege and artificial barriers to entry, fewer large businesses would undoubtedly exist and we would be far wealthier. So employees who chose wage labor as an occupation would be in a greater position to demand better wages and benefits.

I think part of Marx’s confusion came about because of his conflicting views of the function of the state. On one hand, he viewed it as the tool of the ruling class, who he hoped might be the proletariats one day. In other writings of his and Engels’, he also saw it as always working against the interest of the society (and it does). All in all, the classical liberal theories including, but not limited to, Adolphe Blanqui offer clearer insights into the problematic entanglement of capitalism and the state and how the two together promote conflict for the purpose of exploitation.

There is good reason to believe that current government policies will not last. The direct and indirect costs of government controls have never been greater. Government debt, already at record levels, is only projected to grow at an even faster pace for the next decade. When central banks are left with no choice but to raise their lending rates to curb monetary inflation, the cost of carrying debt will balloon, putting debt-ridden governments at greater risk of insolvency. In fact, the parasitic political class now constitutes a majority of the population as early as three years ago. Accordingly, it certainly seems likely that the ship of state is going down hard.

As a result, some further fear a violent backlash will follow the collapse of the federal government, which will trigger dependent state and local governments to come crashing down too. It is all nightmarish stuff, which is why those who actually care for the poor and needy should support reducing the size of government now.

Ring Around the Rosey

This is not the first time a government is facing impending doom. All governments at one time or another will collapse or be overthrown. That is no surprise. Even a constitutionally limited government, if one existed, would still employ violence to solve complex social problems. Under political government, ruthlessness is rewarded and productiveness is preyed upon.

A Pocket Full of Posies

I will take my literary license here and say the ashes sung about are the posies, or dollars, becoming worthless. That is definitely the trend for the past 100 years. Prior to 1913, it had been that the value of the dollar gradually increased, save for times of war. But with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the progressive income tax, and later moving to a fully fiat dollar, the decline of the dollar has signaled the transfer of wealth from the productive to the political class, who receive substantial income and privileges from government power.

Governments dreads deflationary periods (meaning a reduction in the supply of money in the economy). The availability of credit becomes harder, so government tax receipts go down as people begin saving more. Incomes and prices fall, which puts even less money in the hands of government.

An inflationary policy, meanwhile, loots people’s savings and tames their judgement of government action in light of their own increasing financial anxiety. The government’s economic outlook does not look as bleak relative to taxpayers’ own conditions. More importantly though, people become compliant when they fear the backlash of openly opposing government actions.

We All Fall Down?

So I have painted a pretty grim picture. And there is really nothing that can be done about it. I mean that. But even if my predictions come to pass, do not fret. That the dollar is backed by nothing works to our advantage. If the the dollar was still on a commodity standard, there would be real assets behind those paper promises, which would give people something to cling to.

When the dollar becomes worthless, people will just stop working for the government. The existing government people with any real power will be too busy slipping away with their stolen loot. Everyone else will just walk away. There is nothing to fight over because the dollar is worthless. Government employees switching to the private sector will rapidly increase productivity in the economy. Resources will be better allocated. It will not be easy, but the invisible hand is an incredible thing. We can soften any crash by getting people more independent, which is a good thing anyway. The federal government will still exist. They might still pass a flury of laws, such as to confisgate gold as happened under Franklin Roosevelt.

It will be a time of confusion for people. I do not expect a great majority are ready to face fundamental questions such as the scope of control they seek over other peaceful people. The more fundamental question worth asking is whether a 600-year-old solution called the nation-state, which has never delivered on the promise of maintaining peace and security, is worth saving.

In my mind, the move toward complete liberty will take place another day. First, it requires a change in people’s respect for themselves, rejecting the cannibalistic view of man as a sacrificial animal for society and, instead, replacing self-effacement with a new outlook that sees each individual’s life an end in itself.

For minarchists, constitutionalists, and so-called patriots, their primary path for reigning in the abuses of the federal and state governments has been through the conventional political process — electoral politics, lobbying, and petitioning. It’s been a long path too, since 1787, when the nation’s second constitution was formulated.

More precisely, limited-state supporters have tried to scale back the powers of the federal government since President George Washington marched conscripted troops on Pennsylvania whiskey tax resistors in 1794. Many look back at the early days of the federal government with starry-eyed vision of a glorious republic that was the hallmark of what a government ought to be. Never mind that, at the time of its inception, there was never a common interpretation of the what the constitution meant or how far the federal powers reached. What they forget was that while, yes, the government was relatively small and insignificant in most people’s lives, that was because it was a new government. It was paying off a tremendous war debt and was biding its time to gain legitimacy. As Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton noted, the purpose of the whiskey tax had less to do with paying down the debt than “to advance and secure the power of the new federal government.”

Long Odds, Losing Payoff

Despite over 200 years of trying to reform the system, government at all levels continues to grow at an ever-expanding pace. Since the likes of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, advocates of limited government have failed to restrain government to its self-imposed, self-enforced, and self-interpreted constitution. Today, over half of Americans “now receive significant income from government programs,” according to one study. (That estimate is understated because even those who work in the private sector and have nothing to do with government contracts can also ride on the government’s dime if they support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. They get to shift the costs of those wars onto future generations through deficit financing.) The figure above has nearly doubled since the 1950s, when just over a quarter of Americans relied on government for significant support. With aging baby boomers set to retire in the coming decade, the number is only going to increase. Limited-state advocates were unsuccessful 50 years ago, when government had far less influence. Now, with a 100 percent fiat printing press at its fingertips and 12-year indoctrination camps under its control, the chances of rolling back government by using government are even bleaker.

With data like this, is there any reason to believe that Americans who directly or indirectly receive government handouts are going to support limiting those handouts? After all, Social Security and government heath care recipients, who represent the largest direct beneficiaries, “earned” their entitlements.

Anecdotally, I know someone who believes a clandestine band of government officials orchestrated the 9/11 attacks for the fortune of the military-congressional complex yet actively sought and attained a position at one of the largest military contractors in the world. When asked to reconcile this belief and taking a job with a believed co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, it was “for the benefits,” I was told.

The election process requires 50 percent of the vote plus one. The odds of electing small-government advocates en mass is even longer considering those who receive government support are more likely to participate in the electoral process than others. Also consider that those who receive government support have family and friends. Is it reasonable to expect people, no matter how principled, to vote to dump their loved ones off Social Security or deny their grandparents access to a Medicare doctor? In my heart, if I had to cast the deciding vote, I could not do it. Maybe I am a hypocrite (fair enough), but I don’t think I’m much different from traditional voters. The social and familial pressures I’d face would be unbearable.

When I talk to people about reducing or eliminating a government program, it’s always the same objection. “What about the poor and the elderly?” I have no doubt that they would be cared for since nearly everyone has the same objection and government actively creates poverty. (I would be a little concerned if no one expressed concern for their well being.) Those concerns are appeals to our decency and ethics. Yet, the most prominent case being made for smaller government is on teleology grounds, a utilitarian argument, in effect conceding the ethical high ground to violence and theft. How backward.

A possible reason most limited-government supporters do not make a deontological (or ethics-based) case for liberty is because it would reveal their logical contradiction. They cannot support liberty, peace and a limited state, which necessarily is based on aggressive violence by its very existence, as any non-consensual territorial monopoly would be. Limited-state supporters and maximum-state supporters, thus, have already agreed that aggressive violence is necessary to solve social problems. The only disagreement is over how much violence is necessary.

Ignoring Imaginary Giants

As I see it, electoral politics is our Quixotic imaginary giant. It’s a distraction. No matter how many laws are on the books, all that matters is government currently has the legitimacy and the power to enforce them. If we undermine its legitimacy, its power won’t matter. They will still hold the gun in the room, but we will all know they have no bullets. We don’t need to convince a majority of our ideas either. We need a determined minority who will withdraw their consent in spirit and in practice. Many already have. It’s easy to get started. They practice their trade outside the strictures of government regulation, enjoying the benefits of an unregulated open market. Others can do the same and in such a way as to build trusted, decentralized networks of traders and entrepreneurs who directly and immediately benefit from these ideas.

I don’t propose abandoning the electoral process entirely. So long as a majority of people give the concept of democracy some weight, it provides a free soap box to spread our ideas. I wouldn’t look to electoral progress as a sign of our influence either, as the conventional political process is a lagging indicator of intellectual progress. Part of the reason that conventional politics can only be practiced marginally is because it demands “compliance with, acceptance of, and payment to its institutions,” as Samuel Edward Konkin III said.

Government enjoys the tacit approval of Americans to belligerently harass them and confiscate their wealth so the military and government-founded corporations can belligerently attack and confiscate the wealth of poorer peasants in other countries. There is nothing redeeming about it. It is extortion. But people put up with it because the devil they know is better than the devil they don’t know. We can cast a light on the possibilities of what freedom looks like by practicing it ourselves and leading by example. What could be more libertarian?

If we want to win, we’ve got to stop playing by the government’s approved rules. “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal,” as Emma Goldman quipped.

Instead of trying to free an entire country, we begin somewhere we have control — ourselves — making steady pragmatic progress individual by individual, and eventually social institutions will reflect these values we hold.

Immigrants and their friends and families, many of whom have experienced or witnessed government persecution, could have been the most receptive audiences of a consistent message of liberty. Instead, they may have permanently associated the message of liberty with a perceived hostility toward immigrants. In the long term, that is going to create some challenges for future candidates wanting to promote a message of individual autonomy. They recognize the common objection — that some immigrants take far more from the government trough than they contribute — as a spurious argument, at best, since some government employees and some government contractors take all of their resources from the government, yet immigration foes do not propose deporting them. For that matter, legal immigrants are far more likely to acquire government welfare than unsanctioned movers.

What brings this to mind is the announced immigration platform of one of Paul’s supporters, Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, someone to whom I have donated my own time and money. For the most part, she sounds a lot like Paul in that she really dislikes the federal government. She wants to nullify the enforcement of some federal laws she believes are unconstitutional and to end property taxes. Thumbs up on my end, though I would prefer nullifying all federal laws and ending all taxes. As someone opposed to non-consensual monopoly government, I can’t enthusiastically endorse any policy other than to disband. However, that shouldn’t discourage me from critiquing existing political proposals or from identifying that some ideas are better or worse than others.

Some of her proposals, like wanting to reduce the scope of gun regulations and to nullify sham free-trade treaties like NAFTA that primarily benefit corporate special interests, would be great. Her most disagreeable idea is to assign “sufficient numbers of Texas National Guard and Texas State Guard” to help local law enforcement. Ethically, it is an abandonment of the non-aggression principle (NAP) as she openly calls for the use of aggressive force to solve what she perceives to be a social problem. The troops and all their resources are funded by the use of force, taxation. In turn, they will initiate force against peaceful movers and foreign entrepreneurs. (Insert the obvious caveat that not all individuals wishing to cross the border are peaceful.) The result will be failure, as all government prohibitions are. It will increase the violence on the border, breed corruption among those guarding the border, and cost a fortune. She also plans to target documented movers convicted of a state or federal law. So for those who break a non-violent federal law, which is done by each individual on average three times a day, they could get tossed, again violating the NAP.

What a Consistent Immigration Policy Looks Like

Since Medina has already shown her support for nullification of unconstitutional federal law, let’s start with all federal immigration laws. The constitution provides no existing expressed powers for the federal government to make immigration policy, only for the naturalization process of becoming a citizen. In fact, the Texas constitution that congress approved after Reconstruction had a Bureau of Immigration, as did most other former Confederate states.

Step two would be to end all government welfare benefits. Then fully re-legalize the prostitution, drug and arms trades. It would completely eliminate the need for anyone to enter the country by sneaking across the desert or trespassing on private property. The vast majority wanting to cross the border conventionally would be those wanting to earn their own way. The fear is that gangs would run wild, causing chaos in the streets. That is unfounded since dishonest criminals who could no longer sustain themselves on inflated black-market profits can in no way compete on the open market. Those wanting to live off the government or engage in criminality would remain in their own country.

We could reduce the scope of government, relieve taxpayers of an extra burden, and demonstrate the fruits of freedom. Government meddling and excuses to circumvent the Bill of Rights would be curtailed, which might get the ire of conservatives in the Republican Party who would rather imprison strangers rather confront the reality of emancipating themselves. If there were ever a litmus test for empathy for the oppressed, immigration surely is it.

An Examination of Alternatives

But maybe I am being too hard on Medina. She’s running a state-wide race in Texas, after all. It is extremely unlikely voters would support a candidate who took such radical steps. We can’t expect someone to be agreeable on every issue, and she would certainly be better than the any other credible choice. The other candidates in the running would have no qualms about some academic non-aggression principle. I agree with all that. But I presume that she has read Paul’s books and articles, in which he has advocates his support for the NAP. In “End the Fed,” he said for example, “We must reject the initiation of violence by individuals or governments as morally repugnant.” Apparently, even Ron Paul does not get the full impact of that idea. His claim is that it is an “invasion,” yet his emphasis is on curtailing it through economic means by removing the welfare incentives. Medina lists that at the very bottom of her of proposals and puts the state guard patrol at the very top, a complete reversal of Paul’s priorities.

My primary and probably only significant purpose in participating in electoral politics is to spread the ideas of liberty. I readily concede that if I want to participate in electoral politics, I can’t expect ideological purity. Engaging the government in any manner, driving on government roads or attending government school, is a regretful concession. I suppose that “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spread,” as Paul declared. The temptation is to bite one’s tongue. That is my source of resentment for electoral politics. It offers this simple, elegant solution, making it very seductive. The danger is that by not expressing criticism of supposed pro-liberty candidates who abandon that message, assuming that is their highest political goal, we come across as just another empathetic-less political movement wanting to impose our beliefs on others. I don’t even ask that a politician be opposed to all forms of aggression to receive my support, only that he or she oppose increasing the present scope of violence against the peaceful. In this respect, Medina readily and consistently advocates increasing the use of government violence against largely peaceful immigrants. If I were to vote for her in the March primary or the November general election, I would necessarily be sacrificing the interests of an already exploited group of people for my own interests.

I think it is more practical to practice libertarianism consistent with its principles. There are steps that have already proven more effective and more immediate. Primarily, they focus on liberating ourselves to demonstrate firsthand how beneficial living by these principles can be. That is, if you want freedom, you don’t have to participate in the elaborate resource-depleting, shame-inducing rituals of voting and petitioning for a band of thieves to recognize your humanity. Those rituals and institutions are in place to obscure the violence behind it all. Once the glaring blessings of liberty are realized, all mystic pretenses for an intrusive government will be shattered. Now I’m not saying that being right is easy, for if it were easy than it would have already been done.

While anarchy may be viewed as a Utopian state, so long as a single individual wishes to undermine the rights of their (sic) neighbor, the response will always be a de facto government. As soon as you have de facto government, you will have those that will advocate that the role of that government extends out into providing services that are viewed to be not efficiently achieved individually.

I think that is a fair point. I like rules, and those rules need some governance to be implemented. If that is called a government or a dispute resolution organization, I don’t mind. It’s like when Frederic Bastiat said just because he does not want the state to raise grain that does not mean he wants to go hungry. I don’t agree it is necessary for a single organization to claim a monopoly by force on the enactment and enforcement of rules that others must follow. That is an imposition of a positive non-consensual obligation on the individual.

The knock that a stateless society is utopian because it is believed neither practical nor achievable is commonplace. Yet, we wouldn’t say that a law against murder is utopian even though no one thinks it could prevent all murders. And if I am at fault for holding grand, immaculate goals for what is possible in this world, that is how I would rather spend my short time on Earth.

Total liberty as a function of society is therefore not achievable and the degree of liberty achievable is reliant on the morality of those that control government’s decisions.

I think the breakdown begins in our meaning of liberty. For me it is simple, the absence of coercion. Hayek and Rothbard differed on the meaning of coercion, but that is a much simpler disagreement than trying to divine the meaning of 200-year-old colloquial phrases in the constitution. When I speak of complete liberty, I don’t mean that everyone in society lives in peace. That is probably unattainable given human history. However, it is the norm that most individuals live a condition of complete liberty with one another every day. I only seek to abolish those institutionalized usurpers of our liberty — when people are ready for it.

Another interesting point raised is who controls the government. I contend that the actual reason for establishing a state is for a tiny minority to impose its will on the majority. I’ll explain my thinking below because it ties into how a stateless society might resolve conflicts between different legal standards, an important point of concern.

“… it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

To advance a state of anarchy is to advance that man has another alternative for the protection of life, liberty and property. Time and time again, man has come to the conclusion that only laws will protect and therefore has rightfully rejected anarchy.

No genuine consent can be given, as Lysander Spooner argued and I cited before, just as a payment of taxes and voting is done under duress.

I do think there is another process, the marketplace, which serves as the bridge among differing people. I understand the appeal to moderation, that some government is necessary to protect our liberties. However, just because something has existed for a long time does not mean it is valid. And even if it were valid, there would be no reason for it to be implemented by force unless those who did not agree were using force. Slavery was considered a natural part of the human condition, too, for thousands of years. We wouldn’t say the slaves approved of slavery just because there had always been slaves. I mean, what’s with all the whips and chains? The fact that the majority of people believe something is irrelevant as well. After all, it is no coincidence they support government since most everyone went to the same 12-year indoctrination camps to stunt their imagination and curiosity in favor a deference to authority.

Better yet, I don’t understand how it is accurate to say that the majority of people believe laws are necessary to protect them. There are laws to prohibit stealing, to take property by force or the threat thereof. But some are given an exemption to steal and call it taxation. Max Stirner said, “The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence ‘law’; that of the individual, ‘crime.’ ” If laws are our means of protection, then why are those with grossest history of abuses not governed by them? The state conclude that stealing is both morally necessary and emphatically evil. The state is hypocrisy, for it allows a tiny minority to steal but punishes the masses for the same behavior.

If that is the way people choose to live, saying morality is relative and not universal, who am I to say they shouldn’t? But the state is about imposing one set of values over others. If the argument is that might makes right, then I don’t understand how a state is necessary either. The costs of maintaining the state and checking its growth is terribly expensive and a waste of resources to impose it by force if most everyone supports it. The state is actually composed of a number of special interests minorities seeking to impose their own values on others. They could never exercise control without it. Bastiat said as much: “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” The foolhardy thing is that everyone thinks they are getting the best of everyone else.

Libertarians are also a tiny minority, so why haven’t they gotten their way? First, for libertarians to gain control that would mean that everyone else would have to relinquish theirs. Liberals would have to give up their economic planning schemes and social welfare experiments. Conservatives would have to stop imposing their own cultural preferences on everyone. So there is a lot of resistance to libertarianism. Second, most importantly, strict libertarians have no power to lend to others. Electoral politics works like a buddy system, where enough people support each other’s projects to get them all passed. Strict (principled) libertarians aren’t willing to do this, so they never get traction. That is why electoral libertarianism, even with all the evident failures of government, has made no material progress as the state marches on. Libertarianism proper has made measured progress, meanwhile, in the areas of education and circumventing the controls of government.

A Possible Solution for Conflicting Legal Norms in a Stateless Society

It is important to recall that under today’s conditions, the state subsidizes aggression with taxes on consensual behavior like earning an income or trading goods. For example, wars are very costly and they are financed with money from income taxes or through Federal Reserve debt. If only the neo-cons who supported the Iraq war had to pay for it, they might have a little more humble and judicious foreign policy. However, they get to shift the costs on everyone else, including future taxpayers. That is why you see a steady escalation in the size of government. Only a few thousand might benefit from a post office in rural Kansas, but legislators work in concert to support each other’s projects and everyone pays for them. Then, they are left to create subsidiary laws to finance their plunder and restrict competitors.

The way I imagine a stateless society functioning is that people would join dispute resolution organizations (DROs) for their protection and see to it that their contracts are honored. You might even have after-the-fact DROs that provide assistance only once coercion has occurred. One concern is that people might contract with DROs that are really aggressive. They hunt down people with little or no evidence of guilt, go after political enemies, and cause general mayhem in the community. Basically, they would act like every other government.

The important point to remember is that DRO policies are just some means to an end. Each policy provides a cost and benefit of implementing. If you’ve got a bunch of extraneous policies that you want to impose, then someone has to be paid to enforce them. In a stateless society, people who want to practice aggression will face the full expense of that decision. An additional burden of enforcing excessive or aggressive policies is going to the lack of reciprocal relationships with other DROs willing to enforce them. The reason e-mail is a valuable services is because service providers have adopted the same protocol standards necessary to transmit messages across servers. So the more people who use it, the more value the service provides — like how credit cards can dispense cash around the world in local currencies. This could be true for dispute resolution. If a DRO is so burdensome that other DROs are unwilling to deal with it, then its customers are limited to confidently trading with the number of people in the same DRO. This will not immediately dissuade all DROs from implementing highly onerous regulations, but the price mechanism will limit their reach. A framework to this could be reputation rating services and insurance providers. There really is no telling with the dynamism of the market system. How this might come about is up for debate. Might it come about by supplanting the government policing apparatus, as agorism prescribes? Or might it come about through the gradual dissolution of government as its credibility is shattered? A lot of it is speculation, which is necessary to evolve beyond institutionalized coercion.

It makes sense to assume that most people don’t favor using open violence against others, so they would not support DROs that did either. If I am assuming wrong, then a government won’t help because those same people who favor aggression will most likely control it. In fact, it would be worse because the victims would in some way be forced to fund their own oppression. It’s an easy trap to be caught in. If we can’t think of a way to resolve conflicts consensually, then we need immaculate violence to obliterate conflicts. The truth is we don’t need it, no more than slaves needed their masters.

Let me state for the record that I, too, want to live in a clean, safe neighborhood, a neighborhood that is welcoming to all people, and a neighborhood that is safe from violent individuals. After all, that’s why you and I are all here tonight. Although my primary objection is to the means used to collect this money, I do believe that the rates are already too high as well. However, seeing that the discussion tonight is about the tax rates, I will limit my remarks to just that.

If we kept the government to its proper functions, then the city government could be run on a fraction of its current budget.

As the French philosopher and pamphleteer explained, the role of government is the protection of life, liberty and property. And when the government violates those bounds, then individuals must bear the unintended consequences that inevitably follow from that decision. It’s what he called the seen and the unseen. The unseen consequences may be less obvious but none the less relevant. He offered a tremendous insight into why this must be so. For the sake of time, I won’t go into those now.

Take the case before us. I grant you that increasing taxes will generate more revenue, which will provide for more city services. Now, let’s investigate for just one minute what could be the unseen consequences of increasing taxes.

Individuals would have spent that money how they saw fit to improve the lives of their children and their families. We have all dealt firsthand with the increasing burden of consumer prices for gasoline and groceries as the Federal Reserve continues to devalue the dollar with its inflationary policies. Families could have used that money to buy school supplies, to save for the future, or to invest in their business or themselves. Someone may decide to start a new business because the city is seen as more tax friendly, and then new jobs are created. By allowing everyone in the city to improve their lives ever so much, hasn’t the general welfare of the people also improved? They may not have used the money how I saw fit, but the point is that I can never use that money to best improve their lives as they could themselves. Allowing free people to live freely, that is how we have come to enjoy the greatest abundance that the world has ever known. It’s what makes this discussion over how much wealth to take even possible.

I would even go so far to challenge the idea that the quantity of government services is a measure of community’s values. I believe that a government should not be measured by the services it provides, but by the rights it protects.

With freedom comes the responsibility for how we use that freedom. Once we have the courage to accept that, we automatically become part of the solution by honoring our peaceful neighbor’s choices and no longer trying to control them. When you think about it, that really is the good neighbor policy. Thank you.

Two other residents gave testimony opposing a tax increase after me, but they were also commenting on their desire to increase the quality and quantity of various city projects. One individual told me that he appreciated my comments, and we had a quick discussion about Debra Medina’s proposal to end property taxes and the Texas Liberty Campaign. The next meeting is Monday, Aug. 31, when the vote will likely occur.

Unfortunately for us, the feds know they can print these funny money notes at will. I can remember when playing card games, toothpicks were the wager of choice in my family. Only state-run gambling is legal, after all. Inevitably, whoever was short of toothpicks after a few rounds would begin playing silly and unpredictably hands to make up for their deficit. The longer the odds, the bigger the bets, and almost without exception, the faster the loses. Soon enough, the game broke down into chaos. Why would this happen? Because there was no cost for losing. If I squandered my stash of toothpicks, no biggie. There are a thousand more in the cupboard.

In government, the same premise is in effect. Most insulting, each new setback is greeted with expanded powers, higher notoriety and, if you can keep seated when the music stops, greater job security.

After all, if the same people who were completely blindsided by this turmoil are now in charge of correcting it, how surprising is it that they would take these actions? Of course they are seeking more power and refusing to let this opportunity go to waste, as White House Chief of Staff Romh Emanuel said. Statists in every hall of government have spent their careers taking credit for economic growth, job creation, and our generally pleasant standard of living. Now that the tide is turning against their favor, they can’t very well say they don’t have the answer, that we have achieved this limited prosperity in spite of their sabotage, not because of it. One of the president’s early standing ovations came when outlining his recovery plan that will, as he said, “not only revive this economy but build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.” How arrogant? Must he not then have some supernatural omniscience, let alone constitutional powers, to plan an economy of 300 million people in order to make such a claim? By extension, he already claims the foresight and benevolence to restructure the “foundation” of the economy in a manner that he approves.

Instead, I offer this grim truth. It is impossible to loot resources, by way of taxation, from productive capacities to less productive capacities and hope to grow an economy. Yet that is exactly what the president proposes. He hopes to invest, his word not mine, billions of dollars into cleaner sources of energy. Why are they less productive? The market has already shown that consumers do not prefer these more expensive energies, else investors would take note of that demand and expand capacity in seeking greater profits. So either the president and his advisers are not economically literate (which is a real possibility), he’s some secret Muslim wishing ill will on the United States (get real), or he sees this crisis as an opportunity to advance his own personal agenda. No matter what conclusion you pick, just know that the president does not have your best interest at heart.

It is true that at some time in the future, these new sources of energy may pay off. At that time, these investments will benefit us. That may be five years from now. That may be after we are all be dead. Who knows? I do know that time it is not today. And if someone has the motivation to invest in these technologies, that is great. They should do it with their own money.

On the bright side, the statists don’t have much left in their economic playbook. Unfortunately, that won’t stop them. They could burden taxpayers even more. And they will. The middle class is all tapped out though. They will soak the rich, jettisoning private capital that much more quickly.

They could regulate more heavily. And they will, as if the 90,000 pages in Federal Registry weren’t crushing enough. Of course, there is the old standby of just inflating the currency. And you can bet your devaluating dollar that they will.

And with every new hand, the odds these officials gamble will get longer and longer. The loses will mount, giving incentive to make bigger bets on slimmer odds. Take evidence in the 70 percent expansion of the money supply in the past six months, the eight trillion dollars of new asset guarantees, or the $1.5 trillion in new spending.

None of these programs have shown any success. No fear. They will press on. Maybe it is no coincidence the Washington Monument is one big toothpick.