In honor of Labor Day, I want to talk about how a genuinely free market could eliminate wage slavery and other more general forms of exploitation. The market forces I will talk about are in play now but are obviously hampered by government aggression.

Taking it as a given that wage slavery existed, it easy to see how the free market could do away with wage slavery over the course of several years. If a wealthy land owner had a group of laborers whom he exploited, we could imagine that the laborers made some contract with the owner that bound them to his land for a fixed number of years. Under natural law principles, a promise to work is not an enforceable contract. It only requires that a worker pay back any wages advanced for services not performed and pay cost for any performance bond lost by the owner. Nevertheless, we can add the burden and assume for the sake of argument that enforceable labor contract were in place in this scenario.

First off, it would make sense that workers would not have much of an incentive to become more productive and would tend to decrease productivity relative to non-wage slaves. Since wage slaves do not derive much of any benefit, if any at all, from increased productivity, it would appear reasonable that their level of work would tend to be closer toward the minimum production required to fulfil their contract and remain employed. Each worker might have a different production quota, but no one would have an incentive to go much beyond that.

So comes along another wealthy owner looking for labor to exploit. After all, labor is the most desired form of capital. Since without it, tools and other forms of capital are useless. The second land owner makes an offer to the first. He offers to rent the workers from the first owner but request that the workers to choose among themselves who will take his offer. For meeting a certain production schedule, the second owner will pay a bonus above their normal rate of pay. Some of the workers might even reluctantly agree to give a portion of the bonus to the first owner. In any case, both owners expect to benefit, and workers are receiving higher pay, possibly even a greater percentage of their market value. Over time, workers could save enough money to buy out their labor contracts.

You could then argue that the first land owner would just increase his production quota for all his wage slaves. The problem is that future wage slaves would decide to work somewhere with a lower quota, better working conditions, or whatever it is they value (maybe not being bound to arbitrary labor contracts). As the competition for laborer was bid up, land owners would continue to offer better conditions until the point where they paid the market rate of labor. Without the government intervention I mention below, land and rent costs of capital and credit would fall drastically, enabling newly liberated wage slaves to begin their own enterprises. It would definitely decentralize production and further increase competition for labor.

Someone could also raise the point that exploitation of labor exists today, so the free market either cannot eliminate wage slavery or perpetuates it. The problem is that there is no free market that exists, but to the extent that free market principles have been practiced, working conditions have improved. Some of the ways in which governments have stymied a genuine free market are by giving privileges of immunity from liability, raising the regulatory barrier to entry and exit to the benefit of large corporations, and by subsidizing the transportation of goods.

Under state capitalism, intellectual property laws increase the cost of living, central banking discourages savings and gives an advantage to banks with early access to newly created fiat currency, anti-labor laws discourage collective bargaining, government control of vast tracks of natural resources, and the boom-bust cycle of centralized government planning cause additional insecurities to give some people an upper-hand at the negotiating table. Restrictions on mutual banking, legal tender laws, credit monopoly laws, government deficit financing, and cause banks to be able to charge higher premiums for loaning credit.

All this leads me to believe we do not live in a free market.

Another objection to this process might be that justice delayed is justice denied. We should demand an immediate end to exploitation. I completely agree. Where there are communities supportive of ending injustice, I support people seizing property they have a moral right to. Like I said, even in a stateless society with widespread despicable authoritarian tendencies, one which basically enforced slaver labor, the free exchange of ownership rights can make egalitarian solutions more palatable. A cultural shift would be needed, and a free market system could play a part in that solution. We would still have to educate and agitate others into taking actions to correct injustice. This can be sped along by upholding market economics so that more come to recognize the dignity of each individual’s life.

These subsidies and privileges I described above come at the expense of other people’s labor. It is slavery in a very real sense. The way to abolish this slavery is not to give power to the same group of people who orchestrated its enforcement.

• “How I Bamboozled Thousands of Conservatives into Thinking Like Anarchists” by Robert P. Murphy
• “Property Rights and the Theory of Contract,” The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
• “Wage Slavery is a Symptom of Unfree Markets“
• “Wage slavery” on Wikipedia
• “Austrian Economics and Wage Slavery” by Brad Spangler
• “Economic Development Without the State” by Kevin Carson

I don’t make it to Dallas all that often for activism events, but the May 1 event was worth the effort. We had a marijuana re-legalization rally at high noon and an immigration rally in the same afternoon.

Well, we had parked the car and were walking up just as the local Worldwide Marijuana Rally that took place in some 300 cities was just beginning. I would guess there were about 300 to 400 people there. Katy and I distributed almost every flier we printed. The basic message was that consensual behavior should not be the domain of government. We explained that the only way to enforce laws against consensual behavior, such as drug use, would be to instill a massive police state that intrudes on our privacy. The flier said, “We don’t need to change the law. We just need to make it irrelevant.” It said that “ultimately to disarm government coercion,” we need new strategies and social arrangements for how society is organized. It seems that at least one of us talked with or handed fliers to most of the people.

After a half an hour or so, we began marching to the famous grass knoll on Elm St. Some people from DFW NORML, the group which organized the effort, talked for about 20 minutes. I didn’t smell anything in the air, but some did report seeing people light up. When we got back to the original rallying point, people were milling around. We got honks from bus drivers, other drivers and even a thumbs-up from a Dallas traffic enforcement officer on his bike. Everybody seemed to like our message about getting government out of our personal lives.

We tried framing the issue in terms of just letting people be free. We talked with Emo kids, a guy who said he was undergoing chemotherapy (that was really touching) and business owners. It was a really diverse crowd. I’ve uploaded some pictures to Meetup. I even got a photo of an unofficial Ron Paul 2012 shirt.

One disappointing thing happened just as we were leaving about 1:30 p.m. We crossed the street and were on the sidewalk next to the Cabell Federal Building. We were not there more than 30 second while deciding where to get lunch when were approached by a Dallas police officer. She told us that we could not stand on federal property, which apparently includes the sidewalk. The short discussion, in which I was threatened with arrest, is on YouTube now. I was planning to ask her if she was aware of Oath Keepers, but she rode off on her bike.

After a brief lunch, we headed to the immigration rally just a few blocks away. We didn’t march as originally planned, but we met at the endpoint at Dallas City Hall. From a distance it was difficult to say which side was which because the pro-amnesty side had more American flags.

Immigration Rally

The rally was sparked by the passage of a new draconian anti-immigration law passed in Arizona. We went in hopes of promoting a pro-liberty spin on open immigration.

Many people asked to take a picture with Katy’s sign, which said, “The principles of liberty have no borders.” (She was expressing that the principles of liberty apply to all people, regardless of their heritage or place of birth.) We arrived before the marchers, so there were just a thousand or so people there. I counted at least a dozen mounted police and maybe 30 other officers around the event.

Katy and I began passing out our flier, and the police were immediately suspicious of us. I think they were trying to overhear what I was saying to make sure we were not starting a confrontation.

We handed out nearly 400 immigration fliers, which read, “Immigration restrictions usurp the natural right of individual autonomy …. Most immigrants escaping tyrannical governments know firsthand the importance of liberty, and they remind us all of the importance of preserving that liberty.” It continued, “This new Arizona law is rewarding government failure with more government power.” When talking with people, our basic lines were that resources should be spent to investigate violent people who have violated the rights of others and that we wanted peaceful families left alone.

I think it was important to bring a liberty message to that crowd. We wanted to express that these ideas are friendly to all people. It was a really festive atmosphere. People were having a good time with their families, the weather was perfect, and music was playing in the background. Once the marchers arrived, the whole place swelled with people, and it was easy to get lost in the crowd.

The counter protest was also entertaining, though the police prevented us from crossing sides. My favorite sign said, “Illegal immigrants are not legal.” One guy’s sign said, “Illegal is a crime.” Another listed the snitch hotline to “Report Illegals.” A few times, I saw they had huddled around some speaker, I presume. It was difficult to understand what they were saying.

All in all, we passed out about 600 fliers, took lots of photos, and met even more friendly people.

Monday’s Fully Informed Jury Association event for the Campaign for Liberty — Tarrant County went beyond expectation. We passed out close to 400 trifolds, had some good conversations and met a total apologist for government aggression and discrimination.

So here is the background. Tom and Rafael joined Katy and me downtown at the Tarrant County Justice Center on Monday morning. I had never seen such a large jury pool. The line stretched into the street. We were not approached by any law enforcement, and everything was going as expected. Although, one uniformed officer asked what we were doing while waiting for the signal to say walk. I asked if he would like to know about the rights of jurors. He said he already knew about them.

Well, about the time we were passing out our last few trifolds, around 7:50 a.m., another group of people walking toward the Justice Center found their way to our intersection. They appeared to be led by this woman with an official-looking placard around her neck. In the video, she identified herself to be a licenced attorney. She was instructing the group of people with her about the location of restaurants in the neighborhood.

At first, the lady said she did not want any literature. However, once people around her started reading our paperwork, she asked for a copy. Tom said something about judges not informing jurors of their rights to examine the law, and the lady butted in and said that that was illegal for jurors to do.

By that time, I got my camera and asked if she would talk about it. That is when the video started rolling.

Tom then asked her a hypothetical about the obsolete three-fifths clause in the constitution which counted blacks as just a fraction of their actual population for congressional representation. In the clip, she admits she would be willing to enforce racial discrimination laws, among other laws. Tom then turned in disgust to her answer. What you don’t see in the video is that she quickly yanked on his elbow to get his attention. It was not a rough yank, but it was something that would have gotten some fierce retaliation had we done that to a government employee.

She suggest that we try to change the law through the legislative process rather than practicing jury nullification. She did acknowledge she does not like many of the laws either.

I asked her to respond to Martin Luther King’s line that “An unjust law is no law at all.” She said, “Generall, yes, an unjust law is not law.” (So I don’t understand her reasoning about enforcing obviously discriminatory laws.)

Tom further asked, “What if I don’t agree with the law that Jews are no longer persons?” She said, “Then you don’t sit on a jury that is judging that question.” I cringed. I could not believe her response. She again insisted that we respect the rule of law and work within it to affect change. Rafael started to question her if the US PATRIOT Act was just, but she must have misunderstood him and said something about a trade law.

Tom then gave us some historical examples that we was talking about, but I had to cut him short because YouTube videos can only be so long.

As I have been informed, the Texas constitution does have some language somewhat favorable toward jury nullification. (Edit: See Chris’ comment below for a more detailed explanation.) In the Texas Bill of Rights, it states that “in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.” This would seem to lend itself to support for the right of jurors to determine which laws they wish to have enforced in their communities.

What we plan to do is to prepare and practice delivering talking points about some common objections and questions we get during our outreach events. I think that may help overcome some common concerns and also encourage more people to attend the events.

On Beck’s Feb. 17 television program, he said in the clip below that anarchists and progressives “don’t really like America” and are for “total government.” Beck’s and Jones’ definition of “anarchist” might be anyone who wants less government than they might. The fact is anarchism, the way I understand it, advocates for the most limited and smallest possible government, self-government.

It is also a canard that anarchists don’t like America. The federal government is not America. The people who eagerly manage it are “mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men, … and the more peaceable division of their spoils,” as Lysander Spooner said in Natural Law, or the Science of Justice.

(via Daily Paul)

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.

I admit, the video above cracked me up.

On a serious note, I feel sorry for the young man who posted it. The lessons he is learning now will likely be the foundation for his worldview and affect the relationships he has with others. He no doubt has empathy for others who are being bullied at school and wants more than anything for his harassment to stop. He might recognize that school attendance is made compulsory by government and to some degree by his family, so he sees no reasonable escape from his present circumstances. He even said that he has thought about committing suicide, so he must believe his options are severely constrained.

When he matures, he will very likely, if he has not already, carry the same mistaken notions forward with him into society, that there is no feasible means of avoiding morally corrupt people and that therefore an entity must exist that is powerful enough to defend against abusive people. The most readily available candidate for that power is government, so a strong centralized nanny government is key to safety.

According to Dr. Charles Whitfield’s heirachy of needs, safety is second only to survival. Comparatively, freedom ranks 19th.

That is the root concern liberty activists must address, I believe. We can tell people all about how government is our greatest abuser (and they might agree), but any call to weaken or abolish nanny government — a so-called necessary evil — is interpreted as a greater threat to their safety. The devil that we know is better than the devil we don’t know, as the saying goes. What we have to communicate is that life offers much more opportunity than was available to them as a child. You are not trapped in abusive relationships. You are free of them the moment you want to be. You don’t have to associate with people who have a history of hurting people. Therefore, it is not necessary for a nanny government to watch over us and “keep ‘protecting’ you by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that,” as Lysander Spooner said.

They wouldn’t be left abandoned to the biggest bully on the block, which incidentally now is the case. Natural law ensures that those bullies would cut their own throats first. The market demand for security would eliminate the remaining stray bullies, and individual compassion would care for the less fortunate. So I don’t resent statists (those who believe individuals exist to serve the well-being of the state); I offer them my sympathy for their burden: believing evil to be “necessary.”

This is the same point I made in a post earlier this month. Committed libertarians have not made any progress electorally because they are not willing to scratch enough backs, and if they were willing to scratch enough backs they wouldn’t be committed libertarians any longer. It is not simply a small-government versus a big-government mentality. It’s electoral libertarians or constitutionalists versus a multitude of warhawks, rent seekers, and stripes of big-government conservative and liberal social reformers who are more than willing to trade favors. Those are entrenched groups, and they find that big government suites their needs.

Before those groups came to power, Ludwig von Mises published Human Action, the most complete case for classical liberalism, and Socialism, which described the calculation problem of centralized economic planning. Leonard Read opened the Foundation of Economic Education, aiding the early careers of F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Henry Hazlitt. Ayn Rand championed the heroic nature of the individual. Their support for electoral politics was understandable given government’s popularity in the 1940s and 50s; but they failed to stop government growth when government was much less intrusive and when it was a tiny fraction of its current size. All the things that have happened since — the trillion dollar-per-year empire, the instillation of dictatorial client states in South America and the Middle East and the subsequent “blowback,” the hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians killed by American forces, and the authoritarian law enforcement tactic leveled against American civilians — happened despite their work. Those tragedies and many more happened anyways.

The fear is that liberty would be in full-scale retreat and that greater atrocities would have taken place had libertarians not participated in electoral politics. There’s a case to be made there, but it is speculation. What isn’t speculation is that government spending as a part of the economy is at an all-time high, and everyone expects it to stay on the current trajectory indefinitely. Most Americans still support pre-emptive war and torture for anyone the government labels a terrorist. In Michael Cloud’s book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion, he cares to use the Weight Watchers Test to gauge the promises by politicians of reducing the size of government, referring to the famous diet plan in which participants meet regularly to weigh themselves in front of other members. He said:

The Weight Watchers Test of government lets us know where we are, which direction we’re moving … and how fast we’re going.

The Weight Watchers Test of government frees us from sleight-of-mouth and political illusions.

It offers us the facts, the truth:

Are we moving toward bigger and bigger Big Government … or getting closer and closer to individual liberty, personal responsibility, and small government?

According to the Weight Watchers Test, libertarians have failed and failed more miserably than anyone else I know. (I include myself in that criticism.) The government has grown from arguably the freest non-colonial government in all of history to the most dangerous existing threat to humanity (considering the military arsenal at a president’s disposal and their predecessor’s historical willingness to use it). A limited government has the perverse tendency of growing immensely since lifting many regulations and securing relative stability makes it possible to generate astounding amounts of wealth, allowing the government parasite to grow largely discretely until the point where the parasite of government becomes so entrenched that government and the market almost appear co-dependent and inseparable.

There are three possible reasons why I think libertarianism has lost political ground. First, we could be wrong, and libertarians fail to understand the scope and circumstances to which coercion should play in human interaction to promote prosperity. Philosophically, I think libertarians (those who support the maximum attainable role of individual liberty) are right. Human beings are the most prosperous, yet fragile, animals on earth. So I don’t think humans have progressed because of our extraordinary physical traits. It is because of the human mind and its reasoning ability. So it seems that the negation of the reasoning mind by initiating force is detrimental to the fruits of human progress. I appreciate Ayn Rand’s comment that “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.”

Second, libertarians may have failed due to a lack of effort. For this, I refer to the Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2008. In one day in November of 2007, his supporters raised over $4.3 million. A month later, supporters exhausted over $6 million in a single day, a record for the largest fundraiser in the history of politics. Libertarians are unlikely to ever find someone as honest and distinguished as Paul. He got more media attention than any ideological libertarian before, yet he rarely garnered more than 10 percent in Republican primaries despite the thousands of YouTube videos and millions of dollars invested. Even if Paul ran again, I’m doubtful that level of enthusiasm could be reproduced.

Third, maybe libertarians have tried the wrong strategy of clinging to government strictures to achieve intellectual inroads. Instead of trying to liberate the entire country, we could try to focus on something of which we have some control — ourselves and our personal relationships.

A belief in the maximum role of individual liberty is inherently an individualist philosophy. That means taking responsibility for our own liberty, just as we take responsibility for our own welfare — instead of giving that power to middlemen, the politicians. We can “be the change,” as Ghandi said, and lead by example to thwart the arbitrary controls others seek to impose on us. In that way, our ideals, cascading individual by individual, will eventually be reflected in the institution of government to the point where it is commonly accepted that government is no longer necessary. I don’t have to wait for the whole country to shift before I take responsibility for my own life and enjoy the benefits of living by honest, consistent principles. It can be achieved by taking peaceful direct action through education, outreach, and agorism.

What if Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Rand, and Hazlitt had worked outside the system 50 years ago? Imagine how much further liberty would have advanced. That too is speculation, but we’ve seen that electoral politics isn’t a path to salvation either.

That is OK. Those who believe aggression is wrong are actually at a distinct advantage — several actually — when it comes to spreading our ideas. The first is that we are not trying to impose beliefs or positive obligations on others. We are seeking but a “mere negation,” as Frederic Bastiat said. We only “oblige him only to abstain from harming others.” For anyone but authoritarian sociopaths, that seems simple enough. Other political ideologies require coalition building for a dominant majority to implement and sustain them, while the believers in a voluntary society must only win over a much lower threshold, something of a passive neglect on the part of anyone who does not share our opinions. We only have to convince them to leave peace lovers alone, you see.

Second, we seek to respectfully disagree. If some think that the best way to protect us from terrorists is to build military instillations in foreign countries, I say go for it. I am confident they are just looking out for our best interests. Personally, I disagree and think that trading with others promotes mutual aid. It was Bastiat again who said that “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” (What does some French guy know about war anyway?) In this instance, it seems both sides are at a stalemate as to what to do together. There really is no settlement that could be made, so both sides should be free to part ways and spend their time and money how they best see fit. Surely, in a free country, peaceful and civil people can agree to that much.

And if we do live in a free country, then surely anyone who peacefully disagrees should not be attacked or threatened by the government for having a different opinion. What good is freedom, after all, if we can’t peacefully disagree? Freedom of thought would be a petty and shallow consequence if others did not respect that freedom themselves. For that matter, what good would it do to disagree if someone could use force without repercussion to compel peaceful people’s obedience? Free people should not be made, by force, to counteract their conscience by being taxed to pay for or participate in actions and programs they found repugnant. Surely, in a free country, peaceful and civil people can agree to that much.

If someone can’t simply agree to disagree, anyone who insists on imposing a positive obligation on peaceful people is just a bully. In fact, what took place was not a discussion at all. It was more a hostage negotiation — between hostage negotiator and hostage taker. That is important to remember. Hostage negotiations are distinct from discussions. It is no longer an examination of facts and hypothesis, but a relationship based on control. Early in a negotiation, the hostage taker may attempt to take the dominant role of authority figure. The early role of the hostage negotiator is to access the circumstances and uncover background information, finding what brought the subject to those conclusions. Once the assessment is made, it is time to build rapport and perhaps reduce the stress of the situation. The goal is always to convince the hostage taker to let everyone go free. If no progress can be made, however, it is best to halt the negotiation to retain some self pride.

Some Advanced Techniques

One post-negotiation technique I have practiced over the years is building cognitive dissonance. I save it for after the negotiation period because it creates a sense of tension by making observations the listener believes are true yet should not be true by his or her own assumptions. The tension can be applied quickly and has a way of building over time, like a delayed detonation in the mind.

For longer encounters, use Socratic questioning, which requires more finesse from the questioner and intellectual honesty from the listener, to create some cognitive dissonance. Jan Helfeld is especially adept at this. His questioning of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) illustrates an example of how this might be done. In this clip, Helfeld got the senator to admit that those in government use coercion and that individuals in their ordinary capacity had no right to initiate force. The senator said that the government had been delegated that power by the people through the constitution. Helfeld again confirmed with the senator that ordinary individuals do not have the right to initiate force, and then he asked how individuals could delegate to the constitution the power to initiate force if they themselves do not have that right to delegate. Basically, how can they delegate a right they do not have?

Try isolating the moral nature of the relationship being proposed; get to the root of the issue; get to the priority of it all. You know you’ve found it when someone responds by saying “Yes, but.”

At other times, it can be helpful to make a statement and ask listeners what they think of it. The most important lesson I’ve learned about discussion is that I cannot change anyone’s mind. Only they can. The harder I try and the more effort I expend, the less I am likely to succeed. It really is like any other relationship. Coming across as pushy or arrogant leaves healthy people resentful of the time they spent with you. The key to it all is asking questions. (I mean in a real way; I think people recognize someone acting artificially.) If I am genuinely curious about the reason why someone thinks a certain way, more often than not I am reciprocated in kind. If nothing else, it helps me understand the objections others have and how I can improve my own ideas. I also listen to words and phrases that are repeated or given an extra emphasis. The great thing about speech is how much easier it is to recognize the different vocal inflections. Those are all little insights that reveal what is important to someone.

It is nearly impossible get a reversal of opinion, a complete conversion, on the spot. It’s probably some ego thing we have in our mind. So I’m not that ambitious when introducing these ideas for the first time. It’s easy to forget that I didn’t always hold the beliefs I do now; we are all trying to integrate our own understanding of the world. Since we can’t change their minds, we can change the assumptions on which their ideas are based. If you want to light the fires of liberty, be patient for these combustive ideas to soak in.

(Note: In a later post I will write about the three most important points to get across in any political discussion.)

She said, “Forcing me to get a license on my property is like using the aggression of the law to take what is rightfully mine.” Quoting from Bastiat’sThe Law , she said, “When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.”

Mayor Bill Lanford then responded to Katy. In one exchange he said, “I want to rebut the idea that your property is yours and we have to leave it all alone. That’s not true; that’s not true. It never has been true.” The mayor also admitted they were committing an act of violence by using force against residents, saying “We forcibly take your tax money; we make you pay taxes.” Calling liberty a “half-truth,” he said aggressive force is necessary to create a sense fear, or what he deemed “responsibility.”

Katy responded, “I do fundamentally disagree because before there were laws, we had rights. Our rights are derived from property; our rights are derived from God. When we keep putting registration on people, when we keep asking people to pay taxes on things they have worked so hard to own, then we are violating people’s rights.”

During a break in the meeting, I interviewed assistant city manager Chuck Barnett. I asked what should happen to someone who refuses to obey or pay the fine. He said it was acceptable to imprison someone who does “challenge the system.”

We’ll try to better organize opposition to the proposal next time. The council did not set a hard date for reintroduction, so we don’t know when it will be heard again. The most frustrating thing for me was to hear little principled opposition, like debating with a pirate how deep the sword should go. That’s election politics. I can only hope that the council members ask themselves what is it about their psychology that they are willing to use force against peaceful people.

I forgive them, of course, for their transgressions, but it is still wrong.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who asked me to leave. Luckily, I got most of our interaction on video. My friends at the other end of the block later told me that the same officer told them they had to leave county property. They wrote down his name, but I forgot to ask them how to spell it. The same officer confronted me about five minutes after filming the video and asked me for my name and contact information. He said he wanted it in case the footage was made public. I told him I was a private person, so I refused. I almost began filming again when he just walked away as I said “On the job means on the record.”

I also ran into county prosecutor Kevin Rousseau, who starred in the first FIJA event on Aug. 24. He was almost across the intersection when I called out, “Hey, Mr. Rousseau.” He kind of hung his head in disappointment and then asked for a copy of our literature. The bureaucrats seemed more interested in us than before. Another lady who had a government ID asked if I had a permit. I replied, “Yes, it’s called the First Amendment.” Although I don’t believe my rights come from the constitution, at least that right is theoretically protected from violation by the government. I met two men who identified themselves as county judges who asked for a copy. I asked if they would mind being interviewed, but both declined being on camera.

Except for the officer in the video, I think I was friendly to the government people. I feel I was too confrontational with the officer and not informative enough, and that is something I’ll need to get better at. After all, I forgive all of them for what they do to my neighbors and myself, and I always will. I just wished they would stop hurting peaceful people. If I had to do it over again, I would have offered him a hug.

In response, ACORN has done what the guilty do, attack the messenger. A press release on the ACORN homepage calls coverage by the “international entertainment conglomerate (FOX)” part of an orchestrated effort “to achieve their agenda, their missions, their ideal, retrograde America.” I think they are correct that FOX News has pushed this story far more than any other news agency and given the organization too much attention. I suppose FOX News personalities like Glenn Beck, who has been the point man in the investigation, would say these videos are emblematic of its troubled relationship with the Obama administration.

The ACORN release further states that “We are their Willy Horton for 2009. We are the boogeyman for the right-wing and its echo chambers. … But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ O’Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was – our lawyers believe a felony – and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators.”

Utilizing the coercion of the state to suppress the filmmakers is surely despicable, and being willing to assist in the kidnap and bondage of child prostitutes is unconscionable. However, I do support that ACORN employees have been willing to assist in the voluntary trade of prostitution and avoid the revenue collection arm of the state. I know that its favorables are far outweighed by its unfavorable actions. Keep in mind, the vast majority of its customers (granted I’m speculating) do not intend to run Honduran child prostitution rings, which exist in part because of the federal and local government’s immigration and prostitution restrictions.

I think we’ll be having another FIJA event in the next week or two, when jury trials are being held.

If you’re interested in achieving “Liberty In Our Lifetime,” visit the Free State Project.

He believes that by paralyzing the coal and oil industries in regulation and taxes, the federal government can transfer those funds to his preferred, Earth-friendly energy producers, creating jobs for the industrial base. (Here, I’m referring to Obama’s pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.) With this limited economic impact in mind, a large, aggressive organization is necessary to carry out this agenda. If a city or even state government tried imposing Jones’ vision, imagine the rate of exodus for energy-sensitive companies, including the very industrial companies needed to build highly machined “green” devices. I don’t suspect that people are willingly going to pay double to cool their homes or drive to work when they can just as easily migrate from those tax-heavy municipalities. First, one would need to centralize a great deal of power into the hands of the executive branch. An intrusive revenue collection agency would be necessary to bully people into compliance. Finally, the organization must be able to dislpay an overwhelming threat of force to minimize any dissent.

What I am saying is that the Republicans had six years to do away with all the requirements necessary to carry out this agenda. They did worse than nothing to dismantle these institutions; they expanded them. They made them more entrenched, more invasive.

Van Jones was just a bit player. Now he’s a martyre. He’s going to get some thinktank gig that pays double his old sallary. He’s going to be replaced with someone who has the same agenda, minus the YouTube baggage.

The process was easy but also rewarding. We found a lot of sympathetic ears, and we let them know how to get involved locally in the Tarrant County Campaign for Liberty. I don’t know if we’ll save someone from an unjust law; however, I know for sure that we reached some other hearts and minds seeking liberty.

I didn’t have any trouble except for this one assistant district attorney. In the accompanying YouTube video I posted, I described the events just prior to the footage.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center in downtown Ft. Worth, passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature to potential jurors with some other activists, when I was approached by a man who identified himself as a county prosecutor. He repeatedly questioned who I was and who I worked for. I, of course, repeatedly ignored his questions, and that only seemed to upset him more.

I intentionally avoided approaching anyone wearing a suit or an employee ID badge because I was trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. I stood by myself on the northeast corner of the building, while Katy and Raymond were on the southeast corner attending to bus loads of potential jurors. Most people had their jury summons or a big thick book in hand, so they were easy to spot. There must have been 40 officers and security personnel who passed me, and not one threatened me or tried to intimidate me in any way. They were true professionals. One even thanked me for what we were doing. However, Katy later told me about an officer who yanked the flyer away from a woman who he didn’t appear to know. The officer apparently read the first few sentences and scoffed as he walked away.

I’d say that nine out of 10 people took the handout. We dressed sort of business-like, so a lot of people might have assumed we were with the city. I borrowed from a line and would say, “Have you got your juror’s rights information, yet?” or just “Here’s your juror’s rights information” and then hand them the paper.

At about 8:45 or so, we decided to close shop. If we had gone Tuesday through Friday, then we would have waited because the jury summons is 30 minutes later during those days of the week. Parking was also easy. We parked next to the building at a parking meter, and since the hours of operation don’t start until 8:00, it only costs less than a dollar to park.

Ideas to consider

If we plan to make this a regular thing, then we’ll need to find a print shop sympathetic to our message to achieve some costs savings.

I think eight, two at each street corner around the building, is an optimal number of participants for this kind of event.

Any other ideas or suggestions are welcomed.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. (Bold emphasis added.)

For perspective, this is the executive branch, the law enforcement arm of the federal government, requesting citizens snitch on their e-mail buddies. I’m sure their response to “these rumors” will only fan the flames.