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.  

Y u not luv r gubmint?

What does the government do?  It keeps the peace, it declares wars against invading enemies, it provides for the general welfare, and establishes justice throughout the land.  Justice, defense, peace, those are all laudable goals that I'd totally give half my paycheck for.  Sure looks to me like the government is carrying out my will.  I'll just go delete all my old posts and start singing Hosannas to our leaders.

Obviously that's not going to happen so then why is it then that I detest the government?  First, it's not the government per se.  I have no problem with the concept of courts, military, and police.  I do have a problem with a forced monopoly over a given geographic territory that everyone must pay into.  Such a concept is laughed at in most areas of life.  Taking a page from Tom DiLorenzo's playbook, what if someone were to say,

"We couldn't possibly distribute food efficiently in a free market, therefore we need to establish one grocery store in a given territory.  No competition will be allowed.  Customers will be able to vote every year on what goods will be carried.  When they show up to the store a shopping cart will be sitting for them with groceries already picked out for them by the elected store managers.  Prices too will be determined by the managers.  Oh, and everyone must spend a portion of their income (again defined by the managers) at the store.  If you want to buy food elsewhere, well, we might allow that, but it doesn't change the fact that you must spend the obligatory amount defined by the store manager"?

I'm guessing the possibility for abuse of such power is obvious to most people and so is the restriction of choice.  But carrying out this analogy, dissenters of such a system would be accused of being anti-food just as detractors of social security today are considered anti-elderly or pro-euthenasia.

Why is it that the worst possible solution has so successfully been sold to people as the only solution?  To rephrase what was just written above, Hans-Herman Hoppe put it this way

Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose.

This solutions is bad on both ethical and utilitarian grounds.  It fails ethically because it uses force to make sure alternative products are not offered and because the level of participation is not freely or contractually agreed upon.  It's bad by utilitarian arguments because it is logically true from the axiom of human action that hegemony makes one party better off at the expense of another while voluntary trade is beneficial for all parties.  One can get into many contradictions if they don't understand the important difference between homesteading and conquest.  Anyone confused about how I can promote exclusivity of property owners or contractual government but not of the state should read my post on Home Owners Associations.

I've been putting off blog posts because I seem to think they need to be of publishable quality (in which case I've failed in every post) thus I've made the barrier to starting a blog artificially high.  So I'm stopping here even though I've just scratched this topic of why the good of the state in theory is very different than the state in practice, and how we can understand this difference by analyzing its means.  But one last comment on the title of this post.  I know many many smart people who promote the state, which is why I'm so confounded by their 1st grade logic when it comes to the state.  We may be the most advanced civilization in the history of the world, but our fundamental means of interacting with each other on issues of politics are barbaric and 20 centuries behind our technological and scientific abilities.

Taxation with Representation

In a recent Facebook argument I was called out for equating taxation to theft and calling it an act of aggression.  "That was the way of the Kings and of taxation without representation," I was told.  Any reader of my blog will recognize that I don't care if taxation is with or without representation because the root feature of taxation is the extraction of wealth from individuals with or without their consent.  My blog post with the R.C. Hoiles quote is particularly relevant.  The absurdity of representation seems so obvious to me that I have to give the state a gold star in propagandizing the Boobus Americanus.

There are roughly 300,000,000 people in the United States and there are 435 members of congress.  I could expand this to 536 if we include all elected federal politicians, but since congress has the power of the purse let's start with them.  That means that roughly one member of congress represents over a half-million citizens.  Some are minors but the congressman has no qualms about spending their tax money without representation via deficit spending.  Some are criminals and have lost their "right" to vote.  But there are many political prisoners (non-violent drug users and tax evaders) who have not violated natural law so denying criminals a vote further pushes the agenda of those in power.  So lets say 200,000 citizens come out to vote for a representative.  The winner does not need a majority to claim power, just a plurality.  Those who disagreed with his policies are now out of luck and are at the mercy of this new overlord.  But even then, this is a federal official so if you're lucky to get a liberty fighting congressman you're now doing battle with the other 434 congressmen representing the other 299.5 million other citizens (but mostly the representatives).

Making matters worse in this lonely fight against the horde is that the congressman has no obligation to fulfill his campaign promise.  Sure impeachment is an option, but no congressman has ever been impeached ... ever, yet approval of congress is around 12%.  Additionally, each voter probably made his decision between two (very) imperfect candidates on a small handful of policy stances, or maybe just one.  Yet, the voter must suffer through all the policies he disagrees with because that's how our system "works".

This is "representation", an Orwellian term if I've ever heard one, and it sucks.  It's a tool of the state, and as with all means of the state it's an abomination of civilized man.

Oh, but we have very strong protections for the minority.  This is the second part of the argument as to why taxation is not theft.  The same people who say this also claim that the constitution is a living document and many call themselves "believers in mob rule" i.e. democrats.  (I realize that "believers in mob rule" is hyperbolic to most, but "rule of the people" does not capture the point that this "rule" includes legitimized theft and murder which is indicative of a mob, not of a civilized people)  These democrats have Nancy Pelosi as one of their representatives who openly mock questions of constitutional authority.  They also abuse the general welfare clause until it's ashamed and crying in a ditch.

But what minorities are they talking about?  The rich are a minority and every democrat I know is willing to get line with a Louisville slugger to make sure this minority pays "their fair share".  What about the minority (majority?) of drug users who get their civil liberties trampled?  Non-citizens foreign and domestic are a minority/majority that are routinely imprisoned, robbed, or killed by the state.

I've done an amateur job describing the absurdity of the state as a representation of the people's will, for a brilliant analysis please read "How to Win an Election" by Mark Brandly.

Ironically, this facebook argument concluded by acknowledging that my ideas will never be represented because I'm part of a minority.  I'm part of a minority that believes in liberty, that believes in unanimous representation as happens in the market.  I am against aggression of any form and would seek restitution in a free or in an un-free society.  It sucks to be in a powerless minority in the United States of Fascialist America.

Children are a problem

Nothing has been more life changing than the study of Austrian economics and natural rights philosophy.  Some would put marriage or children at the top of the life changing experiences list, but to me those seem gradual in comparison.  In "The Matrix", Neo wakes from his bullet wounds and sees the world for what it is and agent Smith for what he is; he has decrypted the matrix.  There is order to the chaos, to the world that he couldn't quite understand before this revelation.  What a perfect analogy for the man who opens "For a New Liberty" -- Rothbard is my Morpheus.  This doesn't stop Smith (the state) from coming after Neo.  After all, Neo is threatening the crops of humans Smith feeds from... the analogy is almost literal.  But Smith can no more put bullets in Neo's head than the state can put collectivist propaganda in mine.  It probably sounds conceited to claim such enlightenment, and no doubt I come off as sounding like a know-it-all.  In this post I'm trying my best to open myself up to doubts and expose the questions I have.  Unfortunately, I don't think I can just take the blue pill.

There is a small handful of cases where objective moral reality has left me scratching my head.  It hasn't deserted me, but in these cases it becomes more of a guide post than the goal.  Non-homesteading adults and children is where the libertarian has to stand-up from his armchair and look at a reality beyond non-aggression.  Unprovoked violence is never okay, but since unconsented physical force must be used for the survival of babies and often children, non-aggression looks very different.  Walter Block uses a theory of homesteading whereby the parent earns homesteading right by feeding, clothing, sheltering, and I assume not abusing children.  They can at any point give up these homesteading rights and allow another individual to homestead the child.  Block takes a similar approach to abortion where the mother can choose to stop homesteading the fetus and let someone else care for it; viability of the fetus is beside the point.  And here we quickly see the dilemma of libertarians.  According to this approach we can be justified in the death of a child if we simply stop feeding him and do not exhaustively search for another willing human to take up homesteading rights.  This would be the extreme "armchair libertarian" approach.

On the other hand, I do not believe the state can intervene.  I cringe at the idea of the state owning or homesteading children.  It conjures images of Sparta (which is synonymous with the movie "300" in my poorly educated mind) and modern day African child soldiers.  But pondering for another second what state ownership of children looks like I realize it looks a lot like our current education and military system in the United States.  Children stand up and recite a pledge of allegiance to a state, they sing songs about the state, they learn how their state protects them and has protected them throughout history, these lessons are taught by agents of the state in a forced monopoly of education, then army recruiters come on school campuses and snatch up the poor souls who have been told for 13-15 years how honorable it is to serve and die for the state.  If the state is in dire straights it will look to its draft list that it has coerced every 18 year old male to sign and then kidnap them, give them guns, and send them to die for the state.

The armchair libertarian slightly wins out in these two desolate scenarios.  But there is a huge gray area in which we can think of individuals acting in a way to improve the lives of children who may be marginalized or abused.

I'm leaving the answer to the homesteading of children open and switching to what our societal norms contribute.  A brilliant commentary on this subject is the "Whale and Dolphin" episode of South Park. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11-whale-whores).  You'll have to watch it to get it, but I love how it asks (1) why do the Japanese not hate the U.S. for killing 200,000 citizens, and (2) where does the U.S. get off telling the Japanese how to be civilized.  Underlying these points is the question about how history and our personal experience skew what is normal.  And this is where I get back to the problem of children.

There are many-a-activist working to end female circumcision.  Societies that participate in the practice are supposedly barbaric, religious nuts, and hate women.  Female circumcision condemns them to a life absent of sexual pleasure.  What patriarchal backwards people they must be.  Yet, look at the practice of circumcision of males in this country.  This practice also reduces sexual pleasure and it is totally unnecessary, but it is extremely common even among my libertarian friends.  It seems to exist only because it has always existed.  If the practice of cutting off a baby's finger or performing an appendectomy at birth was introduced would we be so quick to accept it as a reasonable post-birth procedure?  So what does this mean?  Do I detest the actions of my friends who circumcise their children (I certainly don't) or do I say, "they homesteaded the child therefore they can mutilate his genitals?"  To tell you the truth, I have no clue.  If you do, please share.