Tag Archive | life

UBI: Manna Doesn’t Fall From the Sky

While there are obvious similarities between the Universal Basic Income and the Minimum Wage, there is also a difference that causes the former to be immeasurably more stupid than the latter. The MW, of course, is a legal guarantee that one’s labor will have a certain value; the UBI is the guarantee that one’s existence will have a certain value.

It’s absurd, stupid, and another example of how our confused species has enjoyed luxury so great that we’ve forgotten we live in a universe where it’s an organism’s responsibility to secure its own survival.

I voluntarily provide my cats with a UBI. I’m not kidding, and anyone who thinks I’m kidding has missed the point. Nothing is required of them, and each day they’re provided with food, water, air conditioning, medical care, and a roof over their heads. This is precisely what the UBI is meant to assure people.

While I’ve undertaken this as my responsibility, the fact remains that they are subsisting entirely off my productivity. My labor acquires food, and so they don’t have to expend their own labor hunting mice in the surrounding fields. That I refill their water bowl means they don’t have to chase down water sources. Whatever else is true, it costs me to do these things, and it requires no more effort from them than to get their fat asses to the food bowl.

Even so, I don’t owe this to anyone. There are millions of cats to whom I give nothing, simply for practicality’s sake: if I spent all my time chasing down stray cats to take care of, I’d have no time to secure the money I use to buy the stuff they need. And though it really doesn’t take long for me to buy a can of cat food, it remains true that someone has to put in the effort to get my cats something to eat. It’s easier for me to work a few minutes and buy what they need than it is for them to go out and find dinner, water, and a place to stay; moreover, they are incapable of getting health care for themselves. It also remains true that food is not going to magically appear for them.

This isn’t true of humans. It’s no easier for me to go to college and establish a career than it is for anyone else to do it. The ease with which I, being a human, can acquire the stuff my cats need and want means less energy is expended when I simply take care of it. Additionally, it’s an obligation I chose to take on voluntarily, because I like them and they’re my friends.

In the grand scheme of things, I actually had a harder time securing a college degree and a career than the average person. Yet advocates of the UBI don’t care. Part of my productivity should, they argue, be siphoned off and used to secure things for other people. After all, manna doesn’t fall from the sky. My cats may not realize it, but their food bowl isn’t magical–I have to actually expend effort earning the money to buy their food. It’s not free food. It’s just free to them.

So let’s drop the bullshit for a moment and call things what they are.

It’s Socialism. It’s entitlement. It’s this notion that one is entitled to the necessities of survival, and that it’s okay to enslave other people and command them to provide one with food, water, and other things.

Bullshit. It’s backward. It’s called “slavery.”

There is no escaping this. That food, that water, that electricity, that doctor, that pharmacist… All of that stuff is other people’s labor. The doctor is a human being, not a mechanical dispensary of diagnoses. The farmers, the biochemists, the nurses, the coal miners–these people are all entitled to be paid for their labor. They must be, because the idea that it’s okay to make them work for free is unequivocally called slavery. If you can put a hundred people to work in a nightmarish coal mine and then not pay them because no one has paid you for your coal, then you don’t have a hundred employees–you have a hundred slaves, and you are simply the Enslaved Slave Master, enslaved and commanded by others to command other slaves. You’d be the ultimate Uncle Tom: the slave given a prestigious position and power over other slaves.

It can be taken a given, then, that the owner of the coal mine and the coal miners should be paid for their labors. “But it’s so useful to the function of society!” can’t be used as an argument to justify refusing to pay them, because people once said the very same thing about cotton as a justification for slavery. “Cotton is critical to the function of society and to the economy!” people claimed [which, it’s worth mentioning, if this was truly the case, then people would be willing to pay enough for it to keep the industry alive without slavery]. Perhaps doctors do provide a service to society that is so extremely useful, but it doesn’t matter–the utility of the service a person provides cannot be used as an argument for their slavery.

Someone has to put in the productivity to earn the money to pay the coal miner, the doctors, the farmers, and everyone else. Again, this is because manna doesn’t fall from the sky. We live in a universe that pretty much never stops trying to kill us. Life is born with an expiration date. That expiration date can be pushed back by eating, drinking, and taking care of oneself, but it cannot be postponed indefinitely. The only thing a living being is entitled to… is death.

It’s easy to forget this, especially in western nations, where food and water are so abundant. A newly born infant, however, is going to die in just fewer than 48 hours if someone doesn’t provide it with food and water. We could certainly justify making the argument that it’s the parents’ responsibility to provide the helpless infant with the necessities of survival, much in the same way that my choice to take in two cats came with the responsibility to ensure their well-being, but the entire reason the parents may be required to provide the food and water is because the infant will die if it doesn’t get it. By being born at all, the infant is sentenced to death, and it becomes the responsibility of the parents not to ensure survival but to postpone death until such time as the infant is old enough and capable enough to postpone their own death.

Attrition is part of the universe. We are mortal beings. Starvation, malnutrition, disease, dehydration, and countless other things are literally trying to kill us around the clock. The very moment we lapse in our responsibility to stave off these bringers of death is the very moment they overtake us. Life itself is trying to kill you right now. It’s the reason you’ll become hungry and thirsty today. It’s the reason you might catch a cold. At this very moment, life is trying to kill you, and it requires effort and energy to stave off its victory. If you do nothing–if you simply sit there and do nothing–you will die, with 100% certainty. Our efforts to eat don’t assure immortality; they postpone mortality.

Energy must be expended. Someone must use their labor to keep you alive. Ideally, that person is you. No one has to take care of me and ensure that I have food, because I’ve gone out and secured my food in the way that any healthy, sane organism has to be able to do because the very essence of life is constantly trying to kill that organism. This is true of literally everything in our universe. The passage of time ensures the destruction of everything and everyone, from planets to humans, and the best anything and anyone can do is expend energy to postpone that moment. Stars expend this energy through nuclear fusion; humans expend this energy by taking jobs. These are the most basic aspects of our reality, and they cannot be ignored with good feelings that are meant to obfuscate systemic slavery.

Effort is required simply to stave off one’s own destruction, because the universe is trying to kill everyone, and because if that energy isn’t expended, then death is imminent.

The Sword of Damocles constantly hangs over our heads. This is literally what it means to be mortal, to have a finite existence. We must strengthen the string by which the sword hangs, because the moment we fail to is the moment the sword will fall and kill us. If we choose to just lay there, then gravity and friction will take over, the twine will tear, and the sword will break free. Only by constant effort can we prevent that, and only temporarily with our very best efforts.

The universe doesn’t owe us anything, and I certainly don’t owe anyone anything. I expend my energy keeping my sword from falling. Coming up to me and demanding that I use some of my energy keeping them alive so that they don’t have to is parasitism, slavery, and statism. That’s exactly how we ended up with the state in the first place, and how it became our responsibility, as productive members of society, to provide ancient kings and lords with food so that they didn’t have to toil in the fields.

People call this UBI shit progress–it’s quite clearly not. Having a class of people who sit in their homes with another class of people bringing them food and water? We’ve been down that road before: it’s called serfdom. In feudal times, that lord had to eat, after all. Someone had to work in the field to grow the food. The lord, who didn’t want to do it, instead used force and violence to force people who did work in the fields to bring him food. To say today that we should revisit this idea is the opposite of progress. Whether it’s someone who calls themselves a lord using knights to force everyone to give a portion of what they have for the lord’s benefit, or someone who calls themselves a progressive using police and the state to force everyone to give a portion of what they have for the progressive’s benefit, it’s still just feudal serfdom, and we’ve been down that road before.

Having a larger part of the population make up the unproductive parasitic class of lords, whose defining feature is that they use force to acquire necessities from productive classes, hardly constitutes progress. It simply means that the lowly peasants who are productive must pay the lords a greater tax, because now there are more lords. Whereas feudal times saw fewer than 1% of the population being titled lords parasitically siphoning resources from the productive classes, modern UBI times would see huge sections of the population setting themselves up as lords parasitically siphoning resources from the productive classes. Instead of a member of the productive class paying 65% in taxes to sate the lord’s greed, the member of the productive class has ten times the number of lords and has to pay 95% in taxes.

“Progress”

Perhaps.

Progress down the Road to Serfdom, but that kind of progress won’t take us anywhere else.

Libertarian Abortion: The Murkiest of Murky Murkiness

Has anyone else noticed a tendency among pro-life libertarians to be smug and self-righteous in their assertions that the libertarian platform is unequivocally pro-life? I don’t mind people being confident in their positions, but there’s an inherent smugness in saying something like this:

libertarian-abortion

It’s funny because he’s wrong.

I always look dubiously at people who say things like “This group…” and follows it with a statement that they consider universally true, unless that statement can be demonstrated. For example, I’ve said that libertarians are against the use of force and violence to achieve political goals, and that’s a general statement about a ton of people. Yet I’m okay with it, because “being against the use of force and violence to achieve political goals” is quintessentially what “libertarian” means, so I basically just gave the definition of a libertarian by saying that.

It’s a matter of semantics to phrase the first statement so poorly, so let’s go ahead and rephrase that to add clarity to his statement.

Libertarians believe in abortion being illegal.

Except… they don’t.

The official party platform is explicitly pro-choice, as found here:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Seeing as the state is the only institution capable of making something illegal, if the government is to be kept out of it then it is, ipso facto, a pro-choice position. The libertarian position is “You may not like abortion, but you can’t stop anyone from getting one, though you can refuse to get one and refuse to perform one.” In this way, people who are against abortions are not un-libertarian–they are merely exercising their right to act in accord with their own conscience.

The problem is that you certainly can make the case that the fetus is a person due the same rights as anyone else, and so it is wrong to initiate violence against the fetus by killing it. That’s not a position I have any desire to argue with, for the most part, except it forces us to ask a few questions that pro-life people can’t answer.

  1. What is the difference between a fetus and a tumor?
  2. If potentiality equals actuality, then people who fantasize about killing someone are criminals.
  3. If the difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former is a living human, what is a human?
  4. If a human is life, what is life? How do you distinguish life from non-life?
  5. If you presume it’s okay to force a woman to donate her womb space to an unborn fetus, then you must presume it’s okay to force her to donate a kidney if that child later becomes sick, since both are ipso facto consequences of her decision to have a child.

These, honestly, are questions that can be asked period, except for the first two and last one, and that’s my point. We have no idea what life itself is, and we have no valid metric of distinguishing life from non-life. I would argue that this is because “living matter” is an illusion, and that there is no difference between life and non-life, that there is only matter and energy and one of the remarkable elements of matter is how it can interact with itself. But until you can show me how fire isn’t alive but people are, I have no reason to take you seriously if you claim that a fetus is a living person.

The biggest point of contention, though, is #5, because pro-life people assume that the fetus has the right to be inside the woman’s womb. It is well-established that a womb is part of a woman’s body. As pro-life people love saying, the fetus is a separate life, and therefore not part of the womb.

Think about a kangaroo and its pouch. Pro-Life people are arguing that the baby kangaroo has the right to be inside the mother’s pouch, and that the mother’s pouch is so much the baby kangaroo’s right that the mother can be forced to have the baby in her pouch whether she likes it or not. So you would force the woman to let the kangaroo into her pouch, because the kangaroo will die if it isn’t allowed to be in her pouch. In order to prevent an act of violence, you commit an act of violence.

Pro-Choice is no better, don’t get me wrong. In fact, that’s why I’m writing this, because there isn’t an easy answer, and there is no “objectively right” or “logic dictates” answer. The issue is the murkiest of murky murkiness. Pro-Choice chooses to allow violence to be done to what could be argued is a human being, in order to prevent someone from having their body forcibly used by another person against their will. That’s not a particularly great position to be in, either.

I am pro-choice. Worse–because this is almost certainly going to make you angry–because I don’t think that anyone with a penis has any right whatsoever to weigh in on the subject of abortion*. I’ve caught a lot of heat for saying this, but c’mon, let’s be realistic here. Pregnancy is the one fucking thing that women can do that men absolutely cannot, but men still can’t resist trying to dominate the subject and saying what can and can’t be done about it. When I said this two years ago, no one really minded. Most people didn’t agree, but I didn’t catch heat for it. Now, people act like I cut off their goddamned balls my saying it, and then they say “There’s no such thing as sexism in America.”

How remarkable.

You’d think such people would gladly listen to what a transgender person who has lived as both genders has to say about sexism in the country. There is no one more qualified to discuss sexism than a transgender person. I’ve had girls tell me there’s no such thing as sexism, and call me a stupid cunt for suggesting there is. To me, this is like a black person saying there’s no racism just because they haven’t noticed it. There’s plenty of sexism, but my position on it is that it’s not automatically a bad thing.

But yes, one of the ways that the sexism manifests is in men believing they should have a say-so in abortion.

Guys, if you get a girl pregnant, it is one hundred percent up to her whether she wants to take your feelings into account. If she wants an abortion but you want her to keep the baby, if she wants to ignore your wishes, then she can, and she will. I’ve been there. I got the Vegas Chick pregnant, in fact. Unsurprisingly, she totally ignored my wishes on the matter; there was nothing I could do about it, and it never occurred to me that I should be able to force her to carry the baby.

Is that what you want, men? To be able to force your girlfriend or wife to see the pregnancy through? And you don’t see how that reeks of sexism? Sticking your dick in that girl didn’t give you any ownership claim of her. Her womb is still hers, and that’s the bottom line. Her womb isn’t your property, and if she doesn’t want something in that womb, then…

“Tough titty said the kitty.”

If you get a girl pregnant and she ignores your wishes, then tough shit. Find a better girl, one that will take your feelings into consideration. This holds true in the other direction, as well. If she wants to carry the child and you want her to get an abortion, it’s tough shit again for you. However, I’m obviously against the state forcing you to give her money to raise that child, too–or forcing you to pay for the abortion, either. If she wants to raise that child on her own, never even telling that child who the father is, then…

“Tough titty,” said the kitty.

Men have no perspective on the issue of pregnancy and abortion because, until very recently, men were utterly unable to be pregnant. This is something that only women can do, guys. This is the only area in human life that belongs 100% to females**. You are at their mercy here. If your girl wants to be a bitch and abort the baby, tough shit. If she wants to be a bitch and have the baby but keep you out of the life, tough shit. I know this bothers you. I know it angers you. And I know that having someone tell you this directly angers you even more.

Because men are used to being in control. You’re not used to being at anyone’s mercy. You’re accustomed to having the authority to tell people what to do, no matter the topic, and it drives you fucking crazy to have this one area where you rightly have no authority or say-so at all unless the woman wishes to allow it. Think about the long history of humanity and the countless areas where women have had no authority or say-so at all unless the man wishes to allow it.

You gotta let girls have this one, dudes. The issue doesn’t affect you.

And that’s why I’m pro-choice. I’m not “pro-choice” as much as I am “I don’t have a womb, so this issue can’t possibly apply to me, and thus I have no right to dictate one way or another.”

If your girlfriend or wife wants an abortion and doesn’t care that you don’t, suck it up.

If your girlfriend or wife doesn’t want an abortion but you do, suck it up.

You have no rightful claim to anyone’s womb, whether you want something to be in there or not.

* Said, of course, as someone with a penis. However, it’s impossible to point out that men shouldn’t have a say-so on the matter of abortion without being involved in the subject of abortion, and genitalia is irrelevant to that. I’m not arguing pro-choice or pro-life, really–I’m arguing that it’s not our damned place to say, because the issue, by definition, cannot affect us in any direct sense. If you want to argue that your feelings will be hurt, then you are also making an argument against outlawing hate speech and anything else that hurts feelings, so that’s a slippery slope we shouldn’t jump down. “Hurting your feelings” is not an injury.

** Actually, there is also breast-feeding, but breast-feeding reeks of its own sexist displays, doesn’t it? Rest assured that breast-feeding would not be illegal if men could do it. Why do I say that? Because this picture is totally acceptable:

1780

But this one is not:

My boobs are still small, but that's not the point.

My boobs are still small, but that’s not the point.

What is Anarchy?

It occurred to me earlier today that if we’d never (stupidly) allowed Congress to begin taxing us without apportioning the funds (debatable anyway), then we wouldn’t have to deal with the silly “But muh roads!” arguments that we see so very, very often. I mean, it’s the Go To response for statists (a word that means “non-libertarian, non-anarchist”). I’ve seen a few statists recently be offended by being called that, but… it’s simply true. If you’re not a libertarian or anarchist, then you ipso facto favor the state, in which case… you’re a statist.

It’s just what the word means.

Granted, some anarchists may call you a statist as an insult, but to equate it to “infidel” isn’t accurate. It’s more like “fag,” honestly, but even then it’s not always used with negative connotations. When I call Gary Johnson a statist, I mean it condescendingly. But I only mean it condescendingly for people who claim to be libertarians or anarchists and… aren’t. It’s definitely a word that I do try to avoid, though, because I tend to reject dichotomies and, to my recollection, the only person I’ve ever called a statist is that pig Gary Johnson.

Fuck him.

Anyway.

There’s no religion or belief going on here. Anarcho-capitalism is built on science, human nature, and an abhorrence of violence. The scientific case can and has been made for anarcho-capitalism; the rest of the world simply has not caught up. Sorry, but that’s simply true. Anarcho-capitalism is only a belief in the same sense that “People should be free” is a belief.

Anyway, my recent video goes into direct apportionment and how it helps us to avoid ridiculous situations like this. Most damningly, if a billionaire has to pay $5m on his $100m yearly income, then we can readily assume that a person’s “tax liability to society” (terms that statists adore throwing around) must be $5m. If a person’s tax liability to society is not $5m, then we have forced the billionaire to overpay and have robbed him.

So we must proceed under the assumption that the highest dollar figure anyone in the United States pays is the tax liability that a citizen owes. If the dollar figure is lower, then we are stealing money from the people who overpay, right? Since no one is going to admit to doing that, it follows that I’m correct: the highest dollar figure that anyone pays is the citizen’s tax liability…

And this means that we all have underpaid and owe the government a ton of money.

Another addition to the series was Part 5, where I explained why the previous three videos were of lower quality than my usual work, and how that whole thing came about. It was primarily a response to one person in particular, to whom I said, “Fine. My shoes may suck, but the emperor is still naked.”

I’m also pretty sure that Part 4 hadn’t been uploaded when I posted the last update about the series, and in it I addressed a question that Tyler had actually asked before. This was tremendously bothersome, and he never explained why he did it, except that he might have been reading someone else’s question the second time (unclarified presently). Simply put, on 8/7/16 or around then, Tyler and I had a brief back-and-forth through videos where he ended up asking if there could be such a thing as voluntary taxes. In my reply, I specifically answered the question and its more general cousin: “What if it doesn’t rely on force, violence, and coercion?”

The answer, of course, is that then it’s a free market solution and not a state at all. It wasn’t until after I uploaded Part 4 that I realized Tyler had asked that question before, driving home for me the idea that he and the others might have been just playing games. In such a scenario, people intend only to keep asking the same questions repeatedly until we start giving short answers and start telling them to go educate themselves. At this point, they intend to declare victory with asinine statements like, “I guess you can’t put forth arguments then! lol!”

It’s a common tactic, covered excellently in TheraminTrees’ videos on Transactional Analysis:

It’s possible to see that in Tyler’s actions.

By asking questions, he is appearing to be a genuinely curious Adult (per TA terms). “I want to know the answer to these questions, and I am being skeptical. So here are my questions.” Naturally, people like me (who cannot resist) then answer the questions. Then something weird happens–often, time passes. Then subtle variations on those initial questions are asked again. Instead of “What if taxes were voluntary?” it is “Does everything the state does end in force, violence, or coercion?” which, yes, is the same question–just phrased differently.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not accusing Tyler or anyone else of playing games. I’m saying that this is how it appears/feels in this case. It is not an allegation or statement of anyone’s intent or motives, because miscommunication and need for clarification are common the Internet, and especially Twitter’s 160-character limit. Any number of miscommunications, oversights, or poor phrasings could jam communication without anyone being playing games. Even with this clarification the language is still harsher than I intended it to be. I am sorry. I write a lot of fiction, and it trains you to use strong language.

Then, upon answering the question, the players repeat back “criticisms” of the answers that we have already addressed, a vicious cycle, in fact.

“Question.”

“Answer.”

“Follow-up question” / “Criticism”

“Answer” / “Clarification”

Then, the next thing you know, the entire process repeats anew. Once we become too frustrated and block them, victory is declared:

tyler blocked

No, Tyler.

He didn’t block you over anarcho-capitalism.

He blocked you because he doesn’t think you are listening, and probably because of statements like:

tyler being dumb

I’d love for you to demonstrate how that has anything to do with me. Maybe be more careful with your use of “all.” I’d love for someone to try to justify calling me selfish.

Anyway, I’m referring more specifically to this:

C'mon, man. You're being downright insulting here.

C’mon, man. You’re being downright insulting here.

The claim that statists have “blind faith” is stupid, yes. It’s not blind at all. You can see the state and its actions. You may close your eyes to its horrors, but you’re still not blind to them. However, you’re blatantly wrong to say there are no examples of anarchy, and you know that I gave you two of them. You know that, because I told you that, and you acknowledged that. I specifically told him I provided two examples dealing with the modern New York Diamond Traders and the Maghribi traders of the 11th century. He said he hadn’t watched the video, but that he would. Fair enough, I said, because the video did suck.

To say “there are no examples of anarchy” after choosing to ignore my video (on whatever grounds, considering at this time he knew that it had information that proved his statement incorrect) that presented them is horrific intellectual dishonesty, and yes, I’m surprised to see that from Tyler, because I’ve seen him correct himself in the past. It also shows, as I pointed out on Twitter, that anarcho-capitalism has been routinely demonstrated, through all of human history, and that he is revealing that he is not aware of what anarcho-capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalism is simply allowing people to solve problems without a state. That’s all it is. Seriously, that’s it. That’s 100% of it, the entire ideology in a single sentence. The only rules are no violence, no force, no coercion, and no stealing. Do you see, then, how we have billions of examples? Any example of people solving problems without a state–without force, violence, coercion, or stealing–is, ipso facto, an example of anarchism, and if they do it in search of benefit, then it is an example of anarcho-capitalism. Such a sweeping statement, but also entirely true.

I needed to go to the store earlier. So I went to the store. It didn’t involve the state. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

Apple invented the iPhone. Android came into existence, with BlackBerry and Microsoft expanding as well. The state was never involved. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

The Maghribi traders working out trust relationships across thousands of miles in the 11th century just by talking and working together. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

Because that’s all anarcho-capitalism is. It’s the idea that people can solve problems without violence. That’s not me putting some weird spin on it–that’s literally what it is. The only question to be asked regarding anarcho-capitalism is this:

“Can we solve x problem without the state?”

Just think about it for a moment. What does the state do? It exists to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ostensibly).

Can we protect life without the state? Absolutely.

Can we protect life without the state against foreign states? Absolutely, and covered here.

Any and all examples of people solving problems without the state are examples of anarcho-capitalism.

Can we protect liberty without the state? For fuck’s sake, the state is constitutionally incapable of protecting liberty.

Can we protect the right to pursue happiness without the state? Absolutely, as only force, violence, and coercion can eliminate a person’s right to pursue happiness.

The question is, and has always been, “How do we solve this problem?”

Because let’s face it–there will always be problems. We’re humans, and we fuck up. In addition to our fuck ups, the universe isn’t exactly kind to us, and neither is the planet. There is always shit to be done, and on top of that we’re an ambitious species. We don’t just want what we have. We want to turn what we have into something better. We didn’t land on the moon and go, “Cool. That’s probably far enough. Seen one lifeless rock, seen ’em all, right?”

There’s never just one way to solve a problem. A few decades ago, humanity gave itself the problem of needing handheld computers capable of mobile internet and phone usage. The smartphone was the answer we came up with, but it was not the only answer, was it? No, we also came up with the pager, didn’t we? And the tablet. We conceived multiple solutions, some of them better than others, and the winners lasted. Tablets are deprecated and fading out, and pagers are… Well, who do you know who has a pager?

We once were presented with the problem of needing to figure out how to make electronic devices talk to one another. Ethernet is common today, but did you know that it wasn’t the only option? There was also Token Ring, and a few others that I don’t remember because they had basically vanished even before I reached college. Then we had the problem of how to do it wirelessly, and the 802.11 IEEE–a completely voluntary body of experts who set standards of protocols for technologies. Linksys’s routers are 802.11b/g/n compatible because this ensures they will be compatible with all other devices that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no state was ever needed to enforce a standard for everyone to use. Just give people the chance to solve their own problems.

This is all anarchy in action. It’s just… people doing stuff.

In fact, there’s probably no better example of anarchy in action than IEEE. Virtually every electronic device manufactured in the past 30 years is compatible according to standards set by IEEE, but there is no law on the books forcing Linksys to make routers that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no law on the books forcing Apple to ensure that your iPhone can connect to 802.11b/g/n technologies.

Just think about that for a moment!

Think about the logistics! Think about what a monumental task that is!

“We want any phone made by any manufacturer running any operating system on any carrier to be able to connect to any wireless device made by any manufacturer.”

Can you even imagine a more monumental task?

Rest assured, we had at least two ways of handling this.

And IEEE handled it flawlessly, beautifully, and masterfully, without one single fucking law ever being passed. The system is completely voluntary. Apple uses it because no one would buy an iPhone if it couldn’t talk to everyone else’s devices. Linksys uses it because no one would buy a WRT54GL if no one could connect 90% of phones to it. Samsung uses it because no one would buy an S7 if you couldn’t connect it to most wireless networks. It’s in everyone’s best interests to use the standard, but there’s no law, no requirement, no prison, no fines for not complying.

Possibly the most monumental task humanity has ever been faced with! And we succeeded brilliantly.

Anarchy succeeded brilliantly.

Rest assured, the state would have fucked it up.

The State

You’re looking at the state as the creator and maintainer of society, and that simply isn’t true. The state is just some thing that exists over there to the side. All we have are people doing stuff. That’s all that exists in the entire world–humans doing stuff. Countries don’t exist, businesses don’t exist, nations don’t exist, and even states don’t really exist. There are only people doing stuff. I think you’re still viewing “anarchy” at least partially as the chaotic bullshit that occurs when a state fractures into smaller states. But as I pointed out here, what people commonly call “anarchy” is actually just several smaller states at war with one another.

Because we are social animals and recognize that our interests are best served through cooperation rather than antagonism, we sometimes come together and form groups, deciding to pool our resources and work together toward a common aim. When two people do this with romantic intent, we call it “marriage” (we are discussing formal agreements here). When two people do this with business intent, we call it “partnership.” When several people do this with business intent, we call it “corporation.” These people set the terms of their agreement, the goals of their agreement, and how they will work together to achieve those goals.

No new entity is created when two people enter into a marriage. There’s not really any such thing as a “family.” That’s just a collective idea we came up with to describe their agreement, to describe their relationship, to make it easier to communicate. Instead of saying “This woman and I pool our finances, live together, go out on dates, sleep together, have sex with each other, and do not do these things with other people,” then I simply say, “This is my wife” / “We are married.”

Businesses and corporations function under exactly the same principles, but their relationship goals and parameters are different. Just as I need other members of my marriage’s permission before dropping $8,000 on a vehicle, so does someone in a corporation need other member’s permission before dropping $8,000 on something. I realistically need my wife’s permission before I quit my job and take up a different career path, and a member of a corporation needs other members’ permission before they start working on a new invention. But the marriage isn’t a thing, the business isn’t a thing, and the corporation isn’t a thing.

It’s just people doing stuff, and finding that they can pool their resources to do better stuff. I may be great, but having a loving, awesome wife makes me greater, yes? Two heads are better than one, and all that? The same holds true for businesses and corporations.

The state is just another one of those businesses. In fact, you’ll find that the state is nothing more than a corporation that has the “authority” to use force, violence, and coercion to achieve its ends, relying on parasitism rather than productivity to acquire resources, and utilizing forced monopolies instead of competition to ensure it has consumers. This is why we aren’t on the same page here–you’re not seeing the state for what it is. It’s just a group of people who do stuff, but who are allowed to use force, violence, and coercion, while no one else is allowed to.

The only relevant questions for anarcho-capitalists involve things that the state is supposed to do:

Can anarchy provide a way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

All other questions are irrelevant, because we do know that “people doing stuff” can solve limitless problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are never necessary for solving those problems. Roads, schools, technology protocols, whatever–force, violence, and coercion are not necessary. These all come back to that simple question: if we can solve the problem without using violence, then isn’t it worth every possible effort to solve it without violence? So we can erase all the questions about roads, schools, NASA, etc.

Whether anarchy can protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can certainly be discussed, and we can also find real world examples of anarchy doing it. However, it isn’t necessary, because there has never been a greater threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than the state, for reasons that I mentioned here: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/04/22/a-crash-course-on-rights/

Any act that threatens life or liberty is, by definition, a state act, at the very least an attempt by one individual to become an authoritarian tyrant over another. It is irrelevant whether this tyrant rules over only one person or one hundred million; a state is a state. It becomes impossible, and is obviously so, to use force, violence, and coercion to prevent force, violence, and coercion. The only thing that can protect life is not killing people. The only thing that can protect liberty is not restricting people’s rights. If violence is universally rejected (as it would be, though, as I’ve pointed out, it’s ridiculous to demand 100% compliance, and neither anarchy nor the state can deliver that) and punished accordingly, and there is no mechanism in place to achieve goals with force, violence, and coercion… then there can’t be force, violence, and coercion.

And Society

Society is another example of people just doing stuff, but it’s one that happens organically and without conscious agreement; it’s just the product of people naturally having their own self-interests served by working together. It is of critical importance to remember that society is older than the state. Society created the state; the state did not create society. It is impossible that the state could have produced society, just as it’s impossible that religion could have produced morality. Just as religion is a product of humans doing stuff, so is the state, so is agriculture, so is the Internet*.

Society isn’t real, either, and can’t produce anything. Only people can. And people did. Without ever agreeing that we would work together, the overwhelming majority of humans get along relatively fine with one another and can have a functional society. The state isn’t really forcing me to work with my clients, or the people at the gas station, or the people at Subway, or the people at Facebook. I’m doing it because being an asshole isn’t in my best interests, and it’s obvious that, as a social animal, my best interest lie in working with other people.

The state did not produce morality, either. We do not think murder is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think stealing is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think rape is wrong because the state told us so. No, we individuals came up with this, and the state took the majority’s moral code and turned it into law. This is also how we ended up with anti-transgender, anti-homosexual, and drug laws. Once again, we find parallels to religion: religious people say that we get our morality from their holy book, but we know that isn’t true. The holy book is merely a reflection of their morality, just as the state’s laws are merely a reflection of our morality. And just as it’s hard to get religious people to change the morality they get from their holy book, so is it difficult to get the state to change its laws.

People do stuff all the time cooperatively without the state enforcing it. This is anarchism in action.

* I throw these last two in just to make it clear I’m not drawing another parallel between statism and religion, or asserting that all social products are bad.

The How & Why of Anarchy, Part 5: Crime & Punishment

Included links won’t work, and I’m not up to fixing them at the moment… I’m sorry about that. I will fix them in the future, though.

In the previous installation of the series, we discussed war, its causes, its nature, and how a Society with no Government would protect itself against foreign Governments. There is little to add to that discussion, except that there may be some confusion about why we could expect corporations and businesses to come to our aid in the same manner with which Government provides for our national defense. To answer this question, we must first ask another question: Why do we expect our Government to come to our aid and provide for our national defense?

Corporations and businesses could, after all, be persuaded by foreign Governments into turning a blind eye to an invasion, into selling us out, and into allowing the foreign Government to conquer us. Suppose that a foreign Government promises to give the Corporation more power, a monopoly in their industries, and other benefits. Wouldn’t a corporation naturally want to take that offer, since it is the desire for profit that drives corporations in the first place, and since being promised a monopoly is guaranteed to yield a profit? Well, yes, it’s a possibility.

But the very same things could be said of our Government. Politicians within our Government could be made the very same offers. “We’ll install a new Government and give you the authority of Kings!” the foreign Government could say. What would keep our Government from selling us out to some foreign Government if that foreign Government made a tempting offer? “Turn a blind eye to our invasion, and we’ll give you…” What would keep anyone in our Government from accepting that offer?

Nothing, really, except that the American People wouldn’t stand by and let our Government do it. The only thing preventing our Government officials from selling us out to a foreign Government… is us. It’s we, the American People, who provide for our National Defense, as the Government and its members could always turn a blind eye to an invasion by a foreign Government, and the only thing preventing them from doing that is the fact that we wouldn’t allow it and we would fight it. We’d remove from power any Government and any Government official who attempted to turn a blind eye to an invasion.

The bottom line is that we’re currently “unprotected” from this possibility. If all of Congress and the White House suddenly decided to send all our soldiers to Afghanistan while the Russians invaded us, there would be no mechanism in place to protect us from this screw-over by our Government. There are no defense systems, no mechanisms, and no other systems with which we can ensure that our current Government doesn’t sell us out to a foreign Government. By abolishing our Government and switching to an Anarchy governed by Principles rather than people, we wouldn’t lose any ability to ensure that we weren’t sold out to foreign powers.

Our Government is as capable of selling us out to foreign Governments as the corporations and businesses would be in an Anarchy.

But our Government officials won’t sell us out to foreign Governments. Just as you have an intense love for your homeland and a patriotism to your land, so do the people in Government–and so do CEOs and small-business owners. The CEOs, Representatives, and Senators all have the same passionate love for our homeland as do you and I. Just as neither you nor I could imagine turning a blind eye to a foreign Government by allowing that Government to invade and conquer our homeland, neither can they. Bill Gates loves his homeland as much as you do; Donald Trump loves his homeland as much as you do; David Rockefeller loves his homeland as much as you do; the CEO of Wal-Mart loves his homeland as much as you do. Just as you would fight tooth and nail, devoting everything you had to fighting an invasion, so would they–just as our Government does.

Most CEOs recognize that they need us far more than we need them. They’re replaceable; we are not. Worse still, they can and will be replaced if they don’t treat us well and competition rises which will treat us well. As I demonstrated in Part Four, corporations and businesses, when there is proper and unrestricted competition, go out of their way to treat their employees and customers well, because competition means that if they don’t, then they will be brought down by the Free Market and consumer choices very, very quickly. When there is competition, corporations have to treat us well, they have to treat their employees well, and the better they treat consumers and their employees, the better consumers and their employees treat them. This is exactly why, in the Middle Ages, laws were passed preventing serfs from freely moving from one lord to another; the competition created by allowing the serfs to move to a lord who paid better or treated them better forced other lords to behave better and pay better, and the other lords did not appreciate this. Read Ken Follet’s “World Without End” if you’re curious about how a wage increase by one lord could make other lords furious. Now, of course, we’re not dealing with lords and serfs; we’re dealing with CEOs and employees, and it is understood that employees can freely move from one corporation to another and that they will go to whichever corporation treats them the best. This forces CEOs, whether they like it or not, to treat their consumers and employees better. The more competition there is, the better the CEOs must treat their employees and consumers. If, then, we lift all restraints on competition, the standards of consumers and employees will increase drastically. 

With a Free People fighting for their freedom, no force on Earth can defeat them. And when you apply the principle that these Free People are voluntarily contributing all that they can to the effort, instead of having it forced upon them, you end up with a Free People fighting tooth and nail with everything they have against invaders.

When a Free People fight for their freedom, no force on Earth can defeat them.

Corporations will have as much to lose as do the Individuals and would therefore contribute just as wholeheartedly to the cause. Sure, there may be some corporations who are willing to turn a blind eye to the invasion, and there may still be others who are actually willing to sabotage our efforts, but there are now Government officials who may be willing to turn a blind eye to an invasion, and there may still be other Government officials who are actually willing to sabotage our efforts. Our current system leaves us no recourse to reprimand or prevent the President of the United States, if he so chooses, to sell us out to a foreign power. With the President being wholly in charge of our military, we could be sold out to a foreign Government by a single person, and nothing really prevents him from doing this. However, in an Anarchy governed by Principles, no one person could singlehandedly sell us out to a foreign Government, and if any one person tried, they’d quickly find themselves boycotted, blockaded, and brought down by consumer choices, competition, and the rivalry of the Free Market. Only a love for his homeland and his People prevent the President (any President) from selling us out to a foreign Government. A love for the homeland and the People, and the Free Market consequences of trying (as outlined previously) prevent a corporation from trying to sell us out to a foreign Government. Since no force on Heaven or Earth can defeat a Free People who fight for their freedom, the Free People would inevitably win, and if the corporation which sold them out managed to survive to that point, it would not survive much longer. Betrayed and angry, the Free People would rally against that corporation like never before, and any corporation which rose in competition that was led by someone who had fought bravely in the war would overtake the treacherous one in a matter of days.

The Free Market and Free Market consequences save us from being sold out by any corporation. Moreover, the people in charge of these corporations, like you and I and like the people in Government, love their homeland, the principles of their homeland, and their People just as much as everyone else. They would fight for their homeland just as strongly and devotedly as you would.

Okay… I’ll Reluctantly Accept That… Just Move On. What About Murder?

Ah, for murder we must examine Laws. Governments pass laws, yes, but those laws are only reflections of what Society thinks is right and wrong. When Society accepted slavery, the Government allowed it. When Society turned against slavery, the Government outlawed it. When Society accepted drinking, the Government allowed it. When Society* turned against drinking, the Government enacted Prohibition. When Society turned against Prohibition, the Government allowed drinking again. When Society* turned against mairjuana, the Government outlawed it. Now that Society is turning around again to allow marijuana, the Government is following suit.

My point in all of this is that Society, and not Government, dictates what is and isn’t allowed. Society makes the decisions, and Government just writes them down. Government, however, is slow to change its mind and slow to modify existing law–hence the current marijuana situation. Though huge portions of the country want to see marijuana legalized for medical purposes and still more want to see it legalized for recreational purposes**, the Government is still very reluctant to do this and has instead simply said that it won’t try to overturn some State laws about it. Rather than actually being on the cutting edge of social progress, the Government always is a few steps behind. It follows that, with the Government always being a few steps behind, Government often gets in the way–as it is now doing with marijuana.

At any rate, even if Government timed its legislation to perfectly coincide with the decisions and values of Society, then Government still actually contributes nothing to the process. All the Government does is write down Society’s values and prescribe punishments for people who violate those values. Firstly, writing it down isn’t necessary and, as I pointed out in the preceding paragraph, does more harm than good: it causes Government to lag behind Society, often getting in the way of social progress. There is no reason, for example, to write down that murder is illegal, that rape is illegal, or that theft is illegal. Society decided these things a very long time ago, and writing them down contributes nothing to the function of Society.

Laws also do not protect anyone from having anything happen to them. A law making murder illegal doesn’t prevent anyone from committing murder. If it did, you’d be able to type in the comments, “The only thing keeping me from murdering people is the fact that it’s illegal.” The same is true of rape and theft. If laws against these crimes were actually preventing anyone from doing them, then people would be able to say, “The only thing that keeps me from stealing, raping, and killing is the fact that we’ve made it illegal! Thank God for these laws! Because if it wasn’t illegal, I’d rape, torture, and kill you, and then steal everything you owned!”

But no one thinks that way. The law isn’t deterring anyone from committing any crime. People don’t commit crimes because their Morality holds them back, and when that Moral Restraint breaks down, then they are capable of committing rape, theft, and murder. But as long as that Moral Restraint holds up, no amount of anger or desire can entice them into killing, raping, or stealing. And once that Moral Restraint breaks down, no law can stop someone from killing, raping, or stealing. Once their Morality breaks down, for whatever reason, then no Law will stop them from doing whatever they want. At that point, the Law will only provide a framework within which they can be punished. But since the Law isn’t actually deterring anyone and the Law is only a reflection of Society’s value (thus, a reflection of Individuals’ Moral Restraints) in the first place, why is the Law even necessary?

Violations against Society’s values, however, that have victims would still require some sort of punishment–though “victimless crimes” would not. And this is because there’s no such thing as a “victimless crime,” and a Free People understand that. A “victimless crime” isn’t a crime; it’s a choice. In modern America, smoking pot is a “victimless crime,” and it is one that can send someone to prison for several years. Not too long ago in most states, sodomy (and hence homosexuality) was a “victimless crime,” and it was also one that could send someone to prison for several years. Society has changed its mind about tolerating these things, but they should never have been crimes in the first place. Nothing that does not have a victim should be considered a crime. The idea is absurd, and a Free People find it abhorrent. “Victimless crimes” are choices, and just because one Individual or another does not approve of the action in question doesn’t give anyone the right to make it a crime which warrants punishment. Only crimes with victims are crimes; anything else is simply a choice and must be tolerated, no matter how much you disapprove of it.

Any action can be made into a crime if we allow this notion of “victimless crimes” to exist. Turning on a fan when it is Sunday could become a “victimless crime” which sends people to prison if we allow some religious sects to have power over legislation. The very same intolerance has allowed sodomy, gay marriage, and marijuana to all be made illegal–one religious group or another determined that the action was a sin and that, even though there was no victim, it needed to be punished with imprisonment. We can’t let this happen; the only way to prevent it is by abolishing this notion of victimless crimes. When we abolish victimless crimes, we are left only with crimes which have victims:

Murder, rape, and theft. We have the taking of life, we have the violation of rights and autonomy, and we have the violation of property rights. When we abolish victimless crimes, we are left with only three crimes, and those three crimes are:

  • Violating someone’s right to Life.
  • Violating someone’s right to Liberty.
  • Violating someone’s right to Pursue Happiness.

Those are the only crimes in a Free Society, and those are the only things we need to prevent any Individual from doing. As there is no greater violation of someone’s right to Life than killing them, murder would necessarily not be allowed. As there are few violations of someone’s right to Liberty (autonomy, self-governance, and choice) than forcing oneself upon them, rape would necessarily be not allowed. As there is no greater violation of someone’s right to Pursue Happiness than by stealing the property with which they would pursue that happiness (as Part Two demonstrated, the right to pursue happiness requires the right to private property), theft would necessarily not be allowed. Now that we’ve protected everyone’s Life, Liberty, and right to pursue happiness, what else is there left for Society to ensure?

Nothing. Everything’s taken care of at this point. We established in Part Two that the only things we must protect are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, because trying to protect anything beyond these three things require sacrifices of these three things. In regard to health care, I demonstrated that we can only protect someone’s “‘right’ to receive healthcare” by sacrificing the right to pursue happiness (by violating the right to private property of others). Every Individual does, however, have the right to pursue healthcare. But that is where their rights end when it comes to healthcare.

With Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness now protected by Social Agreement, we must only ask…

“Okay, Fine. But Not Everyone Follows the Law or These… ‘Social Agreements’…

No, that’s true. As I stated above, people break the law. People commit rape, theft, and murder every single day. And this is true, even though we have laws in place which have made these things illegal. What good are these laws doing? Would we have more rape, theft, and murder if these things weren’t illegal? If we would, then you think that the only thing stopping people from raping, stealing, and murdering is the fact that it’s illegal. There’s no justification for thinking this, especially since the only reason these things are illegal is because we have decided that they’re wrong.

In the process of Law, first the People decide that the act is wrong. Then the Government makes it illegal. So even if you remove the Government and even if you remove the whole concept of legal and illegal, the People still think it’s wrong, because they were the ones who decided in the first place that it was wrong, and this decision is what created the Law. The Law didn’t make Society think that rape, murder, and theft are wrong; Society decided these things are wrong, thus the Government passed a Law that said so. But whether the Law is there has no impact on whether or not Society thinks something is right or wrong–again, see the marijuana changes sweeping our nation.

What Society says is Moral, Immoral, and Amoral is completely independent of what the Government decrees. After all the Government had once decreed that slavery was okay. Society said slavery was not okay, even though the Government had already passed laws saying it was. The Government had once decreed that homosexuality was illegal. Society said that homosexuality was okay, even though the Government had already passed laws saying it wasn’t. Over and over again, we find that Society dictates what is right and wrong and Government only passes laws to reflect that. Over and over again, we also find that the Government’s laws make no difference to the Society and have no impact on the entire process. Over and over again, we find that the Laws aren’t necessary because they don’t do anything.

The only things the Law accomplishes which Society’s Values do not is that the Law provides a framework for punishing people who violate the acts. There is a rigid system for this which defines rigid punishments, and the further we go into bureaucracy, the more rigid this framework becomes. Already, trials are by the State and not by the Jury, as demonstrated in Part Two, and already Jurors are restricted only to delivering verdicts based on the law and the crime. This was not always the case. Jurors were once able to weigh the circumstances of the crime, whether or not the action was justified by the circumstances, the Constitutionality of the law, the rightness of the law, and all sorts of other factors that have since fallen to the homogenization of bureaucracy.

Just as we have Trials today, so would we have trials in an AnarchyThe Government doesn’t have a monopoly on Justice. Society does. When someone is accused of violating another’s Life, Liberty, or right to pursue happiness, Society can try this person by a jury of peers just as Government is supposed to today. Individual counties, cities, and neighborhoods can come up with their own methods for incarcerating people while trials are organized and can allow the jury to decide the consequences if found guilty, allowing the circumstances of the crime and the Individual’s history to guide their sentencing if the person is found to have done wrong.

Justice is not and can never be a one-size-fits-all thing.

Circumstances matter, and by not trying to homogenize the process and by not trying to make one-size-fits-all systems of sentences, we allow the impartial Jury to weigh the action, the effects of the action, the motive behind the action, and the circumstances of the action to determine a sentence that is fitting to the crime. Trial by jury has been a staple of Western Society for centuries. It’s not going anywhere, because Society dictated that crimes shall be handled by a jury of peers. Government didn’t decide this. Society did. All Government did was write it down. And Society will still have trials by jury, even without a Government making them do it, because we as Individuals figured out centuries ago that the only way to ensure Justice and not revenge was to allow an impartial jury of peers to deliberate–and to assign a sentence relative to the heinous nature of the crime.

Um…

It has been amply demonstrated here that Government is not necessary to the Criminal Justice process. It has been amply demonstrated that Laws do not have any actual utility and that they are only documents that provide a framework for punishing criminals–and then it was amply demonstrated that trying to have such a framework to punish criminals is a bad idea. So not only do laws fail to provide a deterrent for criminal behavior, but their only other function, to provide frameworks for sentencing, is flawed and should be abhorred by a Free People. Since Laws have only the purpose of acting as a deterrent and fail to do that (I dare you to type in the comments, “Only the fact that it’s illegal is keeping me from raping every woman I see and want.), and since their secondary purpose is to provide a framework for sentencing (which is abhorrent to a Free People, as a Free People recognize that motive and circumstances matter far more than the actual act itself), it is shown that Laws have no place in our Society. 

Furthermore, it has been shown that since there is a lag between Society’s Moral Restraints and Government’s laws, the Government’s Laws frequently get in the way of social progress and that, even if Government laws perfectly coincided with the changes in a Society’s Moral Restraints, the Law is still not desirable because it contributes nothing to the process–if it might as well not be done as be done, then it shouldn’t be done. If it has no effect, then there’s no reason it should be done. Doing things that have no discernible effect, even in theory, except to occasionally slow or halt Social Progress, and at best simply “don’t get in the way,” we’re creating waste and burning resources on irrelevant actions that have no impact and no bearing on reality. It requires time and resources to pass laws, to work out homogenized sentences, to defend the homogenized sentences against the ACLU and other organizations who argue that normalized sentencing is contrary to the principle of Liberty, and all of these resources could be better spent elsewhere, especially since burning them as we’re now doing on things that have no positive benefit, even in theory, is doing nothing but wasting resources.

Brief Summary

Since there are only three things which Society needs to protect and since those three things are Life, Liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, we only need, ultimately, one law:

Each Individual has the right and freedom to do whatever he or she desires and own whatever he or she may acquire, so long as he or she takes no action that impedes negatively, with malice or intention, the ability of another to do as he or she may desire or own whatever he or she may acquire.

That one law takes care of everything, and it wouldn’t even be a “law,” since there would be no Government which would pass it. It would be a Social Agreement, built on the principles which we all hold dear to our heart. It does not allow for any action to be labelled as a “victimless crime,” yet it adequately handles the Big Three: rape, murder, and theft, as well as other things such as torture, coercion, inhibitions of free speech, and violations of privacy (since privacy is an extention of the right to private property, including oneself). Nothing else needs to be addressed, and anyone found to have violated any part of the above Social Agreement can and would be apprehended by Society and given a trial by a jury of peers who weighted the evidence and delivered a verdict, and who then weighted the circumstances and the motive to deliver a sentence. Everything is handled. Everyone is free.

With national defense already protected as outlined previously and further elaborated here and with criminality and criminal behavior adequately handled by a Free People acting within their rights to protect the Life, Liberty, and right to pursue happiness of all Individuals, then there is nothing left for Government to even do. We’ve rendered Government pointless. We’ve taken the primary roles which our Government performs and we’ve demonstrated that all of these roles would be filled and served better by a Free People. What is our reason for surrendering our rights, powers, and responsibility to handle these things ourselves to a Government when the Government could never be as effective, as just, or as devoted?

* Well, when radical lobbyists within the Society turned against…

** Marijuana, after all, is thousands of times superior to alcohol… It’s non-habit forming, it doesn’t cause men to beat their wives, it doesn’t cause parties to erupt in violence, it doesn’t cause thousands of vehicular deaths each year, it’s natural…

The idea that we can have a Government which protects our Liberty runs contrary to common sense, logic, and reason. Government exists only to destroy Liberty–we are charging with protecting Liberty an institution whose primary function is to destroy Liberty.

Austin Petersen Debates the Anarchist Shemale on Twitter

Now, look. I don’t have anything against this guy. I think he’s probably a fine (albeit misguided) human being, and he’s certainly a lot better than many other candidates, but “being better than people like John McCain and Mitt Romney” doesn’t really count for much with me. I won’t support someone just because they suck less than someone else–I’ll only support someone who doesn’t suck at all. Obviously, that person is the Libertarian Presidential candidate John McAfee.

But today I posed the question on Twitter:

I’d really love it if someone could explain how and are and not just very conservative. Any takers?

I tagged Austin Petersen because I want to give his supporters the chance to defend him and to explain how I’m mistaken and how he really is a Libertarian, and I’ve simply misunderstood his positions. But I got the man himself. Yep. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, came at me personally.

Well first of all, I’m personally socially liberal. Being pro-life doesn’t mean you’re conservative. It means you respect life

I’m simply going to report here what was said, and I’m not going to criticize him for his position or his tweets–at least, not very much. There’s no point in doing that. I will, however, explain some of my positions, because Twitter isn’t a great place to be making well-reasoned arguments. I am going to edit nothing. To that, I replied directly:

And that doesn’t answer the question. How is controlling what >50% of the population can do with their bodies libertarian?

Taken by itself, a fair point, but obviously it invites further discussion and can’t just be left at that. Before we can say that’s a fair question, we have to analyze its details–right? No, not really. It’s a simple, direct question, and requires a simple, direct answer. I did not get one, which provides further credibility to my previous claims that Austin Petersen is more or less a Republican in a Libertarian hat. I added:

Surely you realize that your personal belief that the fetus is “a living person” is just that: Your personal belief?

This put me on shaky ground, but the issue is murky enough that I’m comfortable being on shaky ground here. He replied:

We can discuss the issue, but please admit you incorrectly labeled me as a conservative. Please read:

And provided a link that I’m not going to bother with. I’m not going to bother, because I don’t believe he would bother with mine. Plus, as I replied:

Policies speak louder than words. You’re also against the , right? I judge on your policy, not your expressed associations

Yes, exactly that. I don’t care that he says he isn’t a Conservative, and I don’t care that he says he is a Libertarian. I care about his policies, and where his policies fall on the political spectra. He can openly reject conservatism all day long, but if his policies are distinctly those of typical conservatives (small government, pro-life), then I’m going to call him on it, regardless of what he says. I also added:

While my facts may be wrong, I stand by my conclusion based on what I know. If I’m mistaken about your policy, I’ll gladly recant.

A beautiful statement, yes? If my facts are incorrect, I will gladly adjust my position so that my conclusion is in line with the facts. I will let the evidence dictate my conclusion, not allow my conclusion to dictate the evidence. We should all be so humble to say such things. Austin Petersen, unfortunately, totally missed the point:

If your facts are incorrect, how can your conclusion be right?

This inane dribble received 3 likes–indeed, it’s the “most liked” reply in the conversation. This bullshit he spouted at me because he failed to understand what I said is the most liked tweet of the thread. That’s sad, isn’t it? It’s sad that Petersen’s reading comprehension is so bad that he couldn’t discern the meaning of what I said, but it’s also sad that at least three people didn’t bother to see if he was talking nonsense or not–and he was. Anyone who read my comment would immediately conclude that I was simply allowing the possibility that I was wrong, and allowing him the opportunity to clear the air. I was most certainly not asserting that I was right while simultaneously saying that I was wrong, and a presidential candidate should have the self-awareness and literacy comprehension to have understood what I meant. I would almost say that he did understand, and merely stooped to the lowest possible route by attempting to convince people I had admitted that I was wrong, when he knew damned well what I meant. I say that because it’s pretty obvious what I meant, isn’t it? “Based on what I know, that is my conclusion, but I might not know enough about your position for my conclusion to be accurate. If you would explain your position and if I am mistaken, I will gladly recant.” I mean, c’mon. That’s what I said–only within Twitter’s character limit. There’s no way he thought I was saying something so asinine as “My facts are wrong but my conclusion based on those facts is right.” That’s silly.

you seem to not understand. If my facts are wrong, I will change my conclusion to fit them. Are my facts wrong? 1/2

I’m allowing the possibility that my information, and therefore the conclusion derived from it, is wrong. That’s not saying I’m wrong

Yes, I actually had to explain to him what I meant, because the lightbulb didn’t go off in his head and he didn’t say “Oh! My bad. You were simply allowing for the possibility that you’re mistaken–you were being humble. My bad.”

When he said that, I began to sense something was amiss. Because, no, there’s really no way that he misconstrued what I said. It’s possible that he read it quickly and typed out his quick response, but he must have surely immediately realized that he’d just came to the silliest possible conclusion about what I’d meant. But that asinine reply got three likes.

Getting things back on track, I added:

Are you not pro-life and anti-nap? Very close to the policies of Rand Paul? These are fundamental questions of liberty.

For those unaware, the NAP is the Non-Aggression Pact and is the agreement that it is never justified to initiate the use of force, violence, and coercion. It is not a vow to pacifism; it is a vow to not be aggressive, and it is a fundamental pillar of the Libertarian Party. From Wikipedia on the matter:

The Libertarian pledge, a statement individuals must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party of the United States, declares, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

So being against the Non-Aggression Pact, as I’ve heard that Petersen is (a claim he never denied, by the way, leaving me to conclude that I’ve heard correctly) outspoken against the NAP. He’s outspoken against the pledge that one must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party. So I repeat: How, exactly, is he a Libertarian? He is against one of the most sacred tenets of Libertarianism.

Petersen replied with:

I’m an agnostic, pro-science libertarian. The child has separate DNA, therefore it’s a separate human body. This is logic

Oi vey.

I ignored that unrelated, irrelevant remark, and said:

So if a woman could donate a kidney to save a child and she refused to, we’d be justified in forcing her to?

Since we have the right to make woman make sacrifices of their literal flesh for the sake of others.

Petersen replied:

If you’re familiar with DNA, you’d understand that if you are pregnant, the child is a separate person.

It was here that Petersen began tagging several of his tweets as #prolife. We all know why he did this. He did this because he wanted to bring in people who were pro-life; he wanted to bring in backup to help him out. There’s literally no other reason he would have added that to the end of his tweet. That’s what tags are for, after all.

So I replied:

No one is disputing that. That’s not at all what I’ve claimed, though that’s still your belief, and many disagree. Not the issue, tho

…which isn’t actually true. I do dispute that, because I think deciding that x number of cells that have the potential to grow into a living, separate being is not quite the same thing as a living, separate being. A fetus in the womb is clearly not a separate being–it is attached to the mother via an umbilical cord and resides in the womb. If removed from the womb and severed from the umbilical cord, the fetus would die. This is not indicative of a living, separate being. It is indicative of a parasite. That’s a term that a lot of people don’t like, but that changes nothing: until birth, a fetus absolutely is a parasite on the pregnant woman. The only way people escape this scientific classification is by saying that the parasite is the same species as the host. Yeah, that’s true, but my dad is still a fucking parasite on my grandmother.

What’s right isn’t always what’s popular. What’s popular isn’t always what’s right.

This riled me quite a bit, and I didn’t hesitate to show it. Plus, another pro-life tag. That’s really transparent, especially for a tweet that didn’t really have anything to do with pro-life things specifically. Besides, the pro-life position is extremely popular… among other conservatives. I dropped the hammer on that asinine statement:

You haven’t addressed the point. Don’t throw weak platitudes at me while dancing around the contention.

There’s nothing for me to add to that. It stands on its own. A weak platitude isn’t an argument. It’s a weak platitude. So I returned to my parallel:

By that reasoning, it must be okay to force a woman to donate a kidney. Abortion doesn’t kill a fetus; it terminates a pregnancy.

This is a critical point, and one that I expanded in subsequent tweets. As Petersen so gleefully points out, the fetus and the mother are separate beings. Ergo, the fetus has no claim whatsoever to the woman’s body; the woman and the woman alone has the claim to her body, to her womb, to her time, and to her umbilical cord. The fetus, as a living and separate being, has no right to claim these things that are part of the woman’s body.

No it’s not OK to force a woman to donate a kidney, since a kidney is not a separate human life. Logic evades you

Let it be known. Let it be inescapably clear. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, threw the first insult here. And not only did he insult me, he completely missed the point.

Child needs kidney. Woman has kidney. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder.

Child needs womb. Woman has womb. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen disagrees: society can force the woman to give the womb, and that refusing to give the womb is murder.

The parallel is obvious, and it only gets stronger if we assert that the child is the woman’s son or daughter. It becomes:

Child needs mother’s kidney. Mother says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder. But child’s need of a kidney is a direct result of the woman’s decision years earlier to get pregnant and have that child; the child’s need for the kidney today is absolutely a consequence of the woman deciding to have the child in the first place. Ergo, according to Petersen, she must accept her responsibility, and if she doesn’t, then we must force her to. That’s the only way for Petersen to be consistent. It doesn’t matter if the child is 5 months old or 5 years old when it needs part of the woman’s body–she is responsible for that need because she is responsible for getting pregnant and having the child.

How Petersen missed the parallel by such a wide berth that he concluded I was comparing a kidney (the organ needed) to a child (the entity in need) is something I can’t grasp. Again, I think he purposefully misunderstood in a weak attempt to wriggle away from the hammers bearing down on him. My parallel contains a woman, a child in need, and an organ the child needs that the woman can give. Petersen’s reply is blatant intellectual dishonesty or foolishness of such scale that he cannot possibly be qualified to be President.

The person who would receive that kidney IS, dude. The point has eluded you.

The umbilical cord and womb aren’t real people either. The logical parallel clearly escapes you. It begins with a simple statement,

and proceeds with a mightiness of reason you evidently cannot keep pace with.

I absolutely threw a condescending remark back, and did so by paraphrasing the master of such insults: Thomas Paine. Not only that, but the parallel did clearly escape him, and he came to the most outlandish conclusion about what I meant that he possibly could have.

Killing a child is murder, whether that child is born or unborn. Not your body. Not your choice.

More tags, eh? Really hurting for some support? Needing a pat on the back and a “Well done, Petersen”? Other than a few likes here and there, no one came to Petersen’s defense. I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to argue with me, either. So far I have trounced him at every turn, and now he’s back to simply stating his position because he’s been unable to justify his position. More to the point:

Do you not see the obvious contradiction there?

To clarify: the woman’s body is not the fetus’s body, either. To use the woman’s body is not the fetus’s choice, either. I mean, really. Did I have to point that out? This is why my point about “abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a fetus” is critical. Unfortunate though it is–and it is unfortunate–the fetus cannot survive without the womb (see the kidney point above). But that womb belongs to the woman–it is part of her body, not the “separate” fetus’s. The woman and the woman alone owns her womb. The fetus does not. If the woman does not wish to share her womb, then that is her right, since it is her womb. It is unfortunate that she does not want to give her time and womb to a fetus/child/living molecule, but that is her right, just as it is her right to not give a kidney. The kidney and the womb, after all, belong to her.

The woman’s body–not your body, not your choice.

So, again, we’re discussing terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. Unfortunate though it is, the child does general die. Still

it’s obviously the woman’s body and obviously her choice whether to give of her flesh to another.

Rock solid argument.

No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body. Separate DNA.

Yet another pro-life tag??? Really, Petersen? Are you that desperate for support against the lone Anarchist Shemale? God, I honestly didn’t realize how many times he used that tag… It’s kinda funny, really. Anyway, who the hell knows what he’s talking about. The reply is to my last tweet above, which, you know… is rock solid. It is the woman’s body, the woman’s womb, and the woman’s umbilical cord. So what “No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body.” is talking about is, again, anyone’s guess. Is he saying that the womb is part of the fetus’s body? Because that’s obviously and scientifically false. The womb is part of the woman’s body. That’s seventh grade biology. The umbilical cord, to be fair, could go either way–I’ll concede that. However, the bulk of the umbilical cord remains with the woman, not the fetus and birthed baby, so… it has to belong to the woman, as well. The womb, however, is certainly the woman’s independent of the existence of a fetus. So… No, Petersen. You’re simply wrong. The womb is part of the woman’s body, and therefore the woman has say-so in what happens with it.

That has literally nothing to do with what I said.

Pwned.

unfortunate, but it is morally wrong to FORCE a woman to give of her body for someone else’s benefit, even when the cost is death.

He replied:

No one forces a woman to get pregnant except in cases of violent crime.

I retorted:

You talk of it as though it never accidentally happens. It most certainly does. Not the point anyway.

To this, Petersen said the most banal, inconsequential, and irrelevant thing yet by quoting Michael Crichton at me:

“I don’t blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them.” -John Hammond

I finished the discussion with:

More banal platitudes. I expected better of you. Honestly, I did.

At any rate, thanks for the conversation. I’m still betting that you join the GOP by 2030, though. 😉

And so that’s the second Libertarian presidential candidate with whom I have had some sort of discussion, though this one was more of a disagreement than a discussion. Of course, I follow John McAfee on Twitter, and John McAfee follows me on Twitter. Man, when I got the email that said @eTheRealMcAfee had followed me… I was stunned, and extremely happy. It appears to be the real John McAfee, going off the tweets, how they’re written and expressed, and the positions expressed. It might not be, but, if it isn’t, then it’s a damned good fake.

In the greatest tragedy of this election, McAfee is polling only at 4% among Libertarians, which is exactly what we would expect to find, if the Libertarian Party had been taken over by liberty-leaning republicans. I mean, just think about it. How well would an actual Libertarian do in the party if it had been taken over by liberty-leaning conservatives?

Poorly is the answer.

And that’s exactly why McAfee, despite being the only Libertarian on stage in the Fox Business debates, is polling at 4%. I’m only thankful that I watched the debate and saw how bad Johnson’s policies actually are, and how horrendously bad Petersen’s policies are. I’m writing in McAfee’s name no matter who gets the nomination, unless there is a very strong chance that the LP nominee will win the White House. And even then, I’ll never vote for Petersen, because he’s the lesser of evils, at best. Johnson merely has one bad policy, and I’ve urged him to reconsider that position. A Johnson supporter did challenge me on that, and I tore him apart, too. Johnson himself, though, has been silent thus far. In seeing what happened to Petersen when he took on the Anarchist Shemale, I can hardly blame him for his silence.

But his position should be defensible if he wants my support, and it isn’t. Neither is Petersen’s. And, in the end, Petersen didn’t defend his position. He merely stated his position while I pointed out the flaws in it. He pulled a great deal of foolishness or intellectual dishonesty, and he repeatedly tagged his posts in order to bring in back up. If there was a slim chance before that I would one day support Petersen, that chance has since evaporated. If there was any possibility that I could have looked past his pro-life position–as I once did for Ron Paul–that possibility has been wholly undermined by the insults, intellectual dishonesty, and weak attempts to call in backup to gang up on the Anarchist Shemale.

I don’t mind Petersen as a person. He seems decent enough, despite his insults, his underhanded argument tactics, and his attempts to bring in backup. But I adamantly disagree on his policies, and his intransigence in the face of well-reasoned arguments, his unwillingness to address counter points, and his strong similarities to republican Rand Paul mean that I cannot support him. And neither should you, dear reader. When I post this, it will go to Twitter, and it’s possible Petersen will see it and attempt to come here and challenge me further. That is not my goal. My goal here has just been to present my side of things, and he is more than welcome to create his own fleshed-out, 3500 word response.

And I’ll rip it apart, too.

Because the fact that there is a glaring contradiction in his position means that there is hypocrisy in his position. And what did I say about hypocrisy? That it is the duty of the rational person to challenge hypocrisy wherever it is found. And I will continue to do that whether the hypocrisy comes from a multinational corporation or a bloody candidate for President of the United States.

need I say more

lol, what?

Really, Petersen? These are the kinds of people who support you. Typical conservative pro-lifers. And you dare challenge my contention that you’re just a conservative? For fuck’s sake, that’s a Rubio supporter. A Rubio supporter.

Think about that.

In the interest of history, a few (presumably) Petersen supporters have carried on the debate. Here’s the best thing I’ve seen in the thread. For some context, he was specifically trying to tag in Gavin Whoever. Just like Petersen’s tags, I think it’s hilarious when people can’t take me on alone, without trying to call in help. And by his own admission, that’s what he was doing.

_20160417_140125