I want to express HUGE gratitude and give big, big thanks to the people of the Language of Liberty Institute and the others who made the LLI Liberty and Entrepeneurship Camp in Martin, Slovakia possible.

You are:

• Mary Lou Gutscher — Top organizatrix, cruise director, mama bear
• Glenn Cripe — Flow steerer, piano man, inspirational focus
• Andy Eyschen — Co-[redacted], [redacted] of [redacted] and [redacted]
  
• Radovan Ďurana — Semi-detached Master of All Things, glue man
• Dušan Viluda — Súdruh, kolaborant, opatrovateľ, spolupracovník a kamarát všestkým

At the camp, I made a bunch of new friends, met several new co-conspirators, a collaborator, a couple of secret society bothers, at least two business partners and a handful of new comrades.

None of this would have been possible without your dedication and perseverance. I have great luck to have been able to ride along in the wake of the energy you mustered and deployed, and to have thus made such connections.

Major thanks to all of you for making the week in Martin something amazing — something brilliant.

Milý súdruh Dušan! Okrem toho, že Ti srdečne ďakujem, poprosil by som, aby si mohol viezť moje poďakovanie aj Barborke, ktorá nás dala takú dokonalú a povznášajúcu demonštráciu slobody (i naozaj šikovnosti a zručnosti) v akcii! Zároveň ďakujem Tvojmu synovi aj ostatným zamestnancom hotela. Súčasne, uvidíme sa, kedy môžeme sa rozprávať na tému toho obchodého nápadu… že?

From Network, 1976:

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale… and I won’t have it!
Is that clear?
You think you merely stopped a business deal.
That is not the case.
The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country… and now they must put it back!
It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance!
You are an old man… who thinks in terms of nations and peoples.
There are no nations. There are no peoples.
There are no Russians. There are no Arabs.
There are no Third Worlds. There is no West.
There is only one holistic system of systems!
One vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variant, multinational dominion of dollars!
Petrol dollars, electro dollars, multi-dollars.
Reichsmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels!
It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet.
That is the natural order of things today.
That is the atomic, and subatomic, and galactic structure of things today.
And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature!
And you will atone!
Am I getting through to you?
You get up on your little 21-inch screen and howl about America and democracy.
There is no America.
There is no democracy.
There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and Du Pont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon.
Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx?
They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale.
The world is a college of corporations… inexorably determined by the… immutable bylaws of business.
The world is a business, Mr. Beale.

Or would you choose not to eat there at all?

For the benefit of which privileged classes would you like to bully strangers today?

Cute, isn’t it, the way propaganda works?

A lot of well-meaning, gentle folks will look at a poster like this and think they’re being presented with a choice among competing priorities: education, agriculture, or technology?

Precious few will look and see the robbery that is taxation. Perhaps fewer still will see the false choice in being able to select from a limited menu of privileged classes: parents of school-aged children, textbook publishers, teachers and others involved in the “education” industry; farmers, agribusiness, pesticide producers and the giant industrial manufacturers of agricultural machinery; or technophiles, those wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of modern telecommunications and the corporate interests behind the telecoms wallowing already in a century of robbery-subsidized privilege? Maybe only a handful will recognize that government monies are never “invested”, but rather are stolen from taxpayers and bestowed upon politically-connected, privileged classes. Perhaps almost none at all will notice the false choice, the presumption and attempted transference of moral corruption involved in the use of “we” and “our” (the linguistic situation is even worse in the Slovak version, which asks, “Na čo by sa mali použiť naše peniaze?“, placing the question into the passive voice: “For what should our money be used?”).

Few, indeed, will startle, perceiving that freedom is not on the menu.

I call bullshit, horseshit, and dogshit.

We can’t afford these tax exiles

Monday March 30 2009

It is called ‘an Irish solution to an Irish problem’, ‘the ultimate escape plan’, and reinforces the notion that ‘only little people pay tax’. That is, moving offshore to escape the clutches of the Irish tax authorities. This needs to be stopped now.

Ireland needs to adopt the American tax system whereby an Irish citizen would have to renounce his citizenship before he could move abroad to with his cash.

We need a law that will tax the assets of those who leave for good on their way ‘out the door’, as if they were selling their assets, and a provision needs to be put in place that would tax Irish heirs on amounts given or left to them by ex-Irish citizens. Taxing the recipient instead of the donor would make it harder to get around any new tax laws.

Ireland Inc could never afford these tax exile prima donnas. In the current economic climate they need to be told that if they are not prepared to be part of the solution, they will no longer be allowed to be part of the problem.

To remove their citizenship and require them to apply for a ‘tourist visa’ to visit Ireland might concentrate their minds.

We can no longer afford freeloaders in our society.

Mick Murphy

Model Farm Road, Cork

Of course, one of the immediate and appropriate responses to a screed like this is, “‘We’, who?”

Would that be the “we” which excludes all Irish tax slaves who recognize, rightly, that taxation is theft?

Would that be the “we” which excludes all the remaining Irish tax slaves who make every effort to “cheat” the taxman by underreporting, claiming legally impermissible deductions, etc.?

Would that be the “we” which excludes all the remaining Irish tax slaves who structure their investments, businesses and other economic activities such as to legally reduce the amount of tax they pay?

Would that be the “we” which excludes all the remaining Irish tax slaves who, knowing that they could do more for the State, consistently fail to send in extra “donations” to the government alongside their tax extortion payments?

Would that be the “we” which excludes all the remaining Irish tax slaves who — Catholic, Protestant or neither — consistently engage in the democracy’s sacrament, voting, with an eye toward electing candidates who promise to reduce their taxes?

That’s right, Mick Murphy, you go. You watch a few of your fellow slaves attempt to shed the yoke, and instead of rallying for freedom, call out to your masters to make the yokes heavier. You’re a goddamned hero.

That conversation was face-to-face, so there’s no record. Here, though, is the record of our instant messaging conversation earlier this evening, in its entirety but minus some personal irrelevancies and with typos and whatnot fixed up a bit. This may all be old hat to most of my readers, but who knows?

[6:44] Jana: Oh, you know what?
[6:44] Mike: tell me
[6:44] Jana: I thought about the stateless world some more.
[6:45] Jana: And I’d like to know if you assume that by getting rid of government everyone will miraculously become all peaceful and, you know, good.
[6:45] Mike: certainly not
[6:46] Mike: there is an interesting way of thinking about this issue
[6:46] Jana: Because if there are no laws and no prisons…
[6:46] Mike: chaos, rampant crime, etc
[6:46] Jana: What’s gonna stop the baddies from robbing or killing me?
[6:46] Mike: well, stand by now
[6:47] Mike: there are a couple of questions to answer
[6:47] Jana: Okay.
[6:47] Mike: the first, and which I tried to dig into the most yesterday, is “Is the state morally justifiable?”, and along the way point out a number of reasons why it is not.
[6:47] Mike: the other question is, “Is the state necessary, and if not, what alternatives are there?”
[6:48] Jana: Okay, so the answer to question 1 is no.
[6:48] Mike: another way to look at the first question is “Is there any way to have a state which doesn’t fail at its primary mission of protecting people and property? Is there a way to constitute a state so that it simply can’t be evil?”
[6:49] Mike: that leads to this:
[6:49] Mike: there are many ppl in the world
[6:49] Jana: Yes.
[6:49] Mike: are they good or are they evil?
[6:49] Mike: well, there are some options
[6:49] Jana: Both.
[6:49] Mike: 1: all ppl are good
[6:49] Mike: 2: all ppl are evil
[6:49] Mike: 3: more ppl are good than are evil
[6:49] Mike: 4: more ppl are evil than are good
[6:50] Mike: now, in case 1, everyone’s a saint… why should a state even be necessary in such case?
[6:50] Jana: Wait!
[6:50] Mike: and, since we know that 1 isn’t true, we can discount it anyway
[6:50] Jana: There’s 5: about the same number of people are good as there are bad
[6:50] Mike: fine, can be, but 3 and 4 turn out to be equivalent propositions anyway
[6:51] Mike: and the statistical probability of that is miniscule, assuming a mix of “good” and “evil” human natures, against present world population
[6:51] Mike: so case 1 is out, because if everyone were saints, there would be no need of a state for crime prevention/investigation/punishment — there would be no crime
[6:51] Jana: Exactly.
[6:52] Mike: now for case 2. if all of us are evil, then will not the MOST evil people try to obtain control of the state, so that they can use its power to aggrandize themselves?
[6:52] Jana: Probably!
[6:53] Mike: seems a bit like giving a blank check to those who’d screw us, even though we might do the same in their position, being as we’re evil and all
[6:53] Mike: remember now that being PART OF the state means that you can do things which are disallowed to ordinary citizens
[6:54] Mike: like: if a police car has a hundred kilos of cocaine in the trunk, the presumption is that it’s evidence, and that’s okay.
[6:54] Jana: Right.
[6:54] Mike: but if you had a hundred kilos of blow in your trunk, you’re a criminal, because you don’t have a fancy uniform, etc.
[6:54] Jana: Right again.
[6:54] Mike: so, even a society comprised entirely of evil people ought to recognize that having a state is too dangerous
[6:55] Mike: now, unless we’re going to include ourselves in “everyone is evil”, #2 doesn’t really operate anyway
[6:55] Mike: I don’t feel particularly evil
[6:55] Mike: and I doubt you are either
[6:55] Jana: Me either.
[6:55] Mike: so we are left with the two mixes
[6:56] Jana: Okay, now what?
[6:56] Mike: in case number 4, more people are evil than are good
[6:57] Mike: well, unless we want evil to triumph here by sheer force of numbers, certainly the GOOD people in that world don’t want the state, because it’s bound to be comprised of a majority of evil people with uniforms and official documents — even forgetting that evil people will TEND to try to become part of the state, so that they can commit crimes with official permission
[6:57] Jana: No, we don’t want evil to triumph.
[6:58] Mike: we have a preference for the good, and tend to reject philosophies which promote evil
[6:58] Mike: so what about case number three, where most people are good, but some are evil?
[6:59] Jana: That’s where we’d probably want the state.
[6:59] Jana: And hope not too many evil people would become part of it.
[6:59] Mike: need I remind you at this point that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: that George W Bush was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: etc?
[7:00] Mike: and sorry, it’s not good enough to say “they cheated”
[7:00] Mike: the evil people will ALWAYS cheat to obtain the levers of unaccountable power
[7:00] Jana: I’m just saying that in this case we might be interested in having a state.
[7:00] Jana: Because we want the protection.
[7:00] Mike: we might be, if we could find that it was both necessary and morally defensible
[7:01] Jana: I think something is necessary.
[7:01] Jana: What are the alternatives then?
[7:01] Jana: I asked you yesterday but we didn’t get to that part at all.
[7:01] Mike: we made the observation earlier that having a state results in the division of people into two classes: those who can commit crimes with impunity, and those who may not.
[7:02] Mike: even if most people are good, if we have a state, we create a vehicle for the evil people to commit their crimes without facing any consequences.
[7:02] Mike: seems like a rather risky proposition, especially in light of the historical record of what states’ agents have actually done
[7:03] Jana: But some did end up in prison.
[7:03] Jana: Or executed.
[7:03] Jana: Or something.
[7:03] Mike: yes, that’s true. but how did that help their victims, both living and dead?
[7:04] Jana: Those who were victims already probably not much, but at least there were no more victims.
[7:09] Mike: so, we probably both agree to the proposition that crime is not desirable, and should be eliminated or at least minimized.
[7:10] Jana: Yes, please.
[7:10] Jana: And how do we go about that?
[7:10] Mike: so let’s think about crime for a sec
[7:10] Jana: (think)
[7:11] Mike: if you believe, as I do, that taxation is theft, and therefore no more honorable than a robbery in the street, and that the killings done by soldiers and police in uniforms are generally murders, then you realize there’s a whole shitload of crime out there that is legally defined otherwise.
[7:11] Jana: Okay, yes.
[7:12] Mike: so by simply getting rid of the state and the privilege that attaches to states’ agents, a huge amount of evil acts are prohibited straight off
[7:12] Mike: in addition to this, there are HUGE numbers of peaceful acts which are defined by states to be crimes, even though they really aren’t
[7:12] Mike: the cocaine in the car, for example
[7:12] Mike: no victim, no crime
[7:13] Mike: failing to pay taxes leads to being classed as a criminal
[7:13] Mike: operating a business without a license
[7:13] Mike: immigrating without state permission
[7:13] Mike: and on and on
[7:13] Jana: Right.
[7:14] Mike: real crimes, the ones that all of us rightly fear and wish to eliminate, are those which violate the life, liberty or property of one or more other persons
[7:14] Mike: one cannot commit a crime against oneself, by definition (despite this, suicide is illegal in many places)
[7:14] Jana: Illegal?
[7:15] Mike: so, once again by getting rid of the state, we see that a huge part of the “crime problem” simply evaporates
[7:15] Jana: So if you kill yourself, you can be charged, too?
[7:15] Jana: Yes, a huge part, but the part we really care about doesn’t.
[7:15] Mike: well, some people who have attempted suicide have been charged, yes… doesn’t happen often, but the laws are on the books in places
[7:16] Jana: The real crimes that violate the life, liberty and property.
[7:16] Jana: Crazy, man.
[7:16] Mike: right: murder, theft, arson, extortion, rape, kidnapping, enslavement, etc.
[7:16] Mike: and fraud
[7:18] Mike: now let’s think a bit about what’s usually called “justice”
[7:18] Mike: if someone comes and robs you of your money, or burns down your flat, or kills your dog, what benefit is it to YOU if that person is caged in a concrete and steel box for a period of years as a punishment?
[7:19] Jana: I don’t know. I’d rather get my money or my flat back. Or kill him back for killing my dog.
[7:20] Mike: now you’re onto something
[7:20] Mike: you’d like to have your situation restored to be at least as good as it was prior to the crime
[7:20] Jana: Exactly.
[7:20] Mike: you’d also probably like to be compensated to some degree for the bother and hassle of having to go through that
[7:20] Jana: And maybe get some cash as compensation for my trouble.
[7:20] Jana: Yes.
[7:20] Mike: punitive damages or something, right
[7:21] Mike: now, in the law, when we get to acts like these, we find there is a big difference in how those cases go to the courts, versus the cases like, say, your tree fell on my house and I want you to pay damages
[7:21] Mike: those are “civil” cases, where it’s “Mr. White vs. Mr. Green” in the court documents.
[7:21] Jana: Right.
[7:22] Mike: alleged victim and alleged perpetrator come to court, and in theory the process should determine if a harm (a “tort”, in the legal language) occurred, and if so, how the victim of that tort can be made whole again
[7:23] Mike: if, instead of Mr. Green’s tree falling on Mr. White’s house, Mr. Green goes and burns Mr. White’s house to the ground, the court documents are not going to be able “White v. Green”
[7:23] Mike: they will be “THE STATE v. Green”
[7:24] Jana: Because Mr. White burned to death?
[7:24] Mike: Mr. White was away on holiday in this case
[7:24] Jana: Oh, good.
[7:24] Mike: or escaped, whatever
[7:24] Mike: yes, lucky for Mr. White, eh?
[7:24] Jana:
[7:25] Mike: so what happens is that the state takes Mr. Green into court and charges him with the crime of arson
[7:25] Mike: and some prosecuting lawyers get on the case and work to prove that Mr. Green is guilty of the crime of arson, and if so, how long he should spend in prison for that.
[7:25] Mike: the interests of the real victim, here, Mr. White, are largely pushed to the side.
[7:26] Jana: Oh!
[7:26] Mike: the fact that Mr. White was threatened or inconvenienced by Green’s action is not really under consideration. What must be proven is that Mr. Green *broke the law*
[7:26] Jana: Well, great.
[7:26] Mike: all kinds of problems, here
[7:28] Mike: among other things, it means that the victim’s interests are not really being represented in the search for “justice”
[7:28] Mike: in terms of penalties, what the state seeks is punishment of the criminal (in order to deter others from committing crimes), rather than recompense for the victim(s)
[7:29] Jana: Well, this side effect of the punishment is actually quite welcome.
[7:29] Mike: deterrence is necessary, sure
[7:29] Mike: what Mr. White really wants here is a new house and some money to compensate his inconvenience and stress
[7:30] Mike: that money ought to come from Mr. Green, or, perhaps, from some sort of insurance that Mr. White purchased against such an eventuality.
[7:30] Mike: what we get into next is a topic that has been done at book-length by several authors
[7:30] Jana: What’s that?
[7:31] Mike: assumption: there’s no state, but there’s still some crime
[7:31] Mike: what are you gonna do about it?
[7:31] Mike: Well, as I said yesterday, you can go buy a bunch of guns, and defend yourself, or try to extract compensation from people who commit crimes against you by force.
[7:32] Mike: that works, to some degree… if a robber sees you walking alone in the woods today, his estimation of the likelihood you’re carrying a pistol is probably close to zero, because the state makes it very difficult for you to do that
[7:33] Jana: And I don’t really want to carry a gun anyway.
[7:33] Mike: well, if there were no state and no alternative, I think you might rapidly change your mind about that
[7:33] Jana: Probably.
[7:33] Mike: fair enough
[7:34] Jana: But that’s why I still think having a state is more convenient than having none.
[7:34] Mike: first of all, in the absence of states, a lot more people would take matters of personal self-defense into their own hands, as is their right. I myself would almost certainly carry a pistol nearly everywhere I went.
[7:35] Jana: As would a lot of psychos.
[7:35] Mike: well, that is precisely WHY we want to be well armed
[7:35] Mike: we don’t need to worry about normal people with weapons
[7:36] Mike: so there’s one idea. if the would-be rapist or robber had to contend with the fact that his intended victim very likely has the ability to quickly put a bullet in his brain, well, that’s a massive crime deterrent
[7:36] Jana: True.
[7:36] Jana: But what about gangs?
[7:37] Mike: purty young thangs like you might choose to carry a pistol on each hip, and maybe a fully-automatic rifle just to be sure
[7:37] Jana:
[7:37] Mike: gangs are just groups of criminals — like states
[7:37] Mike: okay, but this is not a complete answer yet
[7:37] Jana: Yes, but a lil’ ole me with one or two guns wouldn’t stop a gang from gangraping me.
[7:38] Mike: and it’s not a basis for a peaceful society, either — it’s not desirable that everyone should walk around armed, and it’s not desirable that many conflicts gets resolved through gunfire
[7:38] Mike: no, that’s true.
[7:38] Jana: So how do we get to have a peaceful society?
[7:39] Mike: what has been envisioned by those book-length writers can be described as Private Defense Associations or Dispute Resolution Organizations
[7:39] Mike: PDAs or DROs
[7:39] Mike: same thing, different wording
[7:39] Jana: How would they work?
[7:39] Mike: today if a crime is committed against you, you can only go to THE state for help
[7:40] Mike: and if you believe that the one-and-only state doesn’t do a good job with prevention, prosecution, or recompense, you have no alternative… you can’t cancel your subscription to the local police department
[7:40] Mike: it has been widely recognized in both economic and moral terms that monopoly providers of services are undesirable
[7:41] Mike: they’re inefficient, lack of competition makes them fat and lazy, and they’re unaccountable because customers have little voice
[7:41] Jana: True.
[7:41] Mike: what might be better is a world in which we have crime prevention, dispute resolution and justice-mediating organizations in free market competition with one another
[7:42] Mike: i’d like to know that i’m getting good value for my policing-and-investigating dollar
[7:42] Mike: and i’d like to be able to switch to a different provider of those services in the event that someone else can do it better, faster or cheaper
[7:43] Jana: Yeah, that’d be great.
[7:43] Mike: so, we go back to Messrs. Green and White
[7:43] Mike: White comes home one day from Ibiza to find his house has burned down
[7:43] Jana: :O
[7:43] Mike: he rings up his DRO, which is also an insurance company of sorts, and he has 2 questions:
[7:44] Mike: 1: Why didn’t you prevent this?
[7:44] Mike: 2: When do I get my money?
[7:44] Jana: What answers does he get?
[7:44] Mike: well let’s say White’s DRO does some investigation. They determine that arson was involved.
[7:45] Mike: White’s contract with his DRO covers this sort of thing, like a property insurance contract does today. White and the DRO both agree it was arson, the DRO immediately pays White enough to rebuild his house.
[7:46] Mike: if they don’t do this, then White and all of that DRO’s other clients would have switched to a service provider who will provide that level of service
[7:46] Mike: let’s imagine White’s DRO is called ABC Corp.
[7:46] Jana: ok
[7:46] Mike: ABC now has a problem
[7:47] Mike: they just had to buy White a new house, so they’re out the cost of the house
[7:47] Mike: they know a crime was committed, so they begin investigating
[7:47] Mike: after a time, they determine that Green was responsible for the arson.
[7:47] Mike: so they go to Green and ask him for the money
[7:47] Jana: Just like that?
[7:48] Mike: and a bit more, to compensate for their efforts and White’s inconvenience
[7:48] Mike: well, it’s more complicated than that, of course
[7:48] Mike: So, they come to Green’s house with all their evidence, and ask Green to pay up
[7:48] Mike: Green says “fuck you, I ain’t gonna pay”
[7:48] Mike: fine
[7:48] Mike: turns out that Green, too, was a subscriber to ABC Corp’s personal defense and dispute resolution services
[7:49] Mike: well, not anymore he ain’t!
[7:49] Mike: his policy is canceled
[7:49] Jana: Was there a clause about committing crimes?
[7:49] Mike: (assume there was — would YOU subscribe to a DRO that allowed its customers to commit crimes with impunity?) additionally, ABC sends a letter to all the other DROs in the area
[7:50] Mike: “Dear other DROs, Mr. Green did a bad thing, we canceled his policy and we’d advise you not to cover him either, until he pays compensation to Mr. White”
[7:50] Jana: Oh, okay, that would work.
[7:50] Mike: or, Green was a customer of XYZ instead of ABC
[7:51] Mike: ABC already beleives he did the crime
[7:51] Mike: Green says “call my DRO!” and slams the door on the ABC guys
[7:51] Mike: so ABC and XYZ get together and review the evidence.
[7:51] Mike: perhaps they both agree that Green did the crime
[7:51] Mike: in that case, XYZ cancels green’s policy and sends that letter to the other DROs
[7:51] Mike: or, they fail to agree
[7:52] Mike: the two DROs then have two choices: they can go to war over the matter, or they can find a peaceful way of resolving the dispute
[7:52] Mike: and so they take the case, perhaps, to the DRO re-insurance company they both subscribe to, or, perhaps, to an independent arbitration company, which has a great reputation for honesty, fairness and thoroughness
[7:53] Mike: like a court, except without the fancy imperial costumes and bowing before the judge
[7:53] Jana:
[7:53] Mike: ALL of those 3 parties (ABC, XYZ and the third-party arbitrator) are keenly interested in getting the facts right
[7:54] Mike: if the screw up the investigation and smear Mr. Green for a crime he didn’t commit, they lose reputation in the marketplace, leading to loss of customers and eventually loss of their business entirely
[7:54] Mike: if they decide they’re going to favor White at Green’s expense, same thing
[7:54] Mike: and so on
[7:55] Jana: Interesting.
[7:55] Mike: the market forces playing upon them compel them to be honest and to do the best job they can in determining the truth
[7:55] Mike: and keep in mind, White has ALREADY been paid for his burnt-down house, according to his contract
[7:56] Jana: Hm.
[7:56] Jana: Okay.
[7:56] Mike: so, we’re not *quite* finished here
[7:56] Mike: remember that ABC and XYZ both agreed that Green did the crime
[7:56] Mike: they both come to Green and demand payment
[7:56] Mike: maybe they arrive at an installment plan with interest, which Green can repay over time, who knows
[7:57] Mike: If Green actually pays, okay. Justice has been done in that Mr. White’s situation was restored to what it was before, plus a bit extra for his trouble, as you said
[7:57] Mike: What if Green refuses to pay now?
[7:57] Mike: Well, first of all, ABC and XYZ both inform all of their trading partners of what Green’s done, and say they’ve canceled their coverage of him.
[7:58] Mike: Green then tries to go on a holiday, to get away from all this shit he’s created.
[7:58] Mike: phones up the airline to book a flight to Cuba, or something
[7:58] Mike: the airline asks Green which DRO covers him
[7:58] Mike: Green says that he has no cover
[7:58] Jana: Uh-oh.
[7:59] Mike: the airline refuses to do business with Green … it’s too risky to carry an un-covered passenger on an intercontinental flight
[7:59] Mike: or, perhaps the airline has found it beneficial to its market position to refuse service to un-covered people, because that brings it more customers
[7:59] Mike: huh, so Green can’t go on holiday now, because he refuses to compensate
[8:00] Mike: Well, maybe he’ll rent a car and go someplace nearer, instead
[8:00] Mike: nope, no DRO cover, no car rental
[8:00] Mike: hmmm
[8:00] Jana: Wow!
[8:00] Mike: “public” transportation, of course, does not exist
[8:00] Jana: See where a little arson can get you?
[8:00] Mike: wanna get in my taxicab? show me your DRO card
[8:00] Mike: want to ride my bus, my train? whose gonna pay me if you destroy my property? No dro card, no service
[8:01] Mike: maybe it even becomes more severe than that
[8:01] Mike: there’s no “public” property in this world, either.
[8:01] Mike: there is private property, and property that is owned by nobody
[8:02] Jana: Oh yeah, property is something I wanna talk about, too. But in the next episode of this discussion. I kinda need to get ready to go out soon.
[8:02] Mike: ok
[8:02] Mike: anyway, what you get to here, is a comprehensive, networked, profit-driven form of ostracism
[8:03] Mike: in the ultimate extent, Green can’t even LEAVE his house
[8:03] Jana: Yeah, I like that.
[8:03] Mike: he doesn’t own the road in front of his house
[8:03] Jana: Really?
[8:03] Mike: the road operating company doesn’t permit people on the DRO blacklist to use the road
[8:03] Jana: Well, but he CAN walk on it, can’t he?
[8:03] Mike: remember: someone OWNS the road… maybe Mr. Black down the street built it, and he owns it
[8:04] Mike: if Black owns the road, he can refuse service and access to anyone, for any reason
[8:04] Jana: Man, poor Mr. Green – he probably just found some matches and wanted to play with them…
[8:04] Mike: but he’d be a fool to do that except in the most extreme of cases, where this is a risk to his property or business — which Mr. Green, being an arsonist who refuses to pay damages, clearly represents
[8:04] Mike: hehe
[8:05] Mike: So Green becomes a prisoner in his own house until he at least agrees to start working to pay off the debt to White’s DRO, and rejoins society that way.
[8:05] Mike: hell, maybe he can’t even get food delivered…
[8:05] Mike: maybe the three different companies that compete for the water-supply business in his area learn he’s on the “bad” list with the DROs and stop delivering water
[8:06] Jana: We don’t want him dead, though!
[8:06] Mike: no, we’d like him to pay
[8:06] Jana: Yeah!
[8:06] Jana: (flex)
[8:06] Mike: but we certainly have no DUTY to continue providing sustenance or service of any kind to such a criminal, do we?
[8:06] Mike: Green can live and grow vegetables in his garden and collect rainwater
[8:07] Mike: in a cave, effectively, apart from society
[8:07] Jana: You’re cruel! He can make his own mobile phone out of a chunk of wood, too, right?
[8:07] Mike: he can try, but who’s going to allow him to connect to their mobile phone network?
[8:07] Mike: who’d give him credit?
[8:08] Jana: Oooh, he’d have to start his own network, too!
[8:08] Mike: a network requires at least 2 nodes…
[8:08] Mike: anyway, that’s most of the outline
[8:08] Jana: Cool, thanks.
[8:08] Jana: That’s some food for thought.

The original question regards approaching wealthy potential donors who may be interested in funding voluntaryist/anarchist causes.

In my own rather limited experience with activist fundraising, I do know that the key questions these folks are going to ask you is: How much do you need? How are you going to spend it? and How can I measure the value of my investment?

Inasmuch as we are a movement, we are a polycentric one. Each of us may have very different answers to those questions, and each of us would frame the discussion with such prospective donors differently.

The “How are you going to spend it?” question, though, is one which can be reframed a bit, as, “What sorts of activities and organizations do or could donors fund, which could be beneficial vehicles for us?”

I offer here a list of possibilities, in no particular order:

• think tanks
• publications (journals, magazines, newspapers, newsletters)
• academic endowments (dubious)
• political parties, candidates and campaigns (distasteful, at best, to many of us)
• grant-making foundations
• public advocacy groups
• conventions and other mass public events
• political action committees
• media awareness projects
• charity organizations with compatible ideological orientation
• businesses to compete with government service provision (agora!)
• seminar series
• roundtable groups

If you can bite down on one of those — or anything else — and create a project or business plan for it, then you will have answered the questions you are likely to get from any serious donor prospect, and will be ready to go out and make the pitch.

Besides having a rather lousy September in terms of billings, this comes today from the editor of a magazine I do translation and proofreading for, published by the company that is my biggest source of income:

Many clients have cancelled their advertising. Basically, the magazine lives [off revenues] from Slovak companies, with a few from abroad, as you have surely noticed. And there was a high percentage of banks and insurance companies….

Oh boy…

There was also a news story today about J&T Group — a major investment bank in the Czech Republic and Slovakia — cutting sale prices for new luxury apartments in a huge new project it is building on the Danube riverfront by something like 40%.

Rough waters ahead.

Workers in general do not care about profits nearly as much as they care about their own wages and well-being.

I’m not sure whether or not you fell off the definitional rails here. To the worker, his profit is his wages. More specifically, his profit is his subjective value of his wages minus the subjective value of the opportunity cost and the time+labor he forfeited to obtain them.

Let’s go through a likely and probable scenario for the creation of a new business in an Anarchist system:

1. A group of investors, be they relatively rich people, managers of a planned community or people interested in the boom of a town or neighbourhood, or a private bank acting for millions of normal people looking for a way to make some interest, see an opportunity, and pool their resources together.

With you.

2. These investors attract workers, who become the first owners of the new business. The investors give these workers a starting capital (as well as perhaps an ideal location or new ideas to use) in exchange for a set return on their investment.

Breakdown. Who are these investors? Santa Claus? They just come around and give the “workers” a whole bunch of money AND a great idea, in exchange for a “set return”? I’ve met banks that work that way, but never investors. Is it possible for “workers”, as you go on to describe more in what follows, to become investors? If so, why would their values and motivations change so much?

3. The workers get to work and pay off the investment and interest.
4. Having paid off the investment and interest, the workers are now working solely for themselves (self-management). They decide of their own working conditions and wages. They decide of their management and the future of their business.

The non sequitur just deepens here. Let me try to get this straight, for my own understanding. The investors come together around a great idea which can create a self-sustaining and profitable business for those who own it, and then they just give it away to the people they need twisting knobs, pulling levers and bashing on keyboards to make it real. Why? Would you, if you were one of those investors with the brilliant idea to create wealth and the connections to bring an organization into being that could realize that idea just give it away for a “set return” on investment? If so, sir, you are a true saint and a man of great virtue, one to be admired and sung of down the ages. Funny, I can’t find anyone matching such a description in the phone book or my history texts.

In the world that I live in, investors want to become part-owners. Yes, they want others to perform the labor. But they provide the capital to make that labor possible, especially within the window where success or failure is not known and all money invested may be lost. I doubt very seriously that this dynamic would change in any substantial way minus the state, or that it ought to. To me, it’s simply an observation of human nature, and I believe that it is not human nature that we ought to elect to contest.

The workers would have a strong incentive to make the business grow so they can pay off the initial investment faster, and thus have free reign. But when that’s done, the workers (the only people who legitimately own the business) have a much stronger incentive to secure better wages and work conditions for themselves than they do of making more profits. So businesses (not corporations, obviously, since the corporate status is a creation of the State), as organizations, would seek to improve the quality of their work environment and their service, instead of trying to expand or make more profit.

If we accept a ridiculous premise, we can arrive at all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. I’m using forceful language here because I know you respond to it and because I believe you are a person with his eyes open. The workers in your scenario might or might not be motivated as you suspect. They might be motivated not by potential future security in the maintenance of a self-sustaining and growing business, but rather by the grim necessity of earning a wage to feed their children. They might be motivated instead by a cultural diktat which says that hard work is virtue. They might be motivated by the continuing chance to steal from the cash drawer. They might be motivated by the need to maintain a certain wage in order to maintain a gratifying lifestyle. They may know nothing of economics, and nothing of political theory. They may have extremely short time horizons which renders speculation about their incentives meaningless or at best questionable. They may be insane!

That was a response to the first sentence. Now the parenthetical, “the workers (the only people who legitimately own the business)”: Huh? I do understand there is a historical and moral critique which suggests that those “employed” today ought rightly seize and legitimately own the means of production put at their disposal through employment. I also understand there is a position which states that workers “should” own their means of production. The reality of things is much different, though, even if we imagine starting from a utopian genesis in which all property titles were legitimate and in which coercion were never employed except in legitimate defense. Inequalities of wealth will still occur. They will be based upon such factors as natural resources available in the starting areas and the intelligence of the economic actors, and become amplified over time. Eventually there arises a group of people with the capital to become investors. You or I or the lowliest of our brothers might be members of that class. But they rise from the same stock! They are not going to look around with superhuman virtue, seeking places where they can offer to advance the species for something as shitty as a “set return”! Were you or I in their place, we would rightly and honestly seek better than that.

To the second sentence, I say again that there is a fuzzy barrier here between the concept of “wages” and the concept of “profit”. It’s made even worse now in that the workers have taken over the ownership of the business. What then is to be the logical blade which separates “wage” from “profit”? If I am a co-owner with a few others of the means of our production — and thereby the means of sustenance of our selves, our families, our values, our political philosophies and our blogs — how could this division even exist at all? I will certainly not appoint one of my comrades in the industrial collective as he who shall determine what is “wages” and what is “profit”, especially being that “profit” as defined is that which shall be swallowed up by those who exploit us. The enterprise has input costs and it receives sales revenues. That difference is called net income, or something similar. From that income, that excess, that “gross profit” in a broader sense than the accounting textbooks define, must be derived the fixed wages of all employees (shareholders/members/comrades), plus the amount to be reinvested in expansions (via marketing, territorial growth, hiring, product diversification, etc.), plus the amount that should be disbursed to investors as compensation for their interest, plus amounts to be employed in improving efficiency, etc.

Would the fully-vested co-owner of such an enterprise sit around trying to draw lines between “profit” and “wages”? Surely not! These categories have become meaningless to his calculations, whether those calculations serve only his own aggrandizement or some nobler ideal of group advancement. “Profit” as bogeyman has become meaningless.