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.

How can you sleep at night?

Merry Christmas, you fucking tool.

Hey there,

You know, it’s funny, after reading your recent interview, I feel as though essentially you and I believe in the same (or a very similar) ideal world. I never realized that might even remotely be the case. I guess that could be because we rarely if ever engaged in political debate with one another, assuming the other felt very differently.

One day not too long ago, I was describing my ideal ‘political’ system and basically it hearkens back to my teenage fascination with communes and dropping out of society at large in order to live with like minded people who create their own guidelines to live by – growing their own food, caring for one another’s children – communally. Ideally, small groups/communities would ‘govern’ themselves: everyone could sit in a room together and have a vote and the group would be small enough that each voice would be heard. I think that’s what government was meant to be (or at least should have been), but it got all fucked up when it grew – it wasn’t scalable.

Although, you’d likely leave out all the warm fuzzy hippy-sounding bits of what I’ve said, I think we seem to essentially have very compatible ideal visions of the future.

And I respond:

Okay, I’m stunned by the synchronicity here, because literally at the same time you were likely writing this I was playing a video game and thinking to myself that it’s a pity that we find ourselves so divided on political questions, and that if you understood more of the background – or if I were better at explaining it to you – that we would find we have much more common ground than we thought.

Agorism is a revolutionary strategy for achieving a voluntary society. Intellectually, it grew out of the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard. The principles of that philosophy are not entirely compatible with more “socialist” forms of anarchism, in that anarcho-capitalism rejects almost everything which flows from economics based on the Labor Theory of Value in favor of Austrian subjective value theory (marginal utility), rejects the notion that hard titles to land are immoral or indefensible, and rejects the propositions found in many schools of thought which say that profit, rent and interest are either immoral or would disappear in a stateless society.

What is interesting is that the ancap model, I believe, is capable of subsuming all of the other models within itself, and serving as an overall framework under which any given philosophy of property and economics could be freely tried out within areas inhabited by people who wanted to adopt their own, so long as agencies for resolutions of disputes between communities with different philosophies could be agreed upon.

Within the anarcho-capitalist panarchy communities could choose to organize themselves along whatever lines they wanted to. Communes? Fine, have at it. Rugged individualists? Great, just don’t come stuffing it at the rest of us. Worker self-management and a society of independent contractors? That’s permissible. Syndicalist communes where the workers control the means of production? Fine, so long as they acquire their property legitimately. Corporations? Absolutely, but good luck maintaining anything even remotely like the predatory corporate forms of today or the past without State-backed limited liability, corporate personhood and the massive subsidies and externalizations of costs granted to big businesses by States today. Any or all of these could exist side by side – and of course, there’s a lot more to it than just a general permissiveness.

Overall, and perhaps of great interest for you, who I believe approaches questions of what ought to be in society more from a “harmonious human systems” approach than from an egoist individual rights approach, is that a society of this nature would naturally entail the disappearance of the corrupt, predatory, coercive and downright evil practices used by today’s ruling classes and wealthy elites via today’s States against poor and repressed people all over the world and throughout the horrible history of humanity. Revolutionaries everywhere want to overthrow their ruling class, but usually seek to replace it with their own familiar personal despotism, and let there be blood. The Agorist seeks to subject the bloated, loathsome carcasses of State and ruling class to the merciless creative destruction of the marketplace.

Agorism implies a great many things which challenge the ruling classes and what is called today by many “the Capitalist system” (though it ought better be called something like “the neo-Mercantilist system”) at fundamental levels. People who make money smuggling human beings from one country to another ought to be celebrated as heroes provided they are not selling people into slavery and they take necessary safety precautions. The real crime is that since the activity of smuggling people across artificial State borders is illegal, there’s no effective way to drive evil or careless operators out of the business. If the evil ones could be identified and excluded, the remainder are the Agorist’s allies if they are susceptible to an Agorist ideological conversion.

Likewise the drug dealers of today. Not the top layers of the extremely violent organized crime rings and their State accomplices, but the far more numerous minor dealers who form perhaps the one or two levels of connection to the ultimate drug user and who are rarely involved in violence or fraud. The same with the pimps and the whores and the bookies and the loan sharks and all the tradesmen willing to do a household repair job “under the table” and all those unlicensed day care centers operating in suburban homes and all other people engaged in nonviolent activities which are prohibited by States or done in ways States do not permit. All of these people are allies against the State if they accept the basic contract: Don’t tread on me, honor your agreements, and, if we fall into dispute, pledge to find a non-State solution. The Agorist is anyone who, at least part of the time, trades in markets the State prohibits, or does so in manners which aren’t permitted by States – such as without complying with ridiculous regulations that serve to create barriers to market entry for the benefit of existing participants and/or wealthier entrants, or without reporting the activity for taxation.

I’m attaching two fairly brief and highly influential works [ed: attached were Konkin's New Libertarian Manifesto and Agorist Class Theory]. Keep in mind that Agorism is a theory of revolution. Though it grew out of anarcho-capitalism and is grounded in that theory, it is quite distinct. You will not find a description of Utopia here (though I can tell you where to find plenty). In my mind, the Agorist praxis can be employed by a social revolution toward pretty much any Utopian vision, so long as the State and all of the privilege connected to it is eliminated along the way.

Enjoy

These sweethearts don't share your definition of property rights. Should they be killed?

First of all, everyone knows I love cats, right? KITTIES!!! You go, kitties!

Now, to serious matters.

With homeowner in doghouse, bobcats move in

Cute uberkitties challenge capitalist property rights

A family of feline squatters has moved into a foreclosed home in Lake Elsinore. Residents of the Tuscany Hills development first noticed the bobcats about a week ago.

With real estate values plummeting and foreclosed homes sitting empty, a family of bobcats apparently decided the time was right to pounce.

So last week, they slipped out of the parched foothills of Lake Elsinore and into a spacious, vacant home in well-groomed Tuscany Hills.

Residents of the development got their first look Aug. 27 when the feline squatters — at least two adults and three kittens — lolled atop a wall outside the Spanish-style house.

There arises now a moral question, the resolution of which sits at the base of your conception of property rights.

Get offa mah property!

Very likely there is a bank that is presently the legal owner of this house. Can the bank come around randomly shouting “get offa mah property!” like Fuzzy Lumpkins, and if the cats disobey and refuse to vacate the property be justified in shooting them? Regardless of whether they were cats, moral actors, Randian ubermenschen or even Republicans, I should say no, and not wish to share my table with the type of folk who would believe that was really okay. Can the bank transfer legal title to the place to another party, and therefore be justified in killing the bobcats if they fail to timely vacate? I say that the bank may transfer title, but it may not evict the tenants (assuming that, quite characteristically, the bobcats have executed no auditable contractual agreement with the bank). Could the new owners evict the bobcats? To be consistent with the values that underlie the foregoing, I can’t permit them to do that. Could any of the foregoing (presumptively) evil owners delegate killing the bobcats to a disinterested third party charged with handling such matters, in the interests of all? It would all be legal, of course, approved by democracy of the highest quality and refinement.

If you’re the bank, is killing the cute, fuzzy kitties okay? If you’re the new owner? If you’re a delegate elected by the neighbors? If you’re the employee of Bob’s Ancap Defense Services and Pizza Company, Ltd.? If you’re the toppermost of the topmost federated syndicalist committeemen?

It is not okay to kill the kitties in these scenarios. If you kill the kitties under any of these scenarios, I don’t want you around me.

There are other scenarios. Maybe I’ll think about them while I go hunting for more photos of these adorable anarcho-cuties.

The reason is that I recalled, just in time, that I was due to apply to extend my Slovak residence permit for another year.

The thing expires on November 21st, and you’re required to re-apply no later than 60 days before expiration. That was Monday, and I got my application in on that day. I should have my new visa by late November.

In theory, with the new visa affixed to my current passport, I can leave the Foreign Police after getting it, head right to a notary to get certified copies made of it and the passport itself, plus execute a general power of attorney to allow a friend of mine to sign for me on contracts and such during the period where I have no official ID, then go directly to the US Embassy and surrender the passport while making the oath of renunciation.

I had hoped to get the deed done prior to the US election, simply to show that it wouldn’t matter to me one way or the other which of the ruling class stooges got elected. Oh well, I’ve made that point here.

Entry to nostate.com (hereinafter the “Website”) is restricted by contract. By pressing “Submit” below you freely, fully, explicitly and expressly agree:

• that you shall not, by act or omission, take away any impressions, copies, extracts, derivatives, subsets or samples of this Website or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, copy, store or retransmit any data from this Website or any part thereof,  including but not limited to sequences of or individual characters or individual bits;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, fail upon the Website owner’s request to surrender all energy patterns, tactile sensations, auditory stimuli, mass-energy distribution changes or other media of phenomenal transmission incident to your use of the Website to the Website owner, to become the exclusive property thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, link to, cite, quote or reference the Website or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, speak or otherwise divulge to third parties your knowledge of the Website’s existence, your knowledge of its contents, the contents themselves or the existence of this WEBSITE ACCESS AGREEMENT (hereinafter the “Agreement”) or the Agreement itself, or any part thereof, despite being legally and morally bound by it;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, form memories of the Website or any part thereof or of this Agreement or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, recall, remember, recount, retain, reconstitute, recreate, receive, recover or retransmit the Website or any part thereof or this Agreement or any part thereof;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, fail to exercise due care and prudence in excluding third parties from taking part in your use of the Website in any fashion, including but not limited to by blocking all energy patterns, tactile sensations, auditory stimuli, mass-energy distribution changes or other media of phenomenal transmission incident to your use of the Website such that they cannot pass to third parties;
• that this Agreement is the totality of all contractual relationships between you and the Website owner and that this Agreement supersedes, replaces and annuls all prior contractual relationships between the aforementioned parties;
• that any breach of this Agreement on your part shall subject you to a penalty of three hundred (300) ounces of 99.99% fine gold or two thousand (2,000) hours of forced labor, with that the choice of penalty shall be yours, payable to the Website owner within ten days in the case of gold or within one year in the case of labor;
• that you shall not, by act or omission, attempt to or actually transfer, surrender, hypothecate, pledge, encumber, subordinate, abandon or pass by gift, inheritance or other means any of your rights or duties under this Agreement without prior written consent of the Website owner;
• that should any portion of this Agreement be found to be unenforceable, such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement;
• that the term of this Agreement shall begin upon you pressing “Submit” below and shall be perpetual;
• that this Agreement may from time to time be amended or supplemented by the Website owner in written form and with due notice to you;
• that in the event of any dispute or contest involving this Agreement, such dispute or contest shall be submitted to the jurisdiction and binding arbitration of Bob’s Arbitration and Pizza Company, Libertania, Ancapistan, without appeal; and
• that you have entered into this Agreement freely and without duress after careful consideration and understanding of all its contents.

To the most recent, Francois Tremblay offered both praise and a question of consistency:

I also applaud you, however do you also do the same for corporations? It seems to me that if you refused ALL statist jobs you would be on the street, unless small businesses and coops are much more numerous over there.

Though I have been refusing all manner of government work — both directly employed by governments or by companies that exist only to serve governments — for a very long, I have not really bothered thus far to firmly delineate that which I find acceptable versus unacceptable. I will attempt to do so here.

There are some basic ideas in play here which derive from my own philosophical axioms:

• Government is evil
• One should endeavor to avoid actions which support or strengthen government, thus avoiding evil
• Taxation is theft, and therefore evil, and doubly so since it supports the evil that is government
• Taking money stolen via taxation for oneself at the very least carries the taint of evil, and in very many cases makes one complicit in the original theft and therefore guilty of doing harm

If I may be forgiven for misrepresenting any of Francois’s views, there is an additional critique of the relationship between state and corporation which must be added here, and it consists of things like:

• The corporation is a creature of the state, a privilege granted by evil, and therefore morally questionable at best, condemnable at worst
• Corporations have successfully manipulated state mechanisms everywhere in order to secure greater privileges for themselves and their owners than accrue to ordinary people, and continue to do so
• The legal concept of limited liability is an abomination against natural law, and serves to encourage corporations to act more immorally than fully-accountable individuals might absent it
• The legal tradition of treating a corporation as having status equal to that of a person is also abominable, and leads to additional tendencies toward abuse by those exercising the state-granted corporate privilege

There is much to be added to both of these lists, of course, and others have done a far better job than I ever will of cataloging the immorality of both state and corporation. I believe that I share common ground with Francois in the critique of the corporation as statist creature at the fundamental level, though one as clever as he and one as obstinate as I will no doubt find any number of points to argue over bitterly. I believe I also share the view with him that one should work to minimize the evil they do and the evil they support in every way possible.

As recently as the beginning of this year, I sometimes took on a very narrow subset of government contracts. I was once asked to translate a tender for supply of small-arms ammunition to the Slovak military, and rejected it out of hand. At the same time, when a request came in to translate some text to be used by an agency working to promote tourism in Slovakia, I accepted it. I believe very strongly in the value of casting things into moral absolute categories, but must recognize also that there is a continuum. And, presented with the opportunity to reclaim some of the money stolen from me in tax by the state, I thought that doing the state’s work in one of its least harmful manifestations would be acceptable. Tourism okay, supporting the troops, fuck no. The limit to this would be that one should not accept in compensation for work from the state any more than the value stolen from you previously in tax.

That view of mine has already changed, and led to a new formulation of principle for me: Stealing back what the state has stolen from you is morally acceptable. But working to support the state in exchange for what has been stolen is not acceptable because you are still supporting the state by doing so.

I’ve had more than one client come back to me, after learning my position on working for the state, and offer something along the lines of “Well, you’re not really working for the government; I have this contract already, someone’s going to do it, might as well be you, you’re working for me.” This doesn’t hold up for me one bit. Adding layers of misdirection to hide the original theft of taxation would not change the fact that I commit evil by taking stolen money in support of the state through my work.

I have long rejected working for companies which do a large portion of their business with government. Before I became independent of “bosses” two years ago, I did not apply this principle consistently. But I can recount many telephone discussions with recruiters about job opportunities with companies which are basically state organs in private form (think “defense” contractors in particular, and others), and telling them there was no way morally I could work for such a firm. At the same time, and I will give particulars here, there is much to hate about General Electric. Even so, several years ago I accepted a one-year contract with GE Medical Systems to develop software, network infrastructure and procedures which allow doctors and medical technicians to receive training on the operation of MRI, x-ray, CAT scan and other medical devices via network delivery as opposed to having a trainer physically sent to the hospital/clinic work site. GE happens to be a company which makes death weapons as well as life-saving devices. Gray area? Maybe. I really needed the job in any case. Would I work for GE Medical Systems again today if the opportunity was there and the incentives interesting? I’m not sure (the corporate “culture” there is something which if placed in a Petri dish on a bit of substrate would rapidly spill out into a sickening, purulent mass which would fill all available space and consume everything in the production of its own tumorous growth), but I still wouldn’t object on moral grounds.

There are some questions I ask myself when considering a job which carries the potential taint of the state:

• Who pays? If the answer is taxpayers, I refuse.
• Who owns the company? If it is a state-controlled company, or a branch of the state, I refuse.
• Would this job exist were it not for the state? If no, refuse. This is a tricky point, in that I do accept jobs which violate this from time to time, such as the time I translated a response from an auto manufacturer to the Slovak anti-monopoly office defending itself against a charge of “unfair competition”. I also accept work from recently-privatized utility companies; the ownership of them remains dubious and the notion that a territorial monopoly on the scale even of a country as small as Slovakia is dubious as well, but it would be akin to suicide to refuse cooperation with those who bring clean water, electricity and other services into my home. I do refuse “public” transport companies and the “private” companies which develop the roads, but do so because they fail one or both of the first two criteria above.
• Will my work result in harm to anyone? If yes, refuse. It’s difficult if not impossible to know all of the potential implications of one’s action, of course, but when the answer to this is clear then so is my response.

I would like to live in a world in which the privileges that corporations in all their forms enjoy were abolished. I would like to also educate those who take state privilege as to why there is immorality in their firms’ conception. I would also not like to starve. The vast majority of my clients are incorporated as limited liability corporations or stock corporations, and this is especially true of all the translation agencies that send me work. I would like to stand on principle, but as Francois alludes to, truly standing on such principle in this world will lead one to ruin.

At the same time, even though they enjoy the privileges conferred by the state, not all corporations are necessarily evil simply by virtue of being corporations. There is an easy scale to point to which suggests that their evil (or capacity for evil) increases in proportion to their size, but then we also have counterexamples such as GE developing and selling life-saving medical devices which break the easy formulation. The fact that the statist corporate form exists and offers so many benefits is a problem which in my mind should be attacked in terms of the state itself and the institution of the corporation. I find it very difficult, though, to find fault with the businessman who, having grown his one-man operation to the point where he would like to expand, incorporated in order to gain flexibility and protection. This is rational behavior on his part.

It is also true that given the corporate-statist milieu we have before us, many businesses simply could not operate were it not for the corporate form. I should not wish that every airline disappear, however, nor refuse to patronize them simply because they are creatures of the present system. And I am not going to win any arguments with my clients by suggesting that they forsake limited liability and the other benefits the corporate form provides. They, also, must eat.

Answering that casts us back to around 1997 when I read Roger Gallo’s Escape from America. The book advances the Perpetual Traveler, or PT, philosophy, and provides a bunch of practical information for those wishing to go that route, perhaps now largely out of date. PT also stands for “Prior Taxpayer”, as one who arranged their affairs carefully could legally avoid becoming subject to income tax anywhere in the world, while maintaing a high-flying lifestyle.

At the time, I had been on a seemingly meteoric career path, going from hobbyist hacker to megabucks consultant in networking and internet technologies in just three short years. And then the big job offer came, with the first-employee options package attached, and I leaped. At the peak of the internet boom we went IPO and my paper promises came to be worth several million US$. “Fuck you” money. A fortune. As soon as my four years of options vesting was complete, I would cash out and embark on my own PT journey.

Needless to say, the story doesn’t have a happy ending. The market collapsed, investors’ metrics changed and, fine, I made out better in the end than if I’d never taken the position. But it wasn’t the “fuck you” money, and it wasn’t a fortune.

Unemployment, retrenchment and a great deal of squandering dissipation followed. The main impetus – leave the US, see the “other sides” – remained, though, and tickled me from time to time.

In 2003 I found myself isolated a thousand miles from home, stuck on a one-year contract doing a job that paid very nicely for about 3-5 hours of real work per week, with the rest of my time devoted to soothing, cajoling and repeating endlessly “yes, it will work” while the project schedule ticked by, me always ahead of it. Fortunately I didn’t have to spend most of that time at the office pretending to be busy 8 hours a day, but found ways to pretend while sleeping late, staying home except for the rare project review meeting, and doing little.

Around the end of 2003 I was bored out of my mind and started thinking of becoming a PT again, or at least leaving the US. I had been fed up with the political aspect of the country for a long time already, and having watched the launch of the Iraq war early that year drove the knife back into old wounds from Gulf War I. Time to go. Where previously I told myself that first I’d make a pile of money then leave the US, I now found myself thinking: learn how to minimize your lifestyle and expenses, save as much as you can through the end of this contract, and get out.

My girlfriend, still living back in California while I was freezing my ankles off in Wisconsin, was very keen on this. We both started fantasizing together about what we might do, and eventually she hatched a plan. She would get certified as an English teacher, and then we would bounce around the world every year as she got new contracts, perhaps traveling some more during the summers.

So, in summer 2004 she and I set off for Playa del Carmen, Mexico, where she spent 4 weeks getting CELTA certified and I spent 4 weeks improving my Spanish. We very much anticipated and wanted to get to a Spanish-speaking country. Latin America was not to be, though, as at least at that time it was quite difficult to conduct a job search, interview and acceptance as an English teacher strictly via phone and internet.

The case wasn’t the same in Europe, though, and having heard great things especially about Poland, she began contacting schools in the old Commie Bloc. Interest from Poland, interest from Hungary and some interest from Slovakia. And Slovakia’s where she got the contract, so off we marched to Bratislava.

The plan had been 9 months in Bratislava, a few months traveling, then repeat at a new location. I found myself rather liking the place, though, and making new friends. She, meanwhile, had a different circle of friends all connected with the English school. I started voicing the idea that I didn’t really want to split after 9-12 months. Other STUFF happened (none of your business!), and we split up, she taking up with another gentlemen who she’s still globetrotting with today. And we’re still great friends.

And here I remain, in Bratislava, Slovakia. Kinda funny writing this while I’m in Paris, but whatever

I am somewhat conflicted as to whether to split this off as a separate item completely divorced from the original conversation and my reaction to Mr. Warner, or to let it flow. Since the hour is late and the path of least resistance is often attractive, I will leave it as a personal response.

Dear Lee,

You wrote:

[A]s a matter of pragmatism, none of the other definitions [of murder] or standards can deprive me of property, liberty, and life. Their value is purely symbolic, as they are not based upon force or coercion.

Of course definitions have no power on their own. They gain power only as they are accepted and applied by people in their relations.

If I read you correctly, you don’t necessarily accept the definition of murder as defined by legislature, religion, or “analysis of the rightful place of self-defense,” but you aren’t making clear exactly what your philosophical standard, legal principle, and definition is. If it’s not too legalistic of me, could I ask you to explain what YOUR higher law is, and how it would apply to me, or any other non-participant in your belief system?

In the Muslim world, the law is what the Sheik, Caliph, or Imam says it is. It tends to vary, notwithstanding the Koran or Sharia Law. I wouldn’t want that for me, and I hope that isn’t what you are talking about.

I wouldn’t want Sharia or literal Biblical law for anyone, and even I can agree that, as an example, the organic law based in the English Common Law is a morally superior system. That doesn’t make it a good system, however.

The question is not too legalistic, this is a fundamental and critical issue, and one which I and hopefully most of the world use to examine and judge the question. My philosophy is something of “self-defense plus”. I believe mine to be an extension of the philosophy described by the “Philosophy of Liberty” video I posted previously.

To the narrow question of what is a criminal murder and what is a justified killing — be it in self-defense, in the service of delegation of the right to self-defense or as retaliation for tortious damage or infringement — I am not a philosopher, and I won’t be able to put together a comprehensive intellectual argument which will unassailably support my beliefs. What I can offer, though, is a set of principles (though some may be loose and slippery) which speak to the issue, and examples that support and illustrate their application. I will gleefully and recklessly make assertions here without proof, use terms without definition and attempt to exploit proof by intimidation. I don’t have time for much else.

First, we own ourselves. Our bodies are our rightful and natural property. When someone attempts to damage us or kill us, we are justified in using whatever force necessary to prevent or interrupt that. That force may even be disproportionate. If a kidnapper has me tied up and is preparing to saw off my leg, if I manage to get a free hand and deliver an ice pick to his brain, that also is justified. We may be justified in certain circumstances in conducting proportionate revenge upon those who injure us as well.

Next, we own our property (define it as you will, and this is a broad and deep and vague philosophical area in which I have mixed opinions and in which there are many views), and that property is an extension of ourselves. We are justified also in using force to protect and defend our property, and may be justified in extracting proportionate retributive compensation or a proportionate forced cure for damage to or infringement upon our property. Our bodies are our property as well, as are our lives.

Next, we own our liberty. Liberty is the space in which one may move and act and be without infringing upon the equally inviolate liberty of others. Our liberty is also our property.

We have the duty to respect the equal rights of others with respect to their own persons, property and liberty. No action that we or they take can abridge or abolish this duty. This duty arises as a practical consequence of our own desire and need for our persons, property and liberty to be respected.

We have the ability, and the moral justification, to delegate the defense of our persons, property and liberty to other persons, organizations or institutions, exclusively or non-exclusively. When we make such an intentional (and explicit) delegation, we are not creating any right, entitlement or duty that did not exist before, we are merely expanding it and inviting others to enforce our own rights. Such a delegation is almost always carried out for reasons of reciprocity: familial love, kinship, fraternal association, commercial transaction, etc. If we, say, delegate our defense to a neighborhood association which sets up an armed patrol to safeguard our homes and defend our lives, property and liberty, we are not empowering those who carry the weapons and go on patrol in our names with any new entitlement, we merely concentrate it in them and agree to support and defend their actions insofar as those actions are in accordance with those of our own rights which we have delegated.

Additionally, other people to whom we have not specifically delegated our powers of self-defense also are justified in acting to defend us or to exact retribution from those who aggress against us. The onlooker to an escalating argument who breaks my debating partner’s nose when he sees that my debating partner is about to stick a knife in my belly is entirely justified, whether I know him or not.

What I think I have given here is a rough outline of libertarian/anarchist theory at a fundamental level. Looks a bit like Mosaic law, doesn’t it? It’s also the basis for the justified functioning of a volunteer military (the scaled-up version of the neighborhood patrol) whose services are contracted for and supported by a group of people who wish it. I’ve also given the barest toe-hold to the “preemptive strike doctrine” under which the war in Iraq today is being waged, though I disagree entirely with its extension to cover that war and almost every other instance where it is used in the world today.

Thus: an unjustified killing, a murder, is one which violates these principles. This is how I see the issue.

You came along, though, telling us that you’d killed people, and that though it haunts your conscience, you believe those killings to be just. I will submit, respectfully, that it should be impossible for a sane man to simultaneously hold close the principles I have outlined above and the belief that those killings were just.