Guest Post: The Governance Of A Free Society

Tyler Durden's picture

The next in a continuing series (most recently: The Transition to a Free Society).

Submitted by Free Radical

The Governance of a Free Society

That government is best which governs not at all. – Henry David Thoreau

Because the state is inherently antisocial, we make a distinction between government and governance. We distinguish, that is, between an overarching entity on the one hand and an underlying process on the other, answering Thoreau’s question by asserting that the next step “towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man” will be taken via the latter, i.e., via the self-organization that is but another term for the spontaneous order by which human society came to be in the first place and has evolved ever since, concomitantly evolving the rules necessary for its governance.  And the fact is, all one really need do to know that this is true is to look around:

Those of us residing in the United States or any of the British Commonwealth countries live under an extremely sophisticated and subtle scheme of rules, very few of which were created by government. Since almost none of the rules that bring peace and order to our existence were created by government, little argument should be required to establish that government is not necessary to create such rules. On the contrary, it is precisely the rules that were created by government that tend to undermine peace and order.

If looking around does not suffice, of course, one can explore the matter in depth, mindful, however, that to whatever extent rational argument and empirical analysis fail to persuade, the fact remains that actual experimentation is prohibited.  That is, the state does not allow free societies to be attempted for the simple reason that the state depends on the legalized theft of taxation for its existence.  And simply put, a successful experiment in a free society would therefore threaten the state’s chokehold (for that is what it is) on humanity.

But as its chokehold is already being threatened (again, look around), we assert that the time is not far off when the state will be unable to prevent the necessary experimentation, including that which is based on the implementation of an actual social contract. For while “persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society,” the fact is that no such contract exists, nor has it ever existed, at least not in the sense that any of us in the Western world would understand and accept in the way that we normally do.  Thus is the question raised as to whether a legal contract – i.e., one based on “an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy – might provide the means for genuine consent to prevail and thus for the process of civilization to unfold without the endless intervention of the state. That is, rooted in the negative golden rule, and thus the non-aggression principle, the question arises as to whether the signing of such a contract, being required of every would-be citizen, could adequately serve as the legal underpinning of a free society. 

Before we examine an example thereof, however, let us first contemplate the events by which a genuine social contract might become possible.

As I concluded in my last submission, “as order returns within and among the [newly independent American] states, the devolution of power will be able to continue such that, in Tennyson’s words, Freedom slowly broadens down / From precedent to precedent, and genuinely free societies begin at long last to emerge.” 


Understand, first of all, that the fifty American states are under the jurisdiction not only of their national government and their particular state governments but of their county governments, which are contiguous not only within each state but among them.  That is, not only is the land mass of each state under the jurisdiction of one or another county; the entire land mass of the United States of America is under the jurisdiction one or another of 3,143 contiguous counties.  Granted, all of these counties are denied home rule to one extent or another, both by their state governments and (far more perniciously) by their national government; but no matter, as each is institutionally capable of governing itself.  Not just the fifty states, then, but their constituent counties could conceivably govern the entirety of the present United States of America.

Let us imagine, then, that as nonviolent protest leads to the secession of, say, California (which, with the whole world watching, Washington would be helpless to prevent), not only does Northern California subsequently secede from Southern California, but, say, Inyo County subsequently secedes from Southern California and is “taken private” by a group of investors (some, most, or all of whom are landowners within the county’s confines).
What then? 

A countywide referendum having paved the way, the investors themselves begin by signing the following social contract, which is then offered to all (other) county residents for citizenship in the “Free Territory of Inyo”:

I, (name in full), hereby affirm my agreement that all human beings are endowed with certain absolute rights; that these rights are to life, liberty, and property; that all human beings should be equal under the law with respect to these rights; that individuals cooperate among themselves to secure them; and that they do so freely and of their own accord.

Therefore, as a mentally competent adult over the age of 18, I hereby agree to the terms of this contract for citizenship in the free society of __________ – on my own behalf as well as that of my minor dependents – consenting to be guided in my affairs by the Ethic of Reciprocity, which I state as follows: I will not do to any other citizens of __________ what I would not want them to do to me. Beyond so restricting my actions, it is agreed by my fellow members of the Free Territory of Inyo that I am free to conduct my affairs as I please, engaging in such activities with my fellow members as may be mutually agreed upon, either formally or informally.

Furthermore, insofar as I might accuse others members of violating my absolute rights or others might accuse me of violating theirs, I agree to conflict resolution under the auspices of a firm chosen by coin toss or similar means from a firm certified by the Association for Conflict Resolution. I also agree that should the parties enter into arbitration, the loser must pay the legal fees of both parties; that insofar as either party refuses arbitration, the protections afforded that party by his citizenship are forfeit; that the forfeiting party is thereby placed in a state of nature vis-à-vis the citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo, who are thereby entitled to take such actions as they deem necessary to protect themselves from the forfeiting party.

Lastly, it is understood by all citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo that I have the absolute right to cancel my citizenship, and to the rights so granted, at any time for any reason and that, should I in fact choose to do so, I will submit my cancellation so as to be available for examination and verification by the citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo.

Signed this _____ day of ___________, in the year ______ of the Common Era, as witnessed below by (name in full), who, as a citizen in good standing of ________, has signed a replica of this document, both of which are available for inspection and verification by any other citizen of _________.

Signature of witness _____________________________

And what of those county residents who didn’t want to become members of the Free Territory of Inyo?  Their choices would be two: (1) they could continue to live there but without the legal protections of citizenship – i.e., as “resident aliens,” they would live in legal limbo, running the risks of doing so – or (2) they could move elsewhere.  But insofar as virtually all Americans are aliens today – alienated, that is, by an empire over which they have no control and even less standing – the above choices are nowhere near as irksome than those they increasingly face, to say nothing of the choice: that of citizenship in a truly free society.

Needless to say, this is but an initial “thought experiment” at which many will of course scoff.  But not as many as would have scoffed only a short time ago (a decade? a year? a month? a week? yesterday?).  And, in any case, one has to begin somewhere, so why not with the above – i.e., with a “devolution revolution” in which one or another experiment in stateless society is attempted, succeeds, and takes root, crowding out the state to the point of its eradication and ultimately merging into a worldwide continuum of freedomStranger things have happened, after all, and surely stranger things will happen, as we will examine in my concluding submission.

But not yet, as we must first confront the fact that far from a continuum of freedom,  the world remains embroiled in the interregnum of the state and the insecurity that is the daily fare of its security.

So to it we turn in my next submission: “Security in a Free Society.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

But anonymous is trying to rally the citizens too, this is too complicated for them.  This uses big words, and concepts that are quite difficult to grasp.  Can you put this in a 30 second youtube video with rage against the machine music bed?

Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Anonymous junker, I support your effort and your concepts to entice change, but you get an F for what you pulled in the US.  At least give it the same creative effort, planning and strategic timing as you did when you went after Scientology.   That was well done, provoking and moved people to action and rethinking their positions.  I appreciate the need to speak to a diverse and common denominator audience, but you cannot expect to target 14 year olds and get traction.

Michael's picture

We need to enact a "Nanny State Control Freak Law Abatement Act of 2011".

We must means test and odds test every nanny state law based on a benchmark with say the number of teens(10,000) killed on our nations highways in car accidents each year, or something like that. 

If your odds of being killed by drinking something like "Four Locos", as an example, are less than being struck by lighting twice in the same year as it is or being killed by terrorists as it is with those odds, there should not be a law made against it or a new cabinet position like the DHS created to improve those odds. I like those odds.

Do you get what I'm saying? No need to punish an entire country for stupid shit that doesn't improve your odds of survival and it's too costly in terms of sacrificed money and personal liberty.

Broken_Trades's picture

I couldn't read it all... Too many big words. 

This guy has some interesting ideas, although I think he's missing some massive realities n some of his thinking.


falak pema's picture

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil. – Thomas Paine

From this remark the author deduces that Government in essence is "antisocial". I challenge this concept. The Welfare State was not anti-social, anti-economic maybe, to the extent where economic efficiency, exemplified by Entrepreneurship and Free Markets, is in the industrial world the dominant paradigm...the holy grail of "pursuit of happiness". This paradigm invented in Capitalist England (Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Ricardo's Comparative advantage theory), enhanced in an empty, resource rich continent by the USA, is now coming to an end under the double constraint of world raw materials resource limitations and the realisation that markets are not "free" but "manipulated", oligarchic, even monopolistic, (as Marx predicted). When the Scions of this Capitalism, WS and its capital class EN MASSE, break with the trust of the people and overtly JUNK the model their forefathers created, we know that the USA has crossed a Rubicon. This is irreversible now. Like for ancient Rome. The model is dead as no plutocrat will EVER let you break his stranglehold on society. Indeed, he is now the ROLE model for the ages to come, as in Rome. The current world has therefore opened TWO PANDORA's boxes concomitantly in it's mad quest for finding 'chimeral' outlets to defeating the thesis of resource limitation : 1) Fukushima, which proves that MAN does not CONTROL the ATOM; it is the ATOM that now controls MAN. 2° WS : The Market is not the image of man's Esperance but of his addiction to greed and self destruction. Power corrupts so absolutely, when the markets represent Oligarchy, Tarquin's hold on Rome.

This is a terrible, FACTUAL double indictment of this current model playing itself out in front of our very eyes.

One that will lead its promoter to hurtle down the path to irremediable decadence. 

The World community needs to URGENTLY move out of this double calamitous situation, this double edged sword of Damocles over our collective heads. It may already be too late for our generation and the next. But we cannot give up hope. We must first learn to recognize the facts, NEVER junk them and then find a solution. In energy terms it has to be solar and renewable. Lets stop playing at devil's disciples and learn to be humble. In geo political terms it means going back to more stable sustainable geo political and financial-economic models. We have the knowledge to formulate them but do we have the will...?

pazmaker's picture

wow.... how depressing to think it may be too late for our generation and the next...


In geo political terms it means going back to more stable sustainable geo political and financial-economic models. We have the knowledge to formulate them but do we have the will...?



I don't think this will ever happen in a peaceful manner but only through violent revolution...unfortunately.

falak pema's picture

I am extrapolating a "black swan" scenario from current news about Fukushima and what the dominant player does today in USA; what that implies for this and future generations in  the geo-political sense.

I sincerely hope my extrapolations are wrong! But still food for thought.

pazmaker's picture

Yes  indeed food for thought.  I enjoy reading your post not always agreeing but always learning!  thanks

Nobody special's picture

This might be possible, in a free society that recognizes liberty and the rights of citizens.  Freedom in the US has been collapsing since the late 1800s.  I suspect a few genuine attempts at leveraging one's freedom would make its absence quite apparent.

bonderøven-farm ass's picture

"We are strictly confined to our men to whom we give liberty..."  ~H. D. Thoreau

AnonymousAnarchist's picture

It is possible and, in large part, already exists. All of society is inherently anarchistic (it's unavoidable). As Hasnas said in "The Obviousness of Anarchy" (+Lots to Free Radical for linking it), it's all around you. It always has been.

The state is just a social fiction, it's not really "in charge". The people who make up "the state" are subject to the same anarchistic characteristics that every other member of society is. Even with all their guns, the state controls very little. Sure, the state may kill and steal with impunity but that is not the same thing as control. In fact, the state controls so little that once enough people stop believing the myth that the state is legitimate, it will just fade away.

As Anna Morgenstern said...

Anarchism, truly, is simply the understanding that the state is merely a social fiction and has no legitimacy. When you live that truth, you will not follow the law simply because it is the law. You will let your conscience be your guide. At that point you are no longer being ruled, though you might have crimes committed against you by the "government" and its lackeys. When the Mafia forces someone to pay protection money, that guy isn't being ruled, he's being robbed.

Start here: Introduction to a Stateless Society

Clampit's picture

Even the most die hard anarchists (deciding whether or not to capitalize that word just makes my head hurt) seem to agree society needs some means of establishing law and inflicting justice for the violation of others rights. Arming everyone and dismissing the cavalry, is a very, very hard sell [perhaps unfortunately]. In a stateless society how can society violate the rights of those who would do the same? Lew describes DRO's, which near as I can figure are just mini-states without immunity, and certainly the world would be a much better place if states were simply scaled back so as not to pool enough resources for real harm. But do this function autonomously without a king (elected, anointed, or appointed CEO of a DRO) ... then you have a beast worthy of the anarchy title. Something out of everyone's control individually.

My feeble brain can't work out all the intricacies of how this craft would fly, but I've used a hand helicopter and looked at steam powered spinning gizmos - it ain't rocket science to guess what will transpire. And what I see of younger generations so freely embracing Orwellian networking online, and how effective civilization has been at reducing nearly every injustice to a dollar amount (FWIW, the rich don't do the time) all while the currency stands as possibly the most convoluted clusterfuck creation I've yet to stumble upon ...

Think ~2050 Facebible coins wiki-currency with a personal exchange rate determined by your propensity to violate rights. That's as close as I can convey my hand waiving guess as to how it will transpire, but one day our Taylor series of tubes will be complete. Internet will topple government. And as states have correctly surmised, there will be no stopping it.


AnAnonymous's picture

Freedom in the US has been collapsing since the late 1800s.


Yep. In 1898, the last bit of Indian land was transfered to US citizens. Hence a collapse in freedom as Indians were the source, the generous volunteering patron of the US quest for freedom, justice and liberty.


I like your type. They remind any of the intellectuals like the author of the article the reality and debunk the efforts of propaganda in a trice.

See, the man puts a whole page to propagate and you, with one single sentence and the behaviour going with it, you debunk it.

Thanks for being a US citizen.

jimijon's picture

hey I resemble that remark

highly recommend a National Rainbow Gathering.. it will be held in the state of Washington this year.

disabledvet's picture

the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was not demanded.  It was asked "as a matter of honor"--and James Madison put it there.  Perhaps they were just "peculiar people" with their "peculiar institution"--but how does a slave holder like Thomas Jefferson create one the greatest testaments for the need of freedom in human history?  I have no professional expertise in this matter but i would say "because he knew something about freedom as a slave owner."  In other words "the yearning."  I still read that Bill of Rights and i really have a hard time imagining anything better.  this is in no way saying that this "bill" has been anything other than eviscerated over the past decade or so.  kind of sad when you "look to Egypt" for inspriration on how to actually "effect" a legal right.

AnAnonymous's picture

Equality is concrete, straightforward. that is why US citizens are ill at ease with it.

Indeed, Jefferson knew freedom not by himself but through proxies he owned, the yearning of it.

Freedom is vague and is never better illustrated than when people are given to see examples of slavery.

That is why slavery was so important in the US. Very hard for a bushwacker to figure out what freedom is, how the King was oppressive. But, the illustration of slaves and what deprivation of freedom should mean...

Dooud's picture

Just like New Hong Kong in Snow Crash, that book gets more relevant everyday!

Raymond K Hassel's picture

We own it, or we don't, our choice. Our choice.

jimijon's picture

I have been taking the tact that the Internet obsoletes many industries, why not governance. My meme of Socialocracy moves regulatory bodies back to the people via a Yelp type system. In other words, enforce the publishing of data and let the savants comb through it and present their case to their peers and to the judicial system.

I have about three or four writing on this topic at my blog

I believe that this will put a stake through the heart of the regulatory capture and hypocrisy that we both feel, see and witness one way or another, especially when it concerns big business and finance.


Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

You're on to something there, I would certainly add big education to that too.  Internet changes the game.  Decades ago, you needed the resources which you received through a great mentor (hopefully) at a university in order to work your lifelong career to provide for your family.   Technology is now obsoleted in less time than it takes to obtain a degree.  The model is broken.  A college should be reworked to leverage the power of the Internet, and really so should all schooling supporting it. 


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."


jimijon's picture

I was over at Rense today, I know reptilian shape shifting, et al, but this was very interesting and something I never knew that surely gives a bit more credence to the "birthers."

This little research was one of those things that made me go hmmmm, on this matter.

cheers and goodnight from ChiTown

prophet's picture

In addition to its self preservation characteristics, government provides those who have or seek priledge, power and wealth (ruling class/elites, TPTB) a mechanism to assert their control over the broader population in what amounts to a protection scheme.

pods's picture

Absolutely correct.  And that is why the sovereign individual can never exist within a system of government.  Because sooner or later, the mob will become powerful enough to usurp the rights of the individuals.  The mob could be the government, or from a privileged class created by the government (corporations), but they will always win.  


AnAnonymous's picture

You have a very loose definition of government.

The US government has always been as big as it could be.

Yet, as it started from scratch, some actions were left to the general populace, like patrolling the plantations to keep slaves in check and settling without permission on Indian lands.

pods's picture

Well my definition can (and I think should) be looked at as a loose one.  A government is simply a group of people who exercise power.

In modern amerika I would say that corporations act as governments.  In fact, governments are corporations.

What I will not do is go back throughout history and look for this or that fault and only be satisfied when all previous wrongs are righted.  Like slavery, indian genocide, etc.  Those are valid points, but are we going to go back thousands of years and start there?  Because if we are to go back 100, or 200, we should go back further.  And where is the correct stopping point?



AnAnonymous's picture

No. The stop back in time is clear for anyone wishing to assess a system by its own merits. So the stop is put back to 1776, the day one government rises to promote freedom, truth and justice, when those values became the goals.

Why one should expect freedom from systems that proclaimed outrightly slavery? I agree it might be tricky at this point as some of these systems performed better in the freedom, individualistic, justice departments than the US, but it only exhibits what the US is. 

Dr. Porkchop's picture

We need a reasonably educated public that is able to recognize when they are being screwed and by whom, and to be able to act upon it by articulating their grievances in the public sphere, along with their peers. We can't simply have people vote and then walk away from politics for a few years. Obviously politicians, left to their own devices, are liable to get up to all kinds of shenanigans. People attracted to offices of power are usually mediocre, narcissistic, or at worst, sociopathic. Whether you are liberal or conservative, none of the current parties can be trusted to uphold your particular viewpoint. 

An aware public is what keeps them honest. The question is how to get back there. The national hologram (apologies to Joe Bageant), is what keeps people rooted in the belief that they are doing fine when they aren't. Only a major shakeup is going to change things now. The educational system has failed more than a few generations of youth.

AnAnonymous's picture

We need a reasonably educated public that is able to recognize when they are being screwed and by whom, and to be able to act upon it by articulating their grievances in the public sphere, along with their peers.


Just like the Founding fathers who were slave owners and ignore the Indians' right to property.

MachoMan's picture

I think the desire to "educate" the populace is exactly the basic underpinning and contemptuous view held by the purveyors of the nanny state.  In the end, even the most well educated people can still be completely oblivious to the destructive and immoral actions of their government.  This need for education is not really something that can be taught per se, but something that must be evolved...  as so long as there are humans, there will be humans taking advantage of others, including demanding power and control.

I think mostly what you're advocating is diligence and a real desire to learn, know, and participate.  Well, that's not how humans operate...  we are naturally prone to boom/bust cycles.  We lay everything on the line, set up our utopia, and then take a nap...  forgetting in our slumber that the only way the system continues to function is through our diligence and willingness to continue participating...

NonAggressionPrinciple's picture

Isn't is much simpler than this?


If more people would just acknowledge that no one, including governments, has the ability to initiate violence (kidnap or steal: ie take from anyone without consent or threaten to do so) then all of the above is making things more complicated than they have to be.

tmosley's picture

Any system that requires everyone to subscribe to a given philosophy is destined to fail.  One can, however, design non-aggressive social systems that cause all involved parties to recognize natural law by default.  

Characteristics of such a society are the separation of church, law, and militia (where what we now consider to be the "state" is the combination of "law" and "militia"), as well as the existence of social insurance providers of some sort, whether they are family based, or provided by a company.  See my post below for more detail.

Mark McGoldrick's picture

Any system that requires everyone to subscribe to a given philosophy is destined to fail.  One can, however, design non-aggressive social systems that cause all involved parties to recognize natural law by default. 


WTF are you talking about? 

I've just read through all your posts in this thread and I'm utterly astonished that someone could actually believe that your version of society would be a workable and better alternative to what we have today.

Anyone who reads through this thread, just substitute "gang" every time you see "clan" if you want a better understanding of mosely's bizarre, "natural law" universe.  It is difficult to imagine a worse version of society than one ruled by an infinite number of "gangs."


You have truly outdone yourself, mosely.  This is clearly your most ridiculous series of posts, to date. 


tmosley's picture

DO you notice how you never actually REFUTE anything, but rather just laugh off realities you don't want to think about?

No, a "gang" is not a clan.  A gang is a militia.  It is a group of armed people.  They don't make the law, they protect an area from outside aggression.  They can't commit aggression against those inside their territory simply because EVERYONE IS ARMED, and everyone is a member of the militia.

Your inability to see things for what they are is...normal.

Mark McGoldrick's picture

You call it a "clan" because it sounds better than "gang." It's the same fucking thing, just spelled differently.  In reality, you're promoting a society that would lead to constant gang warfare.  

Your society is just a bunch of self-ruling "gangs," where the individual - should he choose to leave the "gang" - is protected by some sort of car insurance-like company. 

Holy Fuck!  *LOL*

WTF are you talking about, mosely?  FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST!

This is truly, truly the most absurd series of comments that you've ever posted.  You are in outer-fucking-space.  

tmosley's picture

In any event, you are ignoring the point of my post.  The use of clans as social insurance agents has held back this system from spreading beyond the few areas that use it today.  This function should be carried out by insurance companies.

And again, you have made no attempt to understand, and instead simply deride an idea you do not understand, and have no interest in understanding.

Don't you have some books to burn?

CH1's picture

Don't waste your energy, tm; that's what these guys want.

God only knows whose payroll they may be on.


NidStyles's picture

Let me guess, you deny this basic reality, but will be cheering for your favorite Politician, or your favorite sport's team later on.

AnAnonymous's picture

They can't commit aggression against those inside their territory simply because EVERYONE IS ARMED, and everyone is a member of the militia.


Made me laugh. Where does this come from? From the very same location that the problem was the Indians not respecting property rights and the big bully US not respecting them?


Quite a number of gangs, be them street gangs or gangs like frats, have violent initiation rites. The violence does not stop there because in gang governance type, a release outlet is required. Gangs work on the principle that hitting the same within the gang is a factor of stability.

Anyone with memories of a US military boot camp knows what it is all about. Usually, there is a guy who is going to serve as the release outlet. The sergeant instructor barks orders, pressures and to avoid rebellion, others can release their hatred and their resentment on a specially chosen guy, ordering him to tasks, beating him, humiliating him. Anyone who does not side with this kind of gang organization is in for a wild run.

The second big fallacy is that weapons are for protection. Nope, weapons' primary design purpose is to kill people or intimidate people in order to build up coercion schemes.

The evidence of it is that groups of people  that reject use of weapons are a target for gangs. If indeed, gangs were armed for protection only, they would not go on aggression against unarmed people.

As US citizens can not cope with what they are, they are very prone to developp kinds of reverse thesis.

tmosley's picture

So you're saying that Indians never stole anything, and were just nice, happy, magical people who never killed each other or white settlers?  Give me a break.  If your family got scalped by Mohawks, I can guarantee you you would be first in line for revenge.  The only way to avoid such violence is to have law respected, not just within a group, but among all groups.

But you know, you're right.  It'll never work.  Someone had better call all the religions in the world and tell them that they can't coexist peacefully either, and that each state should have only one religion.  Uh-oh, you mean there is exceptionally little religious violence in America, where there are a truly maximum number of religions co-existing?  And any place that has state sponsored religion has much more violence (Ireland, Israel).

Come on.  You aren't paying attention.  The social insurance providers are SEPARATE from the militia, just as church and state are separate now.  

And your "purpose of weapons" diatribe is laughable.  It's like saying that a hammer is for removing nails rather than driving them in.  Yes, most hammers have both functions, but 95% of the use is for driving them in.  Similarly, 99+% of weapons are never used for aggression, but are kept as a deterrent.

AnAnonymous's picture

Never said that the Indians never stole something. I underlined the very fact that their relation to private property is irrelevant in the US citizens behaviour.

The US citizens were the ones tieing private property to the human condition. They were the ones who hold the belief and they were the ones who showed their support to that belief.

Their support to that belief was so deep actually that to put in line their actions and their beliefs, they started the trend of dehumanization, that, yep, human rights existed but they only applied to humans, not to non humans. The non humanity philosophy and all its consequences.

Come on, in the US, there are truly maximum number of religions co-existing? Since when? The US started much more diverse in terms of religions. Since the inception of the US, it has been forced march to monolithic religion.

US religious make up: in the US, more than 80pc Christians, 10 pc unafilliated, rest judaism, islam and the rest.That is indeed a maximum number of religions co existing.

Ah, US citizens, unable to picture themselves as they are... The US is highly monolithic when it comes to religion.

Hammers are for driving nails in. Not to remove them.

Tools to remove nails: a nail puller or a claw.

Deterrent of what? If indeed weapons'primary use was defense, no use for weapons.

It is cheaper not to invest into weapons. People buying guns and using them for defense waste money when they do not use them for their primary purpose. It is the main divider between gun owners: there are those who put their weapons to use and get the benefits going with and the others, those who sit on their weapons, for defense.


Voluntary Exchange's picture



As usual, your comments best apply to yourself.  This need not be a problem as long as you do not act based on your criminal tendencies or support the same in others by paying "taxes". Your expectations are a reflection of yourself.  Free market defense is much more competent at handling aggression than a monopoly that insists by force that you pay for it,  thus being a contradiction. And this same comment equally applies to "justice" services. The free market is always better than a criminal monopoly of force ever could or ever will be. When you can understand that, you will be starting to develop antibodies to your mind "virus".

"A Virus of the Mind" -

You appear to be so limited by your statist thinking that you seem to not understand that "order" and "security" do exist outside a "state", and in fact, will exists far more so when free people who respect natural rights are not being continually "raped" or murdered by the continuous predation of the biggest gun gang in town.


Good luck as our future arrives.


AnAnonymous's picture

Free market defense is much more competent at handling aggression than a monopoly that insists by force that you pay for it,  thus being a contradiction. And this same comment equally applies to "justice" services. The free market is always better than a criminal monopoly of force ever could or ever will be. When you can understand that, you will be starting to develop antibodies to your mind "virus".


Please quote examples so people can draw comparisons by themselves.

What are the examples of free market defenses, justice system.

falak pema's picture

Inflicting violence, extortion, is the very basis of tribal law, then feudal law. We are going back there when we deny the emergence of the nation state. There is no universal anarchistic Utopia..never will be... History has proven that. The only way forward compatible with man's history is more rule of LAW and more effective enforcement of governance against the Oligarchy now firmly entrenched in the global NWO.

AnAnonymous's picture

Why stop at feudal law? The US type of law (aka modern world) is also based on coercion, save it is much more efficient at it and a much larger scale.


rule of LAW


The rule of law is scam. The exercize of authority does not generate revenues by itself and therefore authority holders side naturally with players generating the biggest revenues.

The rule of law is just a machine to favour the rich and cripple the poor. 



tmosley's picture

You confuse law, which exists on its own, with legislation, which is what happens when you conflate judicial authority with the militia to create the state.  When they guys with guns get to pick the "neutral" arbiter, then the arbiters always find in favor of the state.  Under the system as proposed here, you get a panel of three (or more) judges, with one knowing and being associated with the defendant, one with the plaintiff, and the rest are agreed upon by both parties as neutral.  This system favors the rich in no way save that they are more able to pay fines.  Every other way, the imbalance is reduced greatly.

Mark McGoldrick's picture

When they guys with guns get to pick the "neutral" arbiter, then the arbiters always find in favor of the state....

That's fucking NUTS.

So defense lawyers never win?


Under the system as proposed here, you get a panel of three (or more) judges, with one knowing and being associated with the defendant, one with the plaintiff, and the rest are agreed upon by both parties as neutral.

Um....  that's exactly what we have now!  A lawyer who represents the defendant. A lawyer representing the plaintiff.  And an independent lawyer who mediates the whole thing (a judge) and/or a jury. 


Give it up Mosely!  You're NUTS!

AnAnonymous's picture

The exercize of authority does not generate revenues by itself. It derives its revenues from its actors.

It is not about the state or anything. It is all about authority and the exercize of it.

Eg: in the US, the sports scene is totally rigged with competitors chosen on their financial merits first. So the side is hidden.

But lets take a look at football when small and poor teams are allowed to take on big and rich teams.

Referees do no generate revenues by their exercize, they derive their money from the money generated by football.

Now lets take a tournament: two small teams, and two big teams.

Potentially, the various matches are unequal, it is better in terms of money that the two big teams face each other in the final. This is when the big money will be. Lots of viewers. Lots of supporters. Lots of advertisements.

It is natural for the referees (authority) to favour the outcome that will allow them to gain the most money possible. So the ref whistles in favour of big teams.

The more money in football, the richer the authority is.

It has little to do with the organization. It has all to do with authority and the exercize of it not generating revenue by itself but deriving it from actors.

Your point, all organization, does not address the issue. Better to ask the libertarian maestros about their thoughts on that issue.