In the video (above), I was returning home from a day of political activism in Dallas a few weekends ago, when I was met by a census worker at the location at which I was present. We had an interesting conversation. Without any provocation, he talked about the proverbial gun in the room and said that I was compelled to answer his questions. He did not believe that compulsion was made by the threat of force, however, because he did not have the police in the driveway. I think I answered that OK, but I need to better expose the violence behind him nonetheless. Looking back, that is a point I should have continued to harp on.

I mostly asked questions about my “legal” obligations and the consequences for not participating in the census. One question I was meaning to ask is what the legal obligation the federal government had to me.

(For privacy reasons, I removed mention of the street address from the beginning of the video.)

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.

Not only are we all anarchists now, there are abundant examples of anarchism working fabulously well. However, instead of opening anarchic relationships to everyone, governments have worked to abolish them from the private sphere and instead centralize anarchic relationships into the hands of politicians. I know it sounds strange that anarchy exists internally within government. My point here is to demonstrate that anarchic relationships are omnipresent.

Before beginning, I want to note that critics of market (or individualist) anarchism will point out that the market functions best with an impartial judicial system ruling on comprehensible law. I readily agree. Supporters of government also claim there needs to be a final body, such as the Supreme Court, which entails a supreme law that settles disputes once and for all. I don’t think it matters either way, especially since the political system does allow for disputes to continue in the legislative process even after the final court proceedings. I also don’t believe that a monopoly could provide an impartial judicial system or a comprehensible law. However, for the sake this discussion, I will concede all three points.

In Two Treatises on Civil Government John Locke said there are two things wanting in a “state of nature”: “established, settled, known law” and “a known and indifferent judge” (emphasis in original work). To clarify, my understanding is that a government functions as a third party that provides ultimate dispute settlement within a given territory. Again, for the sake of this discussion, I will concede that an “established, settled, known law” exists. So without an “indifferent judge” whose decisions are commanded, by force if necessary, anarchy exists. For the sake of this discussion, I will concede that there is always sufficient force to command a judge’s decision. So really, the question is if there is an “indifferent judge” or not. (I’ve written a little here and here why I believe a market-based legal system is more able to provide equitable justice.)

The first basic anarchic relationship is between government and its citizens. The second is among different governments. The third is between citizens and foreign governments. The fourth basic anarchic relationship is among citizens of different governments. (More elaborate anarchic relationships can be read about here.) With this understanding, it becomes abundantly clear that government cannot eliminate anarchy; it is ever-present. Government can only centralize and transform it, many times with devastating effects.

The first form of an anarchic relationship is between the United States federal government and American citizens, for example. There is no “indifferent judge” when the federal government comes into conflict with individuals or groups of individuals. In those cases, the federal government prohibits a third party from resolving the dispute. It is helpful that a different branch hears the case, but that branch is appointed by and subject to the pressures of another branch of government responsible for enforcing the court’s decisions. Supposedly, that is the purpose of the constitution’s checks and balances — to bind the federal government, yet the federal government is also responsible for interpreting and enforcing its own limitations. Politicians also act in a state of anarchy with each other. There is no external agency that enforces rules among them, and so they exist in a form of “political anarchy” as opposed to natural “market anarchy,” according to Alfred G. Cuzan, who said:

[I]n their relations among each other, they remain largely “lawless.” Nobody external to the group writes and enforces rules governing the relations among them. At most, the rulers are bound by flexible constraints imposed by a “constitution” which they, in any case, interpret and enforce among and upon themselves. … In short, society is always in anarchy. A government only abolishes anarchy among what are called “subjects” or “citizens,” but among those who rule, anarchy prevails.

Since governments get to decide conflicts, they are so inclined to create conflict and then rule in their own favor, expanding their authority.

To give some state governments credit, there have been calls throughout the years to nullify particularly outrageous federal legislation. But those states can only do so much because the federal government controls the currency and can hand out goodies to those states willing accept expansive federal powers. In the United States, the federal government’s dispute authority is not as centralized as, say, North Korea, where the final authority is given to a single person. In effect, Kim Jong-il has abolished anarchy is North Korea for everyone but himself.

In the second form of anarchic relationships, the federal government also exists in a state of anarchy with all other governments around the world. There is no mandatory final arbiter of disputes between Canada and the United States, for example. If the Canadian government is accused of price fixing, the disagreement is settled by the World Trade Organization, per their membership agreement. Both governments had a mutually agreed-upon dispute resolution process. The United Nations is the closest thing to a world government, but even its membership is voluntary. The United States government could even opt out and no longer be responsible to funding it or abide by UN resolutions within its territorial borders so long as the federal government did not threaten to aggress against other UN member governments. National governments voluntarily cooperate by honoring visas and legal documents (like marriage certificates and drivers licenses) and ratifying all sorts of treatises. So empirically, there is no need for a world government for other governments to peacefully coexist. But of course, nations do not always interact so peacefully.

There are a couple of reasons why violence committed by governments have been so devastating. Mainly, it has to do with the imbalance of power between governments and citizens. That is the reason cited by many constitutionalists for their defense of the right to keep and bear arms, as recognized by the Second Amendment. Some of the greatest genocides in history have been perpetrated against an unarmed populace. If the theory holds, it would seem that the greater the imbalance of power the more deaths that have resulted, while greater peace would occur as a result of a more evened balance of power. In fact, the figures seem to say just that. In the past 100 years, 262 million people were killed by their own government. (I am using “own government” very loosely.) Approximately 35 million others were killed in combats with a foreign government. (It was unclear how many were civilians and how many were soldiers.) In a fourth form of anarchic relationships, foreign citizens are in state of anarchy with citizens of other nations. The largest foreign civilian murderer was Osama bin Laden, who allegedly orchestrated the death of 3500 people in part to demonstrate his grievances with the foreign military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula. Interestingly, nuclear-armed nations, which have nearly an equal capability for destruction, have never been in direct conflict. (That may be because the political leaders are in direct harm’s way.)

We can conclude that civilians face the greatest danger from their own government, where the balance of power is so astounding. Equally powerful governments are relatively peaceful toward one another. And civilians face the least danger from other civilians. To be fair, that could be because governments are in place to punish lawbreakers. That effect seems marginal, at best, because most people do not have reasonable access to a functioning judicial system for civil cases, nor do they have much confidence in police apprehending criminals who have victims.

According to the FBI, less than 20 percent of reported burglaries, property crime, theft, car theft, and arson are “cleared.” Keep in mind, that only includes reported crimes, and not all “cleared” cases result in conviction. Police can pin crimes on deceased or incarcerated suspects. Murders are cleared about 60 percent of the time, forcible rape about 40 percent of the time, aggravated assault about 55 percent of the time. Keep in mind, those figures include wrongful convictions based on faulty eye-witness testimony, unimpartial juries, fabricated evidence, and incompetent public defenders.

Citizens have no constitutional right to have their rights protected, which is allegedly the entire purpose of forming a government according to the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “That to secure tnhese rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ….” The United States Supreme Court justices have ruled multiple times that federal, state, and local governments have no positive obligation to provide protection from “killers or madmen.” So if police do respond to a 911 call, it is solely out of the good will put upon by social pressures within the community or from commanders conforming to social pressures.

A second reason governments are capable of so much more violence is because those people supporting escalation do not have the full burden of paying for their military adventures, but can channel the benefits of their policies to themselves and their supporters. Basically, the costs can be socialized, and the benefits are privatized — like any other government program.

Successful Anarchism in Practice

The political process is a perfect example of how market anarchism can work even under the most crippling conditions. (I lifted this from Stefan Molyneux‘s video “The Proof of Anarchy.”) It is fairly well known that political contributors and lobbyists are some of the biggest recipients of special treatment by the government. Year after year, the government increases in size and power. Pork-barrel spending and corporate bailouts are never-ending. Upwards of 80 percent of Americans support greater restrictions on campaign finance contributions, so people have an innate sense that those in power are pretty rotten. Yet — even though politicians and political contributors cannot make written agreements, contributors can never have their agreements enforced by a functioning legal system, no one can be made aware of a politician’s broken agreement, the government will violently punish anyone who can be proven to have made such an agreement, and media reporters are paid good money to uncover such agreements — politicians are repeatedly re-elected about 90 percent of the time and lobbyists receive more and more handouts and exemptions from the law. Under the worst market conditions, lobbyist and politicians continue to work harmoniously. If lobbyists were able to publicize broken quid pro quo agreements or have them enforced by a legal system, then lobbyists would have an even greater effect. As it stands, politicians are not forced into compliance with their lobbyists; the only threat to the politician is that the lobbyist will support his or her opponent in the next election. You have the market process flourishing even in the face of significant obstacles.

Building Liberty

As I’ve tried to demonstrate, government cannot totally eliminate anarchism. Cuzan said:

We have shown that anarchy, like matter, never disappears — it only changes form. Anarchy is either market anarchy or political anarchy. Pluralist, decentralized political anarchy is less violent than hierarchical political anarchy. Hence, we have reason to hypothesize that market anarchy could be less violent than political anarchy. Since market anarchy can be shown to outperform political anarchy in efficiency and equity in all other respects, why should we expect anything different now? Wouldn’t we be justified to expect that market anarchy produces less violence in the enforcement of property rights than political anarchy? After all, the market is the best economizer of all — wouldn’t it also economize on violence better than government does, too?

One method capitalizing on the anarchic relationships formally denied to citizens is the practice of agorism, which emphasizes working within black and gray market industries as a way of building alternatives to government-imposed services. In that way, the government — a so-called necessary evil — will no longer be seen as necessary. In time, it will be seen for what it is, just evil.

Two glaring complications arise from this justification. First, the state causes artificial scarcity by limiting competing services in the fields of defense and conflict resolution. Secondly, if the ultimate decision maker is in conflict with another party, then the state has a conflict of interests as it is both decision maker and participant in the dispute. As such an institution is able to create conflicts and then rule in its own favor, individual liberty rests on a whim, its whim. Additionally, individuals acting through the state are more inclined to support violence behavior, to tax other people’s wealth or regulate others, for example, because they can do so without any liability. So, it seems that governments would be much more inclined to create conflict than would individuals acting on their own, further marginalizing the liberty the state was designed to protect.

Even the idea that a government is necessary to protect rights better makes that case that rights do not actually exist, because there would need to be government watchdogs to ensure that the government was effectively protecting rights. But then, there would need to be watchdog watchdogs to ensure the watchdogs did their jobs. It breaks down into an infinite regression, and a blank check, until the only way you are free is unless the government taxes every dime you have in order to pay all those watchdogs.

A more contemporary justification is to correct negative externalities, which individuals could address through more defined contractual relationships. In fact, the state encourages negative externalities by increasing regulations and improperly defining property rights. Modern liberals and conservatives have further justifications, meanwhile, such as to impose their own cultural or religious preferences.

Minarchists (those who support a minimal state that enforces agreements, ensures for a common defense, and perhaps provides minimal infrastructure) generally recognize the inefficiencies of the state and support personal independence in relation to political authority. Rightly, they fear illegal theft, yet they insist on legalizing it and calling it “taxation.” They fear a coercive organization taking control of individual autonomy, yet they create their own and call it “government.” Don’t believe me? Here are few questions for illumination.

1. Does a group of individuals have any right that an individual does not?
2. Does government have any right that an individual would not have to stop acts of coercion (such as force or fraud)?
3. Can an individual delegate a right to the government he or she does not have?
4. Are the ethical judgments of the behavior of government different from non-government behavior?
5. If it is legitimate for one group of individuals to secede from a government, is it also legitimate for a an individual to secede from a government. If not, why not?
6. Is it legitimate for the government to force an individual to fund services he or she does not wish to use?
7. Is it legitimate for the government to hold a territorial monopoly or somehow mandate, by the threat of force, that competitors receive permission before offering competing defense or conflict resolutions services?
8. If a government is needed to enforce agreements and providing conflict resolution among individuals, is another such organization designed to enforce agreements and providing conflict resolution among governments also needed. If not, why not?
9. Does an individual have the right to use force against someone who has the capability to initiate force first but who has not threatened do so?

Anarchists and minarchists would agree that the answer is “no” on the first four questions. These are straightforward questions that libertarians have long dealt with.

The split begins on Question 5. Anarchists and a subset of minarchists called MINOs, or minarchists in name only, would say that an individual does have the right of secession. MINOs insist they support an organization called government that shares none of the fundamental characteristics of a government as it is not territorially monopolistic nor individually non-consensual. It would be like calling people thieves who prevent others from stealing your property; it just creates confusion. The most prominent MINO is Michael Badnarik, who said in a debate with Stefan Molyneux that he does support individual secession. However, minarchists would object to individual secession, yet they have already stated groups do not have additional rights than individuals in Question 1.

For questions six and seven, minarchists support the use of force, albeit regrettably, to compel funding of a service and submission to the state. Else, it would be de facto anarchy. Anarchists and MINOs disagree, believing that forced taxation and forced submission to the state contradict individual liberty. Minarchists agree that protection and dispute resolution should be provided by the state, but hardly address how many resources should be spent on these services, something the market can answer based on supply and demand.

On Question 8, minarchists would have to support a type of government’s government to enforce agreements with other governments. Otherwise, governments would exists in a state of anarchy with every other government, a point minarchists already conceded is not acceptable for individuals.

Question 9 is the syncher. Reluctantly again, I think that minarchists have displayed support for using force on the mere possibility of others using force against them. It is the most epic self-fulfilling prophecy, an endless preemptive war on individuals. In and of itself, the state’s claim of territorial monopoly is not a violation of rights had property owners consented without duress. Property is similarly a monopoly claim, but its lineage of ownership, if valid, has been consensual.

In practice, the justification for the state is the subjugation of the politically weak to the politically connected, from what Samuel Edward Konkin III called the economic class to the political class. It is blunt force. Minarchists serves as the wedge of that force, but they will never wield the hammer.

Update I

A reader had this comment.

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.

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.

“… 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.

The Dessert