Let's make business accountable

Politicians are held accountable to the people.  Every 2, 4, or 6 years they face reelection.  If they do not serve the people then they face the chance of being voted out of office.  Businessmen, on the other hand, seek profits; if they do not serve the people those profits will fall and the stock holders will vote him out. I think it's fair to say that some people believe that politicians are held more accountable to the people than businessmen.  To check this let's use proof by contradiction.

Say a new law is passed that requires all presidents, vice presidents, and board members of all businesses to be elected in a general election.  In fact, a law like this already exists that the SEC regulates that says stockholders must have the right to vote for board members.  But let's put Washington and GE on the same basis of accountability: one person, one vote.  We'll ignore problems of practicality or solve them by using electronic voting.

Another objection to this system might be, "you can't possibly know enough about each company to make an informed decision."  Putting aside the fact that this alludes to the pretense of knowledge problem, you only vote for the businessmen/women you know about or want to vote for.  Many of us don't know enough about the local judges or sheriffs to make an educated vote there either.  I simply refrain from voting for these people as that seems to be the responsible thing to do.  But it's the people's "right" to vote so they can straight-ticket vote or pick the prettiest sounding name.

So now we've done it, we've made business accountable to the people!  That was easier than I thought it would be.  So after the vote, just like in Washington, the businessmen can go to work for the people with a new and feared sense of accountability.  But just like Washington though, they aren't bound to fulfill their campaign promises and only have to worry about reelection in a couple years.  Furthermore, around election time they only have to make themselves look better than their opponent to win.  At that point, the election becomes a vote for the lesser of two evils.

But even with the vote, there is still a difference between government and business.  Businesses are allowed to compete with one another, and even more importantly, the people can withdraw their patronage.  What good is a company that has no subscribers and has no income?  When people withhold their vote and withhold their money from a company it ceases to exist.  So once a new CEO is appointed he might have the people's vote, but he does not necessarily have their confidence.  He is still in danger of losing his power at any moment.

How then will the CEO calculate the people's confidence?  It must come from their demonstrated preference for his services over competitors' - and a preference over no service at all.  And this means he must make his service desirable and his prices attractive.  He must keep costs low and quality high.  At the end of the day he'll look at the people's willingness to pay, subtract off his expenditures, and calculated his profit ... Wait, no, that can't be right, profits are what greedy capitalists seek, not public servants, and not people elected into office.  The vote!  The vote is what matters... isn't it?

Why does the vote matter in politics and why is it next to worthless in business?  The vote matters in politics because that's all they have.  Once in office they impose themselves on the population.  Then the only choice for the people, other than becoming refugees, is to comply with the new leaders.  Taxes are coercively extracted and spent to government favored parties.  Competitors are forcibly removed from the market.  Participation is compulsory and competition is illegal.

What now is the politician's motive?  The first is job security.  Of course, Politicians don't care about money so they don't care about their salary.  If it's a choice between serving the people or keeping their job, they'll put service before their own interests.  However, if that's true then it discounts the whole point of elections.  Service to the people supposedly equals re-election so to reiterate, job security is the politician's top priority.

How is the politician going to increase his chances of reelection?  Well, the people that rely on the politician are likely to be important voters.  If he can expand that base then he is doing himself a favor.  By expanding the role of government, by pushing out businesses and imposing bureaucracies he is going to create a lot more dependent people.  Once he dismantles an industry creating cabinet members and government employees instead of businessmen and workers, he will have just put an entire sector of the economy under his wing.  He will promise budget increases - or at least pension increases - because that's the tried and true way of getting reelected by the union members.  But he doesn't actually have to fulfill any promises, he just has to make himself look better than his opponent at reelection time.  This pattern feeds on itself with little to no regard for wasted resources.  The calculation problem that the businessman faces doesn't worry the politician; after all calculation is impossible and allocation of resources is irrational when funds are coercively extracted.

What can we conclude?  Perhaps I exaggerate the importance of the free market, by which I mean the freedom to pay for a business's services or refuse it, and the freedom to compete with other players in the market.  I am willing to admit I'm biased.  Let's then strip the labels "government" and "business" away from the analysis above.  Instead, presume Group A is made of men: flawed and self-interested.  Group B is also made of men with the same pitfalls.  Group B must compete, must persuade you to follow them.  Group A demands your compliance under threats of force.  What system would ever justify the actions of Group A?  No rational ethics could, thus we must reject it.  All goods and services provided by Group A must immediately be subject to the voluntary and moral system of Group B.  In fact, if Group A were to exist, isn't it likely to attract the most unscrupulous of people?  The ones willing to lie to garner votes, the one who think themselves so superior that they ought to be granted the power to rule over people?  While starting with a random distribution of men in Group A and Group B, it is Group A will attract men who believe themselves above other men.  And to see who will gravitate to Group B consider that those best able to serve, manage, and persuade (not coerce) will rise to the top by the nature of the profit and loss system.  Thus the most proficient and people-serving men lead group B whereas the most vain and deceitful men lead Group A.

Finally, it should be clear than any civil society should legalize competition, let no man have rule over another, and let there be equality under the law with no exceptions.  This system is called anarchy; it is peaceful persuasion and the absence of legitimized coercion.  It is strange that such concepts are so strongly rejected or as Joseph Sobran put it, "The measure of the state's success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not."

I Wish the Troops were Welfare Whores

There's a group on Facebook called "The Troops are Welfare Whores".  They post good information at times, but I'm not a fan of the name.  Other than it being inflammatory, I don't think it accurately reflects what most people believe in the group.  I posted the follow on their page:  Why this group should be called: "I Wish the Troops were Welfare Whores"

I've liked this page for a while, but haven't liked the name for two reasons (1) because it opens the door for the eternal statist cry "You use government services, you hypocrite" and (2) it's demeaning to "welfare whores"

The second objection is easy, welfare whores only consume their welfare checks.  Welfare whores receive less than military personnel, and they do not use airlines, humvees, food, or weapons provided to them by the government on top of their welfare checks.  They also do not get state approval to destroy and murder.

The first objection about government services is more subtle.  When competition is outlawed or participation is mandatory, then choices are restricted by force and thus those who care about freedom have no choice but to use the government monopoly.  So I say the libertarian should use government services as needed and perhaps even abuse them to quicken their demise.  Use roads, use free school lunches if you can, use the parks, withdraw social security, and even become a public school teacher.  Just don't support them by voting for them, or raising funds, or using any political action enabling their expansion.

The point about being a public school teacher is controversial on this page.  I advocate you doing what you're good at.  If that means being a school teacher go ahead and see how you can change the public schools from within, you'll have more power than any voter, and there will be at least 1 non-brainwashed nationalist in the school teaching children.  There's no need to stick only with private schools; the system is rigged; it's unfortunate, but you can do good in the public schools.  Just don't vote for their expansion or continuation.

The troops are different, in no imaginable way are they doing what they're supposed to be doing "protecting our freedoms".  In fact, if that is indeed the definition of the soldier's job, than it is a conceptual impossibility to perform.  It's impossible because in order for statist military to exist they must first, by definition, coercively take income from those who do not want their services.  Thus the very first action the troops need to take is antithetical to their ends, the troops are a contradiction.

Teachers can teach, researchers can research, and they can do so with principles and integrity.  One who is good at defense cannot achieve any usefulness to that end by joining the U.S. military; it is impossible with the current state of affairs.  Thus, if you're good at defense your only options are private militias or private security.

The police are another story, they fall somewhere between the school teacher and the soldier.  In the vast majority of cases, they're like the soldier i.e. worse than welfare whores.  The drug wars, drinking regulations, traffic laws (on government monopolized roads), truancy enforcement, etc. etc. cannot be enforced by anyone interested in true civil defense.  Thus, it's nearly impossible to join the police and not do harm, same goes for the soldier but to a worse degree.

Why I hate "The Hunger Games"

Movies never upset me.  Horror movies scare me, sad movies make me tear-up, but I've never been disgusted about a movie or deeply disturbed by it until I watched "The Hunger Games".  And that's because no other movie has so accurately and brutally described the consequences of the state.  Sure, there are plenty of war movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Letters from Iwo Jima" that show the carnage of state power, but none of these portray the deep psychological problems that persist in a state-drunk society.

Now, I know some readers will stop there and think, "Come on, Eric.  You've gone too far this time.  Our government doesn't round up people and make them kill each other for the entertainment of others."  Well, you'd have a point there if I was looking for a literal description of the state in this movie.  Instead, let's analyze the themes presented in "The Hunger Games" and see if I'm way off base.

Disclaimers: I only watched the movie, but I've heard that the movie is surprisingly true to the book.  Second, I'm going to be covering themes in the movie that are themes of the state, if in one case I say the tributes represent one thing but in the next theme I contend they are another, it is because I am not drawing a 1:1 correlation throughout the entire movie; I am simply describing its themes.  Finally, I'm going to try to keep this spoiler free, but will be giving details of the movie you can't see in a trailer.

Lies about the State

The districts rebelled against the state.  So enamored with itself, that the state could not imagine why anyone would do such a thing.  It must be that the district is full of evil and stupid people.  These ingrates must pay for their lack of state worship, and thus each district must send two children between 12 and 19 into mortal combat.

In the recap of why the Hunger Games are necessary, the narrator notes that the districts rebelled against those that fed them.  What ungrateful wretches.  Of course, now the districts, under state control, are eating squirrels and bread is a luxury.  Those in the capitol however eat like kings, an example of the Calhoun tax feeder and tax eater paradigm that necessarily comes about when compulsion, not cooperation, is involved.  It is a lie to say that people cannot cooperate without compulsion.

Here in this country we hear the same lies.  "Who would build the roads?", "Who would keep us safe from terrorists?", "Who would feed the poor?", "Who would make sure our food isn't poisoned?"  The state is a stupid answer to these questions when the the goal of democracy is cooperation through compulsory monopoly whereas the reality of the market is cooperation through voluntary exchange and free competition.

Celebration of Warriors 

I hate veterans day, memorial day, independence day, presidents day, and any day dedicated to celebrating the state and its war mongering.  I hate the praise of soldiers.  And the pervasive coupling of Christianity and American imperialism played a key role in driving me out of the church.

In "The Hunger Games" there are primetime interviews with all the tributes - the children warriors.  The audience cheers them and congratulates them.  I thought it was weird that the author would think that congratulations would make sense to anyone.  But it's not that different from the the thanking we do to police and soldiers.  Only in bizarro world can those forced to compete and die for the state be congratulated.  Similarly, only those who beat and kill innocents for the state can be thanked.

But perhaps worse yet, are warriors just our cheap... I mean very expensive entertainment?  The hunger games are certainly there to entertain.  It's a time to turn inward into nationalism and to praise the false gods of vainglory.  Today we have reality shows like "DEA", "Coming Home", The Military Channel, and countless interviews with vets and soon to be deployed soldiers.  This type of entertainment must attract thousands or no one would sponsor it.

Not to be conspiratorial, but I found it interesting that "The Hunger Games" movie wasn't released until after the Olympics were over.  Perhaps the movie would have served too much as a mirror to the nationalism and pride endemic to the olympic games.  Why can't athletes compete as individuals?  Why do they have to represent a state?  It is sad that one must attribute his worth, his sacrifices, and his achievements to the state he is from. 

Dehumanization of the Enemy

District citizens dress in drab plain clothes.  They go about their days working in mines, growing grain, and other manual labor jobs.  They are said to have the minerals and resources that the capitol needs and so they're kept around.  The president makes it very clear that these people are not meant to be regarded as ... well ... people.  He says there are a lot of "underdogs" in the districts, his point is to belittle them, to make sure that no one starts feeling sympathetic for them.  He says that the only reason to have a winner in the Hunger Games is to make sure there's a false hope of victory, but the real goal is intimidation.  Declaring a winner is simply a mind game to keep the district under control.

So too we have the dehumanization of the enemy.  Most war propaganda amounts to this.  It was said that the Iraqi's in the persian gulf war were walking into Kuwaiti hospitals and killing babies.  Similarly, Nazi's were supposedly marching into Belgium and tossing babies back and forth on bayonets.  Tragically ironic is the fact that the U.S. does routinely kill women and children, and some even do it for the thrill of it.  Truth is the first casualty of war, and the dehumanization of the enemy is often the first victory for the state.

Getting back to the movie.  The capitol's citizens dress in ridiculous clothes.  Though not explicitly declared in the movie, they definitely have a sense of superiority.  After all, who could cheer the death of children if they first did not believe the children to be unworthy of life?  How similar it is with us, dressed in clothes that are impractical or flamboyant while looking down on those that choose modesty and comfort.  And clearly, U.S. citizens find most of the world's brown people unfit for life.  How else can they excuse indiscriminate drone strikes or continued wars of aggression?  There is one other option, as Michael Scheuer recently said, "you have to be genuinely stupid ... to believe other than intervention caused the wars we're in"

The South to some extent suffers the fate of the districts.  They're demonized, they're labeled rednecks and stupid.  The only reason - we're told - they could have wanted to secede from the United States was because they were backwards, racist, slave owners.  But let's not get hung up on this point, the story is about to get much more disturbing.

Admiration for tools of Destruction

Towards the end of the movie the games are hurried along by unleashing some genetically mutated animal that looks like an oversized pit bull.  In the control room, one of the game engineers presents it to the game master.  She asks him how it looks, and he tells her how great it is and asks her to display her work for everyone to see.

I wondered what must be wrong with these people to look at a destroyer of human life and be enamored with it.  It reminded me of a conversation I had with employees of a company involved in arms production.  They were telling me about a new project they won for a new machine gun.  This gun was to be mounted on a vehicle and would track and auto aim targets while the vehicle went over rough terrain.  These employees, who were Indian and thus I assumed not a fan of violence and war, had apparently bought into American militarism as they explained how "cool" this device would be.

This is deeply disturbing.  When the state unquestionably kills innocent lives with its weapons, how can someone cheer them? When the wars the US wages are clearly wars of aggression, how can someone develop the weapons for them?  All those in the military industrial complex are part of this.  I see BAE employees with company swag clearly promoting the US state and its military.  These people are no different than those working for the Hunger Games.  They are deluded into thinking they're doing something good for society, when they are demonstrably not, and only the veil of state propaganda can keep them in their irrational delusion.

Hopelessness of the victims

When deciding on a title for the event I'm about to describe, I found myself crying uncontrollably.  It has been over 7 years since that last happened.  It's not attachment to any fictitious character that caused this, but the all too real oppression of the state and the hopelessness many of us feel in the face of it.

Rue: killed in the Hunger Games

From the start of the games you know one of the players has no chance of survival.  But it's when her death finally occurs that the outrage of her home district is let loose.  Until that point they obediently send their children into the reaping, and they watch as others needlessly die.  But when the destructive evil of the state is concentrated in this one event it drives them to riot and attack the State's armed guards. 

But the state is ready for an uprising, those filled with love for the state stop the rebellion.  They come in with armored vehicles and hose down the victims.

Aiyana Jones: killed by Detroit cop.

Those of us who know that the state's wars on terror, drugs, and poverty are excuses for control are helpless.  When innocent children like Aiyana Jones or fathers like Jose Guerena die in these acts of control, it is the assumption of the people that these sacrifices are necessary in order for the state to keep us safe.  Those of us who only see individuals, not nationalities can barely handle the senseless destruction of human life by the hand of the state.  The real salt in the wound and the spit in our eye comes from our neighbors.  It is our supposed friends and family who berate us for believing in liberty over compulsion, who build a hundred straw men to justify an irrational system like the state.  These statists promote their progressivism, their intellect, their sophistication, all the while promoting barbarism, the war of all against all, the zero sum game of hegemony.

Jose Guerena: Killed in a drug raid.
Nothing but an empty pipe was found

As long as the masses are kept in this fog, the victims and those that see the state's evil will be put down if ever a rebellion were attempted.  So the fate of district 11 serves as a reminder of the hopelessness of justice.  It has been over 500 years since Ettiene de la Boetie asked the masses to stop obeying; I suppose we'll have to wait a little longer.

The next Hunger Games

There are three books in the series.  I see no point in being reminded of the state's evils in an allegory.  I already have to stay informed about current and historical events so that I'm ready for excuses for the state.  That's very difficult for me.  I study praxeology to sharpen the logical arguments for peace.  It's sad that peace takes so much work to defend.  "The Hunger Games" is a good distopian story; I just wish it didn't so accurately describe the problems of the state today.  In fact, we would be so lucky to have only 23 innocent people die because of the state each year.  Pondering the actual numbers is far too upsetting.

Reading list

I'm constantly citing Austro-libertarian works.  Why not just gather them in one place?

Intro into economics

Henry Hazlitt's Economic's in One Lesson
Economics is a study of opportunity costs.  This simple fact is seemingly missed by all political advocates.  Henry Hazlitt brings economics back to basic's with Bastiat's story of the broken window

Tom Woods's Meltdown
Why were the most highly educated economists of our time blindsided by the housing crash of 2008?  Tom Woods explains how the Federal Reserve induces businesses cycles - booms and busts.  The intricacies of Fed manipulations are broken down in this introduction Austrian Business Cycle Theory

Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed
A more historical context for the Fed than Meltdown.  For anyone who believe the Fed exists for the sake of the people, this book will obliterate that image in the first few pages.  It's a powerful institution that exists to harness the power of Cantillon effects (for evil) and to the detriment of the poor world wide.

Murray Rothbard's Power and Market
How can we be so sure that government intervention is not ultimately beneficial?  Murray uses praxeology and cue's from Franz Oppenheimer's "The State" to show that what we need is more freedom.  When the power to violate natural rights is granted, social utility is ultimately diminished.

Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State
Murray's magnum opus, this is a great book to go from "Crusoe Economics" to complex trade and discounting.  The effects of government intervention are restricted to chapter 12 but are expounded upon in Power and Market

Ludwig von Mises Human Action
(not read)  The foundation of modern Austrian economics.  The culmination of Menger's and Böhm Bawerk's work; the unadulterated Austrian theory.

Intro into Natural Right's Philosophy

Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto
A great place to start for anyone uneasy about libertarianism and believe there is something important about the constitution.

Tom Woods's Rollback
(partially read)  It might be hard to believe, but what comes out of the government and the media does not cover the full spectrum of ideas.  Tom Woods covers many of the myths that pervade the common political theory.  For those seeking an alternative, those who are worried that the mainstream solutions just aren't going to do it, this book can - if nothing else - amplify doubt in the state.

Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty
For a life changing, mind altering experience, look no further than "For a New Liberty".  Starting off by defining the goal of liberty in the context of the American revolution, Murray goes on to define liberty and apply it to every aspect of life.  Anyone who finds the state necessary to protect the environment or provide for defense will finish this book realizing that the state is everywhere detrimental to the ends they hope to achieve.

Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy the State
Some of the most power objections of the state come from ex-supporters of it.  Nock wanted to help the less fortunate, and he believed in educating everyone.  He backed the state before he understood it's modus operandi and the necessary consequences of it on society.  He abandoned Georgism and wrote this book acknowledging the State as the enemy of mankind.

Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
(partially read) Rational ethics is the morality that all of mankind should follow.  This isn't an imposition of personal values, it is an argument derived from the human ability of reason.  In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard lays out the difference between a system of rational ethics and the contradictory systems that we see in government.

Hans Hermann Hoppe
Along similar lines as the Ethics of Liberty, Hans Hermann Hoppe introduces the world to Argumentation Ethics.  It's hard to prove that natural rights is universal, what Hoppe does is show that all other philosophies of ethics have contradictions.  By asserting that ethics must be internally consistent, Hoppe shows that one must choose libertarianism: a rational ethics.

Agorism

Ludwig von Mises's Socialism

(not read) Before searching for alternatives, it's a good idea to understand why the other option is inadequate.  The calculation problem that Mises developed shows that complete vertical integration - the control over all means of production - introduces calculational chaos. As Jeffrey Tucker says, "No one can read Mises's 'Socialism' and continue being a socialist"

Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State

Rothbard and Mises complement each other so well.  Whereas Mises, in socialism, gives the positive (scientific) reasons why the state must be rejected, Rothbard gives the normative (rights-based) reasons why it must be.  Anatomy of the State is a short overview of what the state is, how it is maintained, and - perhaps most importantly - what it is not.

Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable

This book is a mental stretch preparing the libertarian leaning individual before diving into the strenuous mental exercises he will encounter down the road.  Block asks you to analyze the most despised people in society, he then asks you to celebrate them.  After a few initial balks, you might find yourself praising the drug pusher, the slumlord, and the gypsy cab driver; I know I do.

Robert Murphy's Chaos Theory

Internalize the Externalities.  Wouldn't fire departments watch your house burn until they extorted vast sums of money?  Such a question is patently absurd after one reads Murphy's two long articles that compose "Chaos Theory".  Mathematically, Chaos Theory explains the patterns, not the predictions of how systems will behave.  So it is with this book, Murphy outlines how voluntary actions can cause intricate systems to emerge without prescribing exactly how they will emerge.

Walter Block's The Privatization of Roads and Highways

(not read) Yes, there are crazies out there who think roads would be safer if they weren't owned by the government.  They would also align resource allocation with consumer wants.  

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: It deserves a second mentioning here.  The later chapters on defense, courts, the environment, and police are extremely revealing.  But even this treatment doesn't go far enough in my opinion.  What this book does provide is a base from which to spring.  The Ethics of Liberty also is invaluable for it's discussion on just punishment.

Ettiene de la Boetie's The Politics of Obedience
It might be 500 years old but it's far more progressive and relevant that most of what gets spit out by Political Science professors today.  The lesson here is that the people are more powerful than those that rule over them.  Rothbard, in Anatomy of the State, shows that the state must convince the people that they ought to be ruled, Ettiene is like a frustrated mother who has had enough telling us to "Stop it! Stop it right now! Stop obeying dictators and be free!  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Just stop it!"

How I profited from efficient use of resources: and how the state ruined me

The problem

Leaving my subdivision you arrive at a "T" in the road.  You can turn left or right and there are two lanes to turn into which ever direction you choose.  As you approach the intersection you may move into the right lane to turn right, move into the left turn lane to turn left, or scratch your head about the ambiguous middle lane.  Upon a 5 second reflection, you realize that this middle lane can be used to turn either left or right without interfering with traffic (illustrated below).

Every morning this middle lane remains free of traffic.  I choose to use this lane.  Most people are trying to turn right so I often pass 15 cars waiting foolishly to turn right.  Some of these drivers disobey the rules of the road and cross into my lane as they turn.  Horns honk and I've found myself in 1 yelling match with a lady who didn't understand what is meant by staying in one's lane.  This kind of driving is reckless on their part and is against against the law - I know, I've downloaded and read the Texas drivers manual.

We live in a world of socialist roads, and yet I was still able to profit even under this system of compulsory monopoly.  I was an example for all my fellow drivers, showing them how we can better use the roads.  Unfortunately, most of them ignored me, buying into the value of "fairness" and "equality".  If one person has to wait 3 minutes to turn right then we all should!  Furthermore we should honk and yell and hate those 1% that efficiently use the roads, who seek out ways to expedite our commutes, and thus keep congestion down for everyone.  Bah! I say, I'm a libertarian, I'm about maximizing social utility, not making sure we're all equally miserable.

Truly, I felt like an entrepreneur every morning, profiting from others inability to see opportunities in front of them.  At the same time, I was teaching my fellow driver how to better use the roads while reducing the traffic problem.  I was astonished how few followed my lead, after about a year of being an example every morning, I saw only one other person use the middle lane.

WWTMD

Given the congestion, one might ask, What Would The Market Do?  A road company may observe the problem and then hire someone to stand out at the intersection for a few mornings and direct people to the middle lane.  After all, these are commuters i.e. repeat customers, so a few mornings is all it'd take to completely alleviate the problem.  The road company could hire me, but I'd probably end up yelling "come on you idiots, what do you think this lane is here for!?"  I'd then promptly, and appropriately, be fired.

Such a road company would have the goal of keeping costs down, congestion down, and safety up.  The solution would cost no more than a couple hundred dollars, perhaps even less if they just hung a sign that read, "Use the middle lane moron!"

What the state did

After one becomes a libertarian it takes roughly 6.8 minutes before someone asks, "But what about roads!? Herp derp!"  Yes, I'm being purposefully condescending, and disrespectful.  But it's because of what the state did that this kind of treatment is wholly justified.  It is absolutely disgusting and disturbing to witness what the state did to "alleviate" the congestion "problem".  Therefore, I say, anyone who praises the state for roads, must also love buying houses with broken windows.  They will witness the furthest extent of my wrath for their economic ignorance.

The state installed a goddamn stop light!  They spent tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, to install a useless stop light!  This means that now all directions have to stop and wait for 550nm wavelengths to start radiating from the new electronics before drivers can be assured they have state permission to move their vehicle.  Previously, drivers driving along the straight (top of the "T") part of the road drove by without slowing down, further allowing traffic to flow rather than be regulated in a jolty, awkward manner.  Now, each morning and evening, they pray that their commute isn't needlessly slowed by this completely unnecessary contraption of the state.  

But I haven't even come to the most egregious part of the story.  The state, in their infinite wisdom have decided to outlaw turning right from the middle lane on a red light!!  Even though this causes no traffic problems at all, and is done all over the city, we are not allowed to turn right on red from the middle lane at this intersection!  Why couldn't they have hung my sign that read "use the middle lane, moron" and saved the tax payers thousands of dollars!?  Now I sit, on my way to work, and on my way back, at this stupid light, this beacon of government waste.  The community now needs more brakes to stop, more fuel to reaccelerate, and more thumbs to stick up their butts while we wait idling at a red light.  They should just inscribe and hammer and sickle on red to make sure we all know we're under state control and supposedly helpless without them. 

This light typifies the state in every aspect: the waste, the inefficiency, the compulsion, the favoring of socialism over entrepreneurship, and more as I explain below.  Sure, I could write the local authorities and ask them to remove the light, but the capital has already been used up, the light is installed and running.  Just like all new government programs, it is now a permanent fixture of life almost impossible to reverse.  I will have to continue paying for its upkeep, the electricity used to power it, the gas now being wasted sitting at a light.

Will the state lose market share for it's squandering of resources?  It can't, it outlaws competition and mandates payment for its poor management.  At the same time it will vilify those who speak out against it, it'll point to the roads and the Stop Lights all over town and ask, "how would these be provided if it were not for the state?"  Obviously, I could run things better.  Does this mean I should run for office?  Of course not, my skills are far more useful and productive being employed writing software to bring cheaper energy to all of society.  Furthermore, politics rewards those who are good at manipulating others, lying, gaining political favor, not those keen on efficiently employing scarce resources.

Why did the state install a light?  There was a congestion problem.  Inept and reckless drivers, those unwilling to stay in their lane or use the middle lane, are being bailed out by the state.  Just like the reckless banks or poorly managed auto companies, a moral hazard is being promoted by the state.  Drive poorly?  No problem, we'll install a light so you can continue endangering other drivers.  Responsible drivers, those that follow the rules, are being punished and forced to pay for the light and the bad behavior.

This example illustrates everything that's wrong with the state and everything that's right with the market.  I came up with a simple, cost effective solution to help congestion.  I profited from it and the state came along and ruined me.  On a very minor scale I experienced the frustration Joe Stack must have felt before flying his plane into an IRS building.  This monstrosity, the leviathan known as the state destroys all that is good and peaceful and replaces it with machinery that hinders social progress and suppresses human flourishing.  So in summary, fuck the state, fuck our socialist roads, and fuck the moronic drivers that don't know how to turn from a fucking middle lane!

Hegemony is Hegemony is Hegemony

One of the first Facebook friends I lost occurred because I equated taxation to slavery.  It was unthinkable to him that I would, in any form, draw similarities between "society enabling" taxation and demoralizing chattel slavery.  After all, the local tax assessor doesn't knock on my door, whip in hand, waiting for me to pay my municipal taxes so maybe I should just stop talking in hyperbole.

Rothbard restored my resolve in equating slavery and taxation.  In chapter 2 of Man, Economy, and State, Rothbard covers interpersonal interactions.  There are two ways in which we can interact with one another, either by mutually beneficial voluntary trade or through threats of violence i.e. hegemony.  What's remarkable about the analysis is how he formalizes hegemony using praxeology.  Axiomatically, one person loses and another gains under a system of hegemony.  If both were to profit from the transaction, an ulterior motive to comply would not be needed and we'd be back to voluntary trade.  The ulterior motive under hegemony is to avoid the pain of the violence threatened.  A person faced with a threat of violence has to determine what is higher on his value scale: the suffering that would result if the threat were carried out or carrying out the demands of the aggressor.  In this way both parties "profit" but only because one party imposed a threat.

The state imposes a threat on every citizen to comply with its rules.  This includes paying taxes, not smoking indoors, not taking drugs, not speeding, not using insider information, and not buying products from any country the state doesn't like (to name a few).  To disobey does not imply a crime, it does not imply that any aggression has taken place; it simply means that you have not listened to the threat closely enough, and you should be prepared to suffer the consequence.  In the case of taxation, the state has not shown itself to be legitimate owners over all things in a given territory, it just says so under threat of force.  This is hegemony; this is how some people lose and others gain.  The state does not persuade you to pay for its torture, its drone attacks, its invasions; it simply demands you do so or else.  Every minute spent paying off these demands is to prevent violence from the state, it is not for an end that you yourself seek (generally speaking), the end is to avoid your kidnapping, imprisonment, or death.  You do not work to satisfy your desires, to accomplish your goals; it is to accomplish the goals of the state.  Because your only choice is to work for the state or to be punished by the state, you are the state's slave.

Slavery is not per se violent just like the state is not per se violent.  It is possible to imagine a slave owner or state that never used violence, although the latter is very difficult to imagine.  However, both must, by definition, use threats of violence.  If they did not then a slave owner would be an employer and the state would be a business, no hegemonic rule would exist if threats of violence were not used.  Chattel slavery described the cases where violence was carried out to alter behavior.  This is similar to the violence used today to prevent people from taking drugs (google Jose Guerena).  In most white collar cases of tax evasion or insider trading no violence actually takes place but fines are collected and people are imprisoned.  What about "white collar" style slavery?  I'm guessing it occurred, perhaps often, that some slaves were never whipped or harmed.  Some might have gone along doing just what they're told, much like we do with the state.  Plus, slaves were expensive, and they were an important asset to the plantation.  It's likely that some farmers didn't wish to harm their investment the same way people don't harm their horses, cattle, or sheep dogs (border collies) today.  The state puts far less emphasis on human life than the plantation owner, this is evident by the tens of millions killed by their own state in the 20th century.  However, if the beating of slaves was as ubiquitous as we've been lead to believe then it's likely that the proud black workers were not so easily conjoled into accepting their slave owner as their great benefactor.  They would likely have resisted more than the modern, putty-brained american who can't imagine life off the plantation.  If Kunta-Kinte were a 21st century american he would have requested to be called Toby while bending down to lick his new owner's boot.  This is not to say anarchists should be more courageous (I'd say foolish) in standing up against the state, it's simply to point out that slaves didn't accept that they were legitimately owned and neither should we.  Slavery is wrong, not because violence is carried out, but because threats of violence are used against an innocent person to change his behavior, to extract from him the product of his labor.

I no longer consider taxation equal to slavery, but have conclude that taxation is in fact worse than slavery because the state attempts to seize for itself not only your labor but your will and your mind.  Under the state, children are subject to compulsory education (paid for by taxation) where the kids are told daily how the state protects them, and how it has protected their parents, grandparents, and without the state we'd be enslaved (by a different state of course, not necessarily a worse one).  It's clear that this brainwashing is incredibly effective as evident by my ex-friend and by most of the people I encounter who embrace the gun of the state.  Under state hegemony people actually begin to believe that their enslavement is the best possible outcome, that if they weren't slaves, a much worse fate would await them.  The state has successfully convinced them that in their heart of hearts that two and two really make up five.

It's truly sick, and I refuse to accept that humans can do no better than mass hegemony, mass farming of human potential, and the imprisoning of young minds.  Krishnamurti said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" and so I will not apologize for equating taxation to slavery.  Hegemony is hegemony is hegemony regardless of its form.  It is not the way civil people act. Cooperation, compassion, trade, fortitude, hard work; these are compatible with a peaceful society.  Fraud, murder, aggression, hegemony, and callousness; these are compatible with barbarism, with the state.  These are in fact the modus operandi of the state apparatus, they must be defied if we seek peace and human flourishing.