Desire.

What have I desired? In the past I wanted nothing more than time to myself and time to enjoy the caress of the ground beneath my feet. In the past I craved for nothing but the comfort found in the crook of the trees and clumps of sod in my fingers. In this silly past I wanted no more than to breathe the air of evergreen. What have I desired other than a taste to end my rage?

When I glimpse the witching hour inside – there are moments of peace. There are moments of tranquility as if the moon flapped silently alongside the ghostly owls. There are moments frozen, when the light perched in the eves above my head. It is then that I do not act. Every action I take is a step towards self-satisfaction. This requires the removal of the things which dissatisfy me – otherwise I wouldn’t be acting now would I?

I have lusted for sleep without waking.

Beyond the groves of night; the thorn-ridden forest lurks, a mad and howling thing. It is outraged and stands to guard against reality. However; even the bracken couldn't save me. I like everyone else am forced to breathe fire, to turn to the maze of concrete and glass, to test the forges that churn the sludge, to watch the birds sitting high in their cages forced to lay so many golden eggs. Perfect rows and perfect moats, their uniformity is atrocious and defiling to the natural order of things.

How is it beautiful to live on top of one another squawking and screaming – fighting over so little space? How beautiful is a mile stretch of square-cut tiles compared to the glimpses of natural freedom residing in sparse parts of the world? How does this compare to the wild growth breaking through the gray. How does the sky look veiled in neon lights compared to a night naked with white splendor? How many or how little have heard the cicada’s and the crickets orchestra on summer evenings? I prefer this to the whistles and shrieks that happen within your castles of civilization. I prefer the crown of sunrise to the dreary cloaks of poison.

Yet, the ones who I am attracted to are drawn to the cities. That is where the people are marching in formation to the calls of fast food and the calls of corporation. I look on them in longing but know that this sick love triangle is unfit for me or them. I would fold them in my arms I would fold them to my mouth. They taste of iron and blood. Yet still I crave more, I feel beastly and foul in my addiction.

I rattle with every window by the railroad tracks. I tremble with every leaf in October winds. I shake with every pass by the underpass. If I paced by, you may catch a breeze of guaic wood warmed with vanilla. You’d realize that bergamot and mandarin had entered the building. The squalor of urban life has destroyed my sight. My eyes are fading so I wouldn’t dare to look upon you; I’d have to glare to see your face so I’d wander without a glance.

My silence is deafening. But the roar of despair in others is defeating. My most silent thoughts dictate the motion of my stars. I turn left – they flee to the right. I run forward and they stay in place. It’s only when I’m still that I can watch them dance. Have you stopped to stare? While my life is in constant isolation, my mind in constant journey; my existence is all my own. I’d have it no other way.

There I sit in the shelter of my curtains, so that the sun cannot glimpse me. Once there, hidden away in the safety of shade, I turned my gaze blurred by the terrifying beauty that lay just out of my reach.

There on the horizon of earth and sea, a line of gold. There on the sun scorched beach, the white foam writhes in agony. Have you ever watched the tide rush in? The mist yields to currents of air, muting the thunder of the water. You can watch the stampede of nature rise to the cliffs and then bound the other way. It is an altogether different sight – a different style of caged predator.

Here I shut the door readily, recalling the heat in its entire splendor. I slammed the door on the common life, I breathed in life of my own making. None could guess the ecstasy of such a dull-witted and silent monster thrilled to the brim with joy at the sight of beauty in the world.

Now I can only desire from a distance.

Now I can only want that which I cannot have.

Now I have but one craving.

At the end of my life I wish to say “I have not lost myself to the dominant dogma of this age.” At the end of my life I wish to look back and know that I chose to pace against the tyranny of life. I grasp that events are what wo/men make them. My aim is to hold absolute to the force within against the obstacles without.

*Chuckles*

Haha! So true >_<

Where I Stand

There are certain events in my life that eventually pushed me over the edge. There are certain things in my life that led me away from being just another circuit raving democratic utopian believing boy – to who I am today. Call me what you will, call me a Radical Libertarian, a paleo-right wing conservative, a rugged individualist, a right-wing anarchist, but most importantly know that I am a free-market anarchist.

I learned a few things that have been really useful as devices concerning people and relations.

It is best not to feel weak. It is best not to feel like one needs another. It is best to train yourself to ignore the failings in others because ultimately we all fail. In the end there is only one person who can love you and that’s you, only you. No one, I repeat, no one can wish more fervently to see the sun rise for you, like you.

Isolation is not correlative to independence or strength. Independence is ability to carry on regardless of how depressed one gets. Independence is strength to ignore any possible void one could feel by not having someone else to lean on. Your obligations are to yourself. Take care of yourself, pick yourself up, don’t bitch, just do it. If you don’t – one day, it may kill you.

One day, when your love fails, you won’t waste away. One day when you fail, you’ll look around, bleary-eyed but with full knowledge that the sun rises tomorrow. In short: you can learn a lot about yourself when you become homeless.

People wonder why I can hate the idea of government. I’ll put it simply from my history.

Where was your altruistic social ‘safety net’ when I needed it? Where was the providence of public shelters when I found out that I had to be in an age bracket to have a roof over my head for a night? Why were the shelters located so far from each other? Why were the shelters forced to turn people away? Where was shelter to be had if I had to check in to the building repeatedly throughout the day while I was attempting to make a living or find a job? Where was food to be had when it was easier to dig through a dumpster or get some from behind restaurants from workers?

Why was my welfare check so late and of so little worth that I lost my ability to save any money to get a studio let alone feed myself? I repeat where was this government social safety net when I needed it? It’s a joke and it accomplishes nothing.

Sure, socialists can say – we need to give people welfare at the least. But it accomplished nothing for me. The money barely allowed me to subside. Welfare kept me on welfare.

Government upholds a disgusting, loathsome cycle of poverty and despotism. People eventually become stuck in the cycle, herded chattel unable to do anything but become less than human.

How was I to present myself to get a job, when my clothing fell apart? I had to wash my clothes in sinks at gas stations and public restrooms. Then I had to dry them out underneath the hand dryers making sure my work presentable clothing didn’t wrinkle as I did so. Do you know how it feels to have other people look at you in disgust when you’re in a public restroom at a mall washing your clothing? Do you realize how many hours it takes to sufficiently accomplish this? Do you know what it feels like to want to be truly invisible? Why don’t the shelters have washing machines and dryers for the homeless so that they may be able to dress themselves and smell presentable enough for interviews? Why don’t they have these simple commodities so that humans don’t have to feel like freak shows? Your social government programs are a fallacious disgusting, vile, and disturbing if they believe themselves to be of charity. Worse – these programs fail just like educational standards of public schools. To add insult to injury – the average citizen pays for this.

The average citizen pays for this parasite. The average citizen pays for this cancer.

I found more help from handouts than from any social service. I got more roofs over my head from guys who expected little of me compared to the shelters who wanted time frames, sobriety, and religious fervor. At least I could be fucked up while I spent the night in some filthy apartment and get food.

You who like to write me daily are interesting creatures.* Most of it I trash because I won’t dignify you with a response. I’m indeed amused that so many people like to take time out of their day to let me know how they think of my ideas. Most take to insulting my theories, most take to letting me know how childish my thoughts are. I’ve heard every insult in the book I think, and still some of you are repeat offenders! You’re laughable.

You wouldn’t dare presume I came to believe in market anarchism without having dwelled on the problems of society for at least half of my pathetically short life. You wouldn’t dare presume I put more thought into these ideas than picking up a book and ‘getting inspired’. You wouldn’t dare presume I’ve read everything about it hoping to find some alternative.

You probably wouldn’t presume I’ve poured my soul into the works of Bakunin, Proudhon’s, Emma Goldman, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Max Stirner, Etienne de la Boetie, Wendy McElroy, Erick Mack, Murray Rothbard, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, David and Milton Friedman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Dyer Lum, Kropotkin – do you fathom my perspective now? The list goes on, but name drops are hardly the issue here.
The point is – I’ve invested much thought into this and hence why I am the way I am.

So if I’m so displeased with the world – where do I fit in? If I please to call myself a Market Anarchist in ideology, in all practicality I must adhere to being a Radical Libertarian. I would have to sell myself short. I would have to return to the fold of blind concepts. If I become a statist, a good quiet little citizen, I must continue to believe in voting, where I practice forcing others to live according to my system of belief on an issue if my vote ends up winning. If I indeed want something of my will passed, I must vote for one of the two main parties. I must believe in war, I must believe in welfare – which pushes everyone in poverty to their knees – then removes their feet below the ankle. I must believe in paying annually for the rest of my life to an entity that strips us all of dignity. I must turn the other cheek when I see a homeless person. I must ignore my past. I must pretend that my life is considerably different than theirs.

As you see, I cannot ignore these simple things. As you see, I cannot accept anything less than the extreme.

I cannot help but look into the midnight inside. It quakes, shudders and moans. It is far from logical, but I look inside and find that rage and hope to harness it as the Furies did. Everyone has a cavern inside of them, a place no one else ventures to dig. Inside the placidly dressed businessman one can imagine the pain he feels in his fingers, one can almost taste the despair of the 5-9 knowing he is his own prison.

Anarchism embodies freedom of the ‘soul’, the ‘mind’ and the ‘body’. If the current system is truly justice – then yes I would have it ravaged and disassembled. I would destroy it all. But first – before the destruction of everyone else’s beliefs, I would have everyone believe something other than what is force-fed to them. I would have people simply believe in themselves. I would have them believe they could do without the chains of government. I know with all my heart and my mind – that none of my most fervent hopes will come to pass. But I believe. If you wish to find common ground with me, now you know where I stand.

Be Proud of Government

What does one mean by state? I'll try and play devil's advocate. Let's say I'm a fan of the state. Let’s say I’m a Statesman. This bears down to a few key points in ideology. To spare people from having to grind their gears I’m going to play a game of truth. Be honest, if you believe in the political party, you believe in most of this deep down. Go ahead and admit it. It’s ok to be a tyrant. Be proud of your beliefs! Better that than lie to yourselves and others.

As a Statesman I believe in principle that an individual and/or band of individuals needs to invade the territory and rights of other individuals or bands of individuals so that they may be represented according to whim. If one goes beyond his bounds of permission (freedom) than he needs to be punished for not abiding by the rules I would like to enforce on him.

Let’s be honest, as a Statesman (better known as a Republicrat.) I believe in an unquantifiable, sans-qualitative 'majority' vote where people attempt to pass their rights to me so that I may represent them. Because I'm representing them I choose not to believe that people pay for what they get. I believe that people must pay in taxes for services whether they want those services or not. I believe that my aggression which is a violation of equal liberty necessitates confiscation of a wo/man's earnings to pay for their protection which they didn't necessarily ask for - but are going to get anyway. I believe that people must foot the bill for violations of their intrinsic rights to freedom.

As an honest Statist I confess that there is no moral obligation – only an obligation to society. They are obligations because I obviously cannot consciously nor voluntarily assume I can discover my own moral fiber without being told what's good and what's bad. No, murder, theft and property crimes aren't self-evident. I believe that we must give up the individual 'rights' and bow in service to those who would protect me from myself and those sneaky plotting neighbors.

I believe in non-utilitarian methods of dominion. I don't believe in expediency, knowledge, epistemology, or science. I choose to ignore that history reveals that humanity has made a slow and painfully gradual discovery that a free society necessitates a free individual. I choose to ignore that advances in technology especially on the grounds of internet empower individuals more naturally than aggregates. I choose to ignore that emergent social interaction is exemplified by people voluntarily associating with each other on the internet and cannot do so in person. I choose to ignore that decentralization and entropy of my force on others is natural law and justice at work.

I choose to not adopt a live and let live approach. I choose instead to transgress the rights of others because I know better. I choose to use coercion and force and I choose to say its all for liberty.

I choose to believe that people cannot privatize the provisions of energy, waste management, law and order, nor banking as they are currently monopolized by government.

As a statesman I believe in welfare and warfare. I believe that the Constitution is outdated so I need to come up with fundamental social laws that can be reduced to habits in and outside the bedroom.

To let you know where I irreducibly stand as your representative, I’m going to counter Proudhon word for word. I believe that people need to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, sized, censured, commanded; by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue. I believe that every operation every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, and corrected.

I believe that for the sake of general interest, that people need to be drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed, robbed; then upon the slighted resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed and to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged and then dishonored.

Absurdity

What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act [...] The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith [...] I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.[4]

– Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals, 1849

Yesterday, out of the blue an old friend, once a best friend, called me up. She invited me to her church and youth group. Now whatever it may be she has turned herself completely around (thank goodness.) She was spiraling into drug induced frenzy. Yet, there she was: substance free, actually happy, and married to a wonderful guy, surrounded by very pleasant people. I accepted her invitation out of respect for her and with no thoughts to worship. I have a feeling she wishes the best for me in her own way – so I can accept that. But while I believe there is a higher power, I do not believe it is that power’s will for us to beg for help. I think it laughable that man can ‘know’ god. It is the nature of our minds that we see but one facet from one window. We are an incapable species if we pride ourselves omniscient enough to see the god construct that is reality, which is the wheel of the cosmos.

I believe it is up to each of us to find a suitable path. If some choose not to, so be it. If some choose to seek, so be it. It is not an imperative to seek meaning but it is admirable. Through logic we find that morals are either made through leaps of faith or through each subjective individual viewpoint. I do not believe the bible is capable as a guideline due to humanity’s inherent flaws. So while I felt estranged by the entire service due to their methods of faith, I understood them and appreciated their passion.

How does one endure their self-developed defiance of reality? I’m sure that if I attend more of these services that the question will come eventually as to how I can be so solitary. Despite reality, one accepts they must live it. One cannot hope that imploring any higher power will bring about a relief. One cannot hope to ask another. He must pick himself up despite the odds. One must seek the power within against the obstacles without and tread against the grain –

“With all the tortures of hell if so it must be.” – Kierkegaard, Søren, The Sickness Unto Death.

In accepting reality we then have three options, or rather, three roads to take.

1.) Though we confess life may not be worth living, we reject the notion that suicide is a viable option. Escaping existence empowers nobody. It is most absurd to reject the absurd life.
2.) We may consider the existence of a higher power, but we reject the notion of philosophical suicide through the utilization of prayer.
3.) We accept reality as absurd and beautiful. The only way to craft meaning is through utilization of our choices to lend opportunity which may (or may not) give meaning to life.

This last option thus gives us freedom. The absurdist philosophy if realized maintains that the universe is subjective and not objective. This freedom exists because we can then find our own way for meaning and purpose rather than viewing reality as one of philosophical absolutes. The individual becomes a sovereign existence, another facet to the entire existence.

Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suidice. – Camus, Albert, Myth of Sysiphus and Other Essays.

Historically we are a people who sought meaning. Some approach the nihilist or existential road. Thus their life is paved with thoughts that life is meaningless (I find them a bit silly). Then there is a significant portion who wishes to fill that void, most with a belief in a higher power outside of reality. Hence, the ability to question purpose behind god. But since I believe that the god construct is reality, and reality is absurd, that placing faith in higher powers outside of the realm immediate to us is sillier still.

In this window of the world I am free at least in mind. I must reject determinism and argue that indeterminism is the only compatible notion to freedom.

Free-will exists. The individual is able to take any possible course of action with any given circumstance. Since the popular god construct allows for only a few closed options, I must refuse this version of metaphysical faith. Since I am free to think otherwise, the idea is that even my mind overrides physical causality. I suppose I’ve hit mind-body dualism.

Free-will exists. If people are to truly be responsible and accountable for their actions, then, the stereotypical god construct runs counter to this. To accept the typical god construct we all may commit something that was pre-determinate to even murder, and then say: “The devil/god made me do it.”

Free-will exists. If we realize that ‘will’ is not free due to its confines of causality; but there is a phenomenon acting behind ‘will’ which is free.

It is the nature of a coward and a fool who says – I am fated to be. It is the strong wo/man who states I make my own fate. Let the enemies of the soul quake at humanities natural freedoms.

A Reference

Burden of proof: Logic dictates that the burden of proof be put on the positive claim. In this case, while common belief dictates that the anarchist has the burden of proof, it actually belongs to both parties. Both are making a positive claim about social organization. Furthermore, most statists make the same claim as the anarchist (i.e. that markets should exist) but adds an extra claim (i.e. that the state should exist), therefore the statist has an extra burden of proof. Statists are incapable of shedding this extra burden, which makes this a powerful argument, if you can get an honest statist to admit that he's making a positive claim.

Moral Argument: A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.

• Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

Geometric Argument: Consists of setting up a fictional scenario involving three people on a desert island, pointing out that statist behaviour in such a scenario is immoral (such as taxation- two people deciding to steal a third's resources because they think he has too much) without noting that it is statist behaviour, and expanding the situation in numbers until you reach the "millions of people" stage, at which point you reveal the statist analogy.

Argument from the State of Nature: Consists of examining every possible alternative about the nature of man and showing how the state is undesirable in all these alternatives. For example: if everyone is born good, then we don't need a state, if everyone is born evil, then the state would be evil as well, and if everyone is a mixture of good and evil, then a state only gives an opportunity for the most evil to wield power over the rest of us.

Semantic Argument: Consists of pointing out the conceptual absurdity of concepts such as "state", "country" and "citizenship", and showing that statism is literally meaningless. A favourite argument of Marc Stevens'.

Argument from Freedom: Consists of explaining the value of freedom, and demonstrating how Market Anarchy is the system most conductive to freedom.

Argument from Public Goods

1. A public good is defined as a good which cannot be efficiently provided because its provision benefits a wide population regardless of how many people paid for the good. Every single agents is faced with a high cost and a low proportion of the benefit, and thus will most likely not desire to shoulder any costs, making financing impossible. (Standard statist definition)

2a. In a democratic system, good governance is a public good because:

• Any individual voter would need to shoulder great costs in order to form informed opinions on all issues of public policy, and, if his vote means anything at all, would only reap a very small proportion of the benefits. Therefore each individual voter has a negative incentive in bringing about good governance.
• In trying to improve his situation, any individual lobbyist is faced with two alternatives: attempt to repeal the hundreds of laws passed by his opponents which make his life slightly worse (and which repeal could cumulatively make his life much easier), or pass one law for his interest group which makes life much easier for himself and slightly worse for everyone else. Since it is much easier to pass one law than repeal a hundred laws, he will necessarily choose the former.

2b. In a Market Anarchist system, good governance is a private good, because every individual directly reaps the reward of his good decisions, due to the one-to-one relationship between the customer and his agency. He faces the full costs, but reaps the full benefits as well.

2c. In a Market Anarchist system, bad governance is a public good because:

• Any individual customer would need to shoulder additional costs in order to endorse a bad rule or institution (such as the War on Drugs), and therefore every individual customer has an incentive to reduce bad governance.
• Any individual trying to bring about a State or other collectivist structure cannot do it alone. He would need the support of most people living on the same territory, as the State is a territorial monopoly. In doing so, he (and his eventual supporters) shoulders an enormous cost, with the anticipation of reaping only a small proportion of the (assumed) benefits of a State. Therefore States will tend to be very difficult to form within a Market Anarchy.

3. Therefore, Market Anarchy will more easily bring, maintain and cultivate good governance than democracy can, because democracy suffers from a fatal public goods problem, while Market Anarchy doesn't.


Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must obtain:

• Morality does not exist.
• Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
• Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:

• Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
• Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)

(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)


Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist...

Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V

*Graveyard of the Gods

A Glossary

"Agencies", "Protection Agencies": The terms I use to designate companies which offer a code (replacing the monopolistic law), and protection services following that code, to their customers.

Anarchy: The absence of a state. Any form of social organization which does not include a state.


Accountability: A feedback system by which we can select the changes we desire and help eliminate the ones we don't. In the market, this is called profit. There is no statist analogue, although voting is sometimes invoked. Accountability is the product of a healthy incentive system.

Arbitration: In general, a form of justice where both parties designate a person whose ruling they will accept formally. More specifically in Market Anarchist theory, arbitration designates the process by which two agenciesagency is involved in a dispute. pre-negociate a set of common rules in anticipation of cases where a customer from each


Capitalism, State Capitalism: Can variably designate an economic system based on markets, or an economic system where the most economically powerful take advantage of the state's power in order to extract advantages over everyone else.


Civil Disobedience: Refusing to obey the law, or a law in particular, for moral reasons. Civil disobedience, when done for sound moral reasons, is one of the most noble social acts one can perform.

Class: A social stratum whose members share certain political characteristics. In statism, we can differentiate between four general classes: the ruling class, the exploitative class, the working class, and the welfare class.

• The ruling class is the group of individuals who are part of the state.
• The exploitative class is the group of individuals who are exploiters but not part of the state.
• The working class is the group of individuals who receive neither the dubious benefit of welfare, nor the morally corrupt benefits of being an exploiter. This represents the largest segment of the population.
• The welfare class is the group of individuals who are entrapped by the state in a cycle of poverty, and unwittingly repay the state by giving it legitimacy.

Communism: An economic system where both political and economic power are vested in the ruling class. Nothing more than State Capitalism taken to its logical extent.

Democracy: According to statist propaganda, a collectivist method of self-governance, "by the people, for the people". In practice, democracy is the means by which the state secures its legitimacy without needing to surrender any real power to "the people", representing a step down from monarchy, a form of social organization in which legitimacy is an arduous process. It gives the illusion of decision-making to its captive population through the process of voting, which is yet another form of "might makes right", although ultimately a futile one. The main product of democracy is social warfare. As a decision-making process, should be replaced by Informed Consensus.

• Voting: A democratic ritual in which individuals, called "voters", cast ballots in favour of a candidate or party. Morally, it represents a sanction of state coercion, as democracy is a mechanism of legitimacy.
• Social warfare: Process by which individuals affiliate themselves to various activist groups and demand laws, rights or privileges. Social warfare arises because of the Tragedy of the Commons: people must band together and get state power to act in their favour before other people do the same against them. When present in a relatively free society, the end result of this process is called the erosion of freedom.
• Informed Consensus: Process of decision-making where groups of informed individuals come together and take a decision by consensus, with a set of rules and values used to guide dialogue. This can be scaled to as few as two individuals (a couple) and as many as hundreds of thousands of people or more (Wikipedia).

DROs: Dispute Resolution Organizations. Term used by Stefan Molyneux to designate private courts, which also preside over arbitration.

Equality: A statist code-word used to imbue legitimacy to the democratic process, and push the doctrine of social justice. In reality, political equality means that all individuals should have the same rights. Statist systems are inherently unequal, as they are predicated on the existence of a ruling class which has the right to make an arbitrary code of laws, impose it by force, steal people's resources, and so on.


Exploitation: The process of restricting people's value expression without their consent, of one's own power, through the use of the power of another, or indirectly through propaganda. I distinguish between three categories of exploiters : first-hand parasites, second-hand parasites, and free riders.

• First-hand parasites are the individuals who use force directly, those that have the guns, and the individuals who give orders to them (policemen, soldiers, private criminals, politicians, bureaucrats).
• Second-hand parasites are the individuals who exploit indirectly by benefitting from state power, and depend on state coercion for the maintenance of their status (activists, interest groups, political organizations and parties, unions, corporate trusts, corporations receiving subsidies, corporations benefitting from protectionism, mafias).
• Free riders are people who would still have a job in a market anarchy, but who use state power to further their aims, while suffering the perverse effects of said power (CEOs of multinationals, politico-scientists and politico-artists, activists, churches, lawyers, doctors, insurers, public school teachers, amateur and professional athletes, and so on).

Immigration: The action of crossing a border into a different country. There is no reason to think that people separated by an arbitrary line cannot be part of the same society, and in our modern world, such an idea is grossly outmoded and absurd.

• Border: Arbitrary line which delimitates the territories that each state can exploit.
• Country: Arbitrary territory delimitated by borders. The existence of countries and of parasitic exploitation within them gives rise to nationalism.
• Nationalism: Psychopathic belief of state-slaves that they alone have the best master. This behaviour is also observed in other forms of slavery and kidnapping.

Incentive and incentive system: An incentive is a path of preferred behaviour induced by a feature of a system. An incentive system is the sum total of all such paths for a given system. Incentives are an important feature of any form of social organization because they hold true regardless of who is in power or a specific culture, and as such they tell us how desirable this or that form is in general.

• For example, statist systems have a strong incentive towards war because states can raise the resources needed by taxation and force people to become killers through draft, while market organizations cannot do the same. Therefore we should expect statist systems in general to be more warlike, and perhaps a correlation between state power and war, a tendancy which we observe in history.

Perpetual war: A (mostly metaphorical) war whose victory conditions are unattainable, usually because the goal is a nebulous concept or for whose opposite there will always be a demand (e.g. "poverty", "terrorism", "drugs").

Law: A monopolistic construct of the ruling class, designed to further its interests and enforced by its monopolistic courts. In order for the state to maintain its monopoly on coercion, anyone who breaks these rules is declared a criminal, and thus deligitimized in the eyes of the people.

Market: The process of freely trading for a certain commodity (as opposed to state control). The sum total of such trades.

Market Anarchy: A form of social organization where individuals are free to trade for any commodity, including those usually reserved to the state. In short, a form of social organization where individuals are politically free. The Chosen Aggression Principle is a fundamental principle of Market Anarchy.

• Freedom: Capacity to fulfill one's values. To be free means to be able to fulfill one's values to the best of one's abilities, without interference. There are four areas of freedom: personal freedom, relational freedom, social freedom and political freedom.
• Trade: The exchange or sharing of resources.
• The Chosen Aggression Principle (CAP): Every individual has the right to choose the degree of aggression or force (or lack thereof) that he will accept in his life.

Right: According to statist propaganda, a whole category of arbitrary laws and privileges united by a common concept (e.g. "the right to health care", "animal rights") that are owed to a group for no specific reason. In reality, a natural principle of social progress, derived from the value of freedom. A right is possessed by all individuals, and stops when the rights of another are infringed.

• Right of self-ownership: Principle that all individuals should own their own bodies.
• Right of action: Principle that all individuals should be free to act in any way desired.
• Right of property: Principle that all individuals should be free to own things other than their own bodies.
• Progress: The expansion of our capacity to act (that which freedom acts upon).

Social justice: According to statist propaganda, a vast forcible redistribution of resources by the state in order to enforce "equality". In reality, the market is true social justice, where you receive resources and popularity proportionally to the perceived value of your contributions, and give proportionally to how you perceive other people's work. That is the only just social principle.

Society: The sum total of all voluntary interrelations between individuals.

Statism: Utopian belief system having as fundamental principle that the state is the best (or only acceptable) form of social organization. As for most belief systems, it is mostly transmitted through constant propaganda by the ruling class and the exploitative class, as well as the reinforcement provided by peer pressure and ostracism. Its morality is uniformly of the type "might makes right".

• Utopian: A form of social organization which goes against basic facts of human nature. Statism is utopian because its imposition of a singular value system on the whole of society goes against the fact that most human beings have different value systems. This creates the endemic social warfare typical of most democracies.
• Propaganda: A coherent structure of psychological entrapment, having the aim of manipulating people's value systems into serving those who control the structure. In a democratic state, this is achieved by control over money (e.g. through subsidies), education, the media, science and art.
• "Might makes right": The belief that the need for moral justification can be mitigated or eliminated by the use of force. Statism is a "might makes right" belief system because it claims that the sheer power of the state overrides moral concerns regarding the use of force. The state, in this view, transcends morality in a way that private individuals cannot (e.g. a murderer vs a soldier).

State and ruling class: A parasitic organization monopolizing order on a given territory, using the process of legitimized coercion (mainly through the imposition of a singular value system). Provides some services coercively and in a monopolistic fashion (such as police, military, law, courts, roads, currencies, charity, and so on). Statists point to these services as proof of legitimacy, even though these services would be provided far more efficiently and morally without monopoly or coercion. The individuals populating the state are globally known as the ruling class. The state follows the Parasite Principle.

• Monopoly: Exclusive control over the production of a commodity by one organization. Monopolies lead to higher prices, lower service, and lowered incentives for progress. The state is the clearest and most widespread example of a monopoly, on many different and vital commodities.
• Order: The social result of an apparatus by which actions are evaluated and judged. Necessarily implies legitimacy on the part of the apparatus.
• Legitimized: General belief that someone's power or authority is justified. Such a belief can be manufactured by propaganda. Legitimacy explains why a serial killer is jailed, while a soldier who kills "the enemy" is rewarded.
• Coercion: Using force against, or threatening the use of force against, an individual to make him act against his will or agreement.
• Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment from a host without benefiting or killing the host.
• The Parasite Principle: "In all state actions, there are winners- the ruling class and the exploitative class- and losers- us."

Value system: Hierarchy of values that all moral agents possess, and is demonstrated by their choices. Most people's value systems differ, making the imposition of a singular value system by the state a source of constant social warfare. This is an individualistic concept. One's value system is molded by one's virtues or vices.

• Value: A class of things that one seeks to gain or keep. In a rational value system, a value is necessary for the expression of all others, forming a self-sustaining system. For example, the value of freedom- freedom is necessary for the expression of all other values.
• Individualism: The basic moral premise that only individuals can act, benefit and suffer. The opposite of collectivism, which holds that abstract groups or transcendent entities can act, benefit or suffer, necessitating an abstract structure (such as the state) to support these groups or entities.
• Virtue: A mental habit conductive to moral behavior. The opposite of vice. Example: the virtue of non-coercion.

War: Murder on a large scale committed in the name of the state or against it. The murderers who participate in it are called "soldiers".

Racing Time

How do people do it? How do they manage to invest so much time into work and still maintain relations? Is it because they are better at multitasking? Or am I just looking at the surface?

Thankfully I'm heading on a long awaited break. I've been busting butt these past few months and I find it amusing that I still found time to multitask writing into the entire mixture. I'll be taking one more vacation for the year and then it'll really be crunch time. I’m already investing 70-80 hours of my time per week just for one job. But the time seems to whittle to nothing!

My only friend is heading off to school (finally!) and I'm really pleased with her for that. While that does leave me with nothing - it isn't really horrible. She's furthering herself as am I. It also notably frees extra time for me to work. When she is off focusing on her life - I'll be able to completely devote all efforts to myself.

It's odd; I have my hand dipped into all sorts of projects. But I find myself needing to take a look at what I'm doing - and arrange them in an ordinal manner.

Firstly I need to complete this project for the library I work for. We are near end of the first segment. After that – it is a cake walk. When I work this much I find it unfathomable to meet or socialize with anyone outside of business. I can't invest any more of my actual time. Everything is about developing business at this point.

Secondly I recently mused that we should set an article-relevant blog and mirror site for the actual company so that we could develop leads. I proposed a creation of a forum. Now that they love my idea.. I'm to complete the research as well. >_> Sure; don't make me sweat it or nothing. But I can hardly complain - it means a 'bonus'. The demographic is feasible, its not too much to maintain. It is however; yet another project to throw on me. Luckily this will be relatively easy to accomplish while I'm in the office as it just requires me toggling between windows and developing rapport with the customers and other entities.

In my 'free-time' I'm researching for a potential future demographic. I am planning on opening a business. I know who I'm selling to. But I need to research a bit more into the costs of setting it up. If I can - I'll take the promotion to Buyer/Seller for the library and then use the money I make from that towards this business venture if everything seems sound. Meanwhile I'm developing my own network with the customers I intend on selling to. If all else fails – I at least learned something about my potential =)

I also am starting to 'relearn' Japanese. It isn't so difficult because my stepmother is Japanese. I figure this should be an asset for whoever wants to hire me. If I can get my Japanese above rudimentary then I’ll be perfectly set before I head to school.

When the business venture is over with here I will then be moving to Las Vegas. I'll be pursuing a BSBA and then following up with a MBA/MIS. The reason I choose so is because I have a scholarship applicable there - and they train for the MBA/MIS quite well.

So I’ve learned something today.

I have no life. Yet I’m attempting to make one – hopefully I’ll have time to myself in five years. I project about three years of improbability for actual dating. I project about two years for not making any new friends. But I do project a sickening amount of growth for myself. I hope I’ve chosen well.

*Down the Rabbit Hole by somefield@deviantart.com

Much Ado About Me

I’m an LII, "Four-Flag" aspiring PT, influenced by classic individualism. My faith on the human condition is structured by human action and market anarchism.

Every action I take is a step towards self-satisfaction. This requires the removal of the things which dissatisfy me – otherwise I wouldn’t be acting now would I? What pins me down? What keeps me from tranquility?

I’m collecting dust if only for this year. The private library I’m working for keeps me bound with lines of family history. I sometimes struggle against the webbing of networks while peering at the mute red computer backgrounds. Every once in a while the screens will dance with secrets of people whom tread the dead web for life. That’s where we meet and discuss; comfortable behind our two-way mirrors.

When the dust settles from my endeavor it is my goal to leave it behind and strive for attendance at UNLV. If the winds pick up – I would love to attend Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito" - Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI

Until then, if I paced by, you may catch a breeze of guaiac wood warmed with vanilla. You’d realize that bergamot and mandarin had entered the building. My eyes are failing so forgive me, I wouldn’t dare to look; I’d have to glare to see your face so I’d wander without a glance.

I would order more Dry Martinis; however, the bartenders disagree about the ratio of Noilly Prat to Junipero Dry. I prefer a 3rd of an ounce of vermouth balanced with 2 ounces of the light, spicy and subtle delicacy of perfection. I may prefer a rind if I feel a bit zesty. Olives are traditional.

If we traded whispers in the corner, my voice would taste dry and assertive. I may come across as chilled as the ice melted in my drink. If you’re lucky you’ll find I’m far warmer when touched. You may find I’m only quiet for now.

If you are like the rest of the bawdy drinkers, you’ll find me boorish. You may imagine I have an eyebrow raised with an internal sneer.

I’m content either way. I’m listening to "One Evening" by Feist. Maybe if you listen in between the breaths we take, you’ll hear my hesitation.

..The evening was long, my guesses were true
you saw me see you.
That something you said, the timing was right;
the pleasure was mine.

The time and the place, the look on your face
sincerest of eyes.
If you're ready or not, the state of our hearts;
there's no time to take..

What We're Both Looking For

If you’re serious about finding someone special, whether as a friend, comrade or partner, read the entire entry. I’m a conceptual thinker with clearly delineated views. LII’s are the ones who plan organizational structures. We are think-tanks. Everything we do is to establish clarity of thought and perception.

We tend to explore a plethora of ideologies so as to refine our conclusions. What I see as a pervasive or dominant ideal influencing everyone and their sister, others find as having little to do with their every day lives. However; if you’re close to us, you’ll probably have been influenced by our convictions and have already adopted similar perspectives.

"Just because" is not something we'd say. "Cogito ergo sum", "cogito cogito ergo cogito sum", or even the frank "coitus ergo sum" may summarize our thoughts if in a humorous medium. Everything we do or say has a reason; if pressed we'll explain very clearly why we did it.

Analysts reduce things to their most essential aspects and then recreate them bottom up or top - down. This is where our theoretical tendencies can leave us out of reality. "Crackpot" is a proper invective when applied to our notions which are apparently absurd to others. Absurd as it may be, I draw notions from founts of data. We are in tune with the "big picture". Because of this, we readily see how our vision of reality would improve the structure in place. Descartes thought only of us.

We're acutely aware of social convention as far as etiquette goes. However; we have fine tuned the art of stepping on people's toes. It makes sense as to why I prefer isolated environments where formalities don't have to be exchanged. I have a natural inclination to defend my ideas strongly thus alienating others. We cannot help but express ourselves. We’re system-builders. If an idea of ours is criticized – you’ve attacked a part of us that we live by. Thus why we're uncomfortable with making instinctive choices (we’re human – we still make them). One could ask what our favorite color is and most would react with an answer. We actually ponder the question if momentarily to draw a conclusion. (My personal favorites are sable, charcoal, and crimson. The reasons are too numerous to list. I also derive pleasure from shaping my environment in aesthetically pleasing arrangements. Apparently my type is prone to this.)

It makes sense why I have such an Anarchist bent. It seems I was born to rebel. Authority holds no interest for us. Most of us resort to criticizing the authority blatantly – and this is where we are known as ‘rebels’. If criticized for this, our frustration saturates. We ignore rules, concepts and directives that don’t suit us. We are characterized by independence. (Utilizing inferential statistics we comprise no more than 1% of the populace and are thought of as the most independent type). We have an uncompromising need for absolute freedom.

We’re best complimented by types similar to us at least in traits or ideologies. By nature we are demanding and we unfortunately approach all relations in a rational manner. We take life very seriously and are best complimented (contrary to what we like to admit) when others show us a lighter side to reality. This means, you need to be socially awkward, crack horrible laffy-taffy jokes, and maintain a thick skin by laughing at life but not at others. I’ll be attracted immensely if you’re eccentric in appearance and mind. I can’t help but love something that goes against the norm.

If you’re looking for the epitome of a stable, reliable and dedicated partner – look no further. We may be oddballs that laugh at the strangest times, but harmony in relationships and home life is extremely important to us.