Skip to content

Category: Voluntaryism

More News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger: Needed: A New System. (I’m verklempt.)

Ron Paul: The Trump Political Show Trial

Vasko Kohlmayer: Coming Soon: State-Mandated Abuse of Children

James Bovard: The TSA’s New Mask Mandate.

Dave DeCamp: Biden to Continue Seeking Extradition of Julian Assange. (Bush, Obama, Trump, Obiden — they’re all the same.)

Thomas DiLorenzo: The Crime Against Black People Perpetrated by the Public School Teachers Unions, and A Little Superbowl Math

Robert Wenzel: How to Choke the Woke

Brad Polumbo: The Democrats Just Reintroduced a Labor Law that Would Destroy Uber—And It Could Actually Pass This Time.

Lew Rockwell: A Penchant for Controlling Others

Lewis Andrews: The Public School Monopoly is Immoral.

And Dex Bahr: Tom Brady Is the Left’s Worst Nightmare.

News and Commentary via Totalitarian USSA

Peter Quinones: So, Tell Me, ‘Do You Hate the State?’

Becky Akers: The USSA Captures More Political Prisoners

Martin Armstrong: There are Many Reports from Around the World of People Becoming Seriously Ill After the Covid Vaccine.

Robert Wenzel: Why Big Pharma Beneficiaries are Behind the Transgender Movement

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: Eagle Scout Sues Merck, Alleges Gardasil HPV Vaccine Destroyed His Life.

Brett Wilkins: Rights Advocates Alarmed by US Spy Agency’s Purchase of Warrantless Phone Location Data.

Vasko Kohlmayer: When Thieves Seek a Lock on Power: The Democrat Election Fraud Act

Paul Craig Roberts: The Media Destroyed America.

James Bovard: Federal Censorship Protects Leviathan’s Crimes.

Charles Burris: CIA Presstitutes and Regime Stenographers in the Mainstream Media

Big League Politics: MeWe Goes Big Tech Authoritarian, Opts for Political Censorship.

Jeffrey Herbener: Small States, Global Economy: Is Empire Necessary?

And Pete Eyre: Remembering Carl Watner.

Carl Watner Has Died

One prominent member of the libertarian movement was Carl Watner, who died of cancer last week. He was born in 1948.

Murray Rothbard may have been “Mr. Libertarian,” but Carl Watner was “Mr. Voluntaryist,” in my opinion. All things voluntary, and views guided by the non-aggression principle.

Wendy McElroy writes:

It is with deep sorrow that I announce the death of Carl Watner, who was the primary hand in founding the modern Voluntaryist movement in the early 1980s. He worked tirelessly and without complaint, day in and day out for decades, expressing his principles through his prolific writing, his character, and his actions. I will never meet his like again. I was lucky to have known him at all.

Carl died at home on Tuesday after a long and brave fight against cancer. He was surrounded by a loving family, including his remarkable wife Julie, and he was in no pain. I asked. Carl will be cremated and laid to rest in a Baltimore cemetery that his family owned for many years and where he will be joining three generations of the Watner family.

I cannot imagine the world or the movement without Carl. He was an irreplaceable friend and colleague. Good journey, Carl.

Carl Watner’s ideas and writing had an influence on me in my own libertarian thinking, such as in my views on the immigration issue.

Carl Watner started the Voluntaryist Newsletter with Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith in 1982. Here is the Voluntaryist website, and here is the Table of Contents for the Voluntaryist Newsletter. He wrote an essay in 2014 on what Voluntaryism means to him.

And here are some of my favorite articles by Carl that I have posted links to here on this blog. I’m sure you will find them as enlightening and interesting as I did.

Every State a Police State.

Am I An American Citizen and What Might It Mean?

Voluntaryist Resistance

Poisoning the Public Mind: Why Real Dissent Must Be Silenced

Life, Liberty, and Quackery From A Voluntaryist Perspective

Why I Oppose Government Enumeration

Without Firing A Single Shot: Voluntaryist Resistance and Societal Defense

“The Illusion Is Liberty – The Reality Is Leviathan”: A Voluntaryist Perspective on the Bill of Rights

Non-Voting

Is Voting an Act of Violence?

Ropes of Sand: Voluntaryism and Secessionism

The Tragedy of Political Government

Besides his articles at the Voluntaryist Newsletter, here are some of his other articles and papers at the Mises Institute, and Reason magazine. And voluntaryist books are available at the Voluntaryist website, including his own book on Homeschooling (also available at Amazon).

RIP, Carl.

On the Right of the People to Nullify Federal Diktats

It looks like we will have a turn to the left with more socialism if Joe Biden gets in power, which means President Kamala Harris, and probably AOC as the Speech and Thought Commissar who will distribute a long list of those the administration has determined to be “racists,” etc, i.e. anyone who disagrees with the Regime.

So this will be a time in which those who believe in the freedom and principles of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights will have to seriously consider, if not full secession and genuine independence then nullification of the further federal edicts that Biden or Harris will attempt to shove down our throats. (And this isn’t just because of the illegitimacy of their presidency given that they imposed a coup via a massive organized racketeering operation of fraud and vote tampering and fabricating.)

To get a good idea on the right and importance of nullification, I recommend Tom Woods’s book from 2010, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Here it is at the Mises Institute store, and Amazon.

I have quoted before from this blog post by Tom Woods and will again, in his explanation of the relationship between the states and the federal government:

If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.

In Woods’s Liberty Classroom page on nullification, he writes:

1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.  The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.  James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.

There is further information on that Nullification resource page. And Woods answers some of the objections to Nullification, such as the claims that it violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, that it doesn’t appear in the Constitution, that the Supreme Court ruled against the idea, that it was used by the southern states to defend slavery, and other objections.

So of course people have the right to live their lives however they want, as long as they are peaceful. Given that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable right of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then of course the people of the states have a right to nullify federal diktats.

For example, healthcare. As I wrote in my June of 2011 article on disobeying dictators,

Now, by “disobeying dictators,” I am not advocating violence, but only that people live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not intrude on anyone else’s equal right to do the same with their lives. So there comes a time when civil disobedience is in order. By civil disobedience, I mean acting in defiance of government-imposed rules and dictates that have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property. This includes individual- or state-nullification of federal orders. I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle and oppose the use of aggression as an initiated means toward an end.

Like in the old Soviet Union, Obama’s government-controlled medical scheme will not only be harmful medically, but the increasing police state we are experiencing will be used to enforce the controls, and also will be used against individuals who show dissent from the government’s authoritarian dictates.

We The People don’t need all that, and we don’t want it. We want freedom and peace. (At least I do.)

Now, what would happen if doctor’s offices, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, drug and supplement makers, and insurers just decided to do their business with their consumers – honestly and peacefully, and without aggression or fraud – and totally ignore federal regulations, mandates, fees, licensure laws and other intrusions? Frankly, those intrusions’ only real purpose is to protect established physicians and businesses’ profits from prospective competitors and start-ups. (The medical establishment was already corrupt well before ObamaCare.)

The contracts involved in the relationships between doctors or other medical providers and patients, or between insurers and patients, are private contracts, and third parties such as government bureaucrats sticking their big noses into those private contracts are committing acts of criminality, of trespassing, in my opinion.

Acts of nullification are necessary for Americans to be better served in their medical needs. With freedom, the consumers would determine what is needed, not the government, and the producers would serve the consumers – quality of medical care would then rise and the prices would fall.

So I definitely recommend Tom Woods’s book on nullification, which people should send to their state legislators and even their U.S. congressmen and senators.

On the Amazon page it quotes “from the inside flap”:

Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington…but we can stop them.

Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs–it’s called Nullification.

In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works–and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:

* How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny–and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
* Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
* Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
* Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
* PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied

Nullification is not just a book–it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.

We already have a lot of federal bureaucracies and agencies which shouldn’t exist and should be abolished along with all of their regulations and fees and fines. None of them is authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and if they exist, then the people have a right to nullify them. Of course, it is helpful if such nullification is made official in state laws by the state legislatures.

Can You Take the Anti-Lockdown/Mask Protests to the Governor’s Home?

Besides the recent mask and lockdown protests outside the homes of the governors of Utah, Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky and Texas, among others I’m sure, there has been debate over whether such protests outside someone’s home is appropriate.

As long as protests are peaceful, of course they can do that.

And the latest protests took place in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state (a motto that has been hanging by a thread, quite frankly), outside Gov. Sununu’s home as well as that of the state’s attorney general.

The writer on the “Free Keene” blog writes:

Many had been pushed over their limit by his recent statewide mask mandate, but it wasn’t just about him trying to tell people what to wear, it was also about ruining businesses and destroying jobs and lives with his “emergency orders”.

Sununu’s edicts have invaded our homes and businesses, so now we’re invading his.

It was a great day for us, but probably not for Sununu as he hid inside his home like the cowardly, sniveling politician he is.

And then on Thanksgiving day the protesters were outside the home of NH attorney general Gordon MacDonald.

the protest at MacDonald’s house was organized in secret. As a result, police were not waiting on-site as they were at Sununu’s. However, it didn’t take long for the cops to be called by MacDonald’s attorney wife, Jennifer A Eber.

Eber was not happy, demanding we be removed from “her property”. The attorney couple owns three large wooded lots across the street from their home, so Eber mistakenly believed that would protect them from such a protest. However, she didn’t realize the very same state gang that puts food on her table also has rules for “public ways” that allow us to engage in protests just like this. Apparently she doesn’t like it when people bring the destructive consequences of her husband’s actions home for her to experience.

As long as her husband keeps ruining peaceful people’s lives, and invading their businesses and homes with his bureaucracy, threats, and fines, she can expect we’ll continue to remind her about it.

There weren’t nearly as many protesters outside the attorney general’s home as there were at the governor’s home protest. The protesters are not wearing masks, because, being humans, they need oxygen. I like the fact that the first police officer is not wearing a mask, and the second officer was wearing a mask but taking it off when the first officer goes up to talk to him. Although I laughed when seeing the attorney general’s wife wearing a mask when going outside.

One of the protesters points out to the Mrs. that her husband is enforcing the governor’s unlawful orders against peaceful people, and the protester lectures her on how those bureaucrats are threatening peaceful people in their homes and businesses. At about 7 minutes into this second video a protester is discussing with the police officers the illegitimacy of the governor’s orders. The officers seem genuinely interested in what he’s saying. We need more of this.

The protesters sang some corny carols toward the end, given the holiday spirit we are all in now.

More News and Commentary on Soviet-Style Demokracy in Amerika

Wendy McElroy: Election 2020: Choking on the Political Red and Blue Pills.

Bradley Thomas: Why Elections Do Not Represent the ‘Will of the People’

Ethan Yang: Reflecting on Communism After 103 Years.

Carl Watner: Every State a Police State.

Jonathan Turley: “Shredding The Fabric Of Our Democracy”: Biden Aide Signals Push For Greater Censorship On The Internet.

Cory Morningstar: Face Masks: A Danger to Our Planet, Our Children & Ourselves.

Bill Sardi: If Covid-19 Isn’t Killing Americans, What Is? The Anxiety/Isolation/Vitamin Deprivation Syndrome

Jon Rappoport: Dispatches from the War: Vote Fraud, Lawyers, Covid Vaccine, Biden Plan, Police Powers, the Constitution

Caitlin Johnstone: Biden Will Have The Most Diverse, Intersectional Cabinet Of Mass Murderers Ever Assembled.

David Swanson: In 1940, the United States Decided To Rule the World.

Charles Burris: ‘The Hammer’ And ‘Scorecard’: Weapons Of Mass (Vote) Manipulation?

Daily Caller: Fox News Neil Covuto Cuts Away from McEnany Charging Democrats of Vote Fraud. (Faux News, the new CNN…What does Covuto think he is, Facebook?)

Big League Politics: James O’Keefe Releases Video Exposing Ballot Destruction in Pennsylvania, Immediately Gets Censored by Twitter.

Drew Holden: List of People Calling for Truth and Reconciliation Commission against Trump Supporters and Enablers.

Jacob Hornberger: What’s Wrong with Trump’s Investigating Election Fraud?

Zero Hedge: In 30 States, A Computer System Known To Be Defective Is Tallying Votes., and “It Defies Logic”: Scientist Finds Telltale Signs Of Election Fraud After Analyzing Mail-In Ballot Data.

Breitbart: DOJ Official Linked to IRS Investigations of Conservative Groups Resigns When Ordered by Barr to Investigate 2020 Vote Fraud.

Gateway Pundit: System ‘Glitch’ Also Uncovered In Wisconsin – Reversal of Swapped Votes Removes Lead from Joe Biden.

Michael Rozeff: Election Fraud Evidence Piles Up

Moon of Alabama: Why Are These Anti-Russian And Anti-Chinese Narratives So Similar?

W. James Antle III: With Trump Gone, What Happens to Efforts to End Endless War on the Right? 

And Philip Nelson: E. Howard Hunt’s Presence in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963 — and the Veracity of His Confessions Forty+ Years Later

Against Judge Amy Coney Barrett

In her testimony to be confirmed the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she doesn’t have an “agenda,” and will judge cases based on the “law.”

Well, there are thousands and thousands of “laws” on the books that are unjust or bad laws, and they shouldn’t exist. I want judges who come to the side of the individual, who come to the side of whoever’s life the enforcement of such bad laws is criminally violating.

And of course that applies to unlawful, unconstitutional executive orders such as orders without due process by fascist governors that businesses must shut down, people must stay inside, people may not gather in groups, or that people must wear useless, ineffective masks that cause oxygen deprivation, anxiety and other psychological issues.

So, regarding terrible, unjust “laws” and unconstitutional executive orders issued by fascist governors and mayors, Judge Barrett sided with the other two schnooks in her three-judge panel of the 7th Circus approving Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s unconstitutional lockdown orders and limits on gatherings.

Judge Barrett sides with the government diktats here and opposes liberty, freedom of assembly, and due process. She also seems to go along with the official COVID narrative, a false narrative if there ever was one.

I want Supreme Court “Justices” who side with those who aren’t buying the official COVID narrative that the mainstream media morons have been propagandizing without question, just as we need those who aren’t buying the official 9/11 narrative or any other official narrative. People who understand that government bureaucrats are inherently liars and shouldn’t be believed.

Speaking of useless, ineffective masks, a recent CDC study found that 71% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 had “always” worn the masks, and 14% of the infected wore them “often.” Does Judge Barrett know this? (Probably not. She probably relies on mainstream “news” media for “news” while the real news gets further censored by Fakebook and Twitter. But I digress.

As Chuck Baldwin noted, based on her previous opinions it looks like Judge Barrett will rubber-stamp the COVID police state and forced vaccines, and probably the surveillance state as well, i.e. obediently rubber-stamping the government against our rights and civil liberties. Because gullible Amy is a typical “good citizen” who believes what the government and its bureaucrats tell us, as repeated by the mainstream media morons.

They’re mostly the same, these statists, and their decisions can be predictable. (As I wrote in December of 2018 regarding the swamp creature AG Bill Barr, there will not be any indictments of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, McCabe, etc., at least I am not holding my breath. And it looks like I was right.)

What we really need is to abolish the “Supreme” Court, i.e. Supreme Bureaucrats, because a society dependent on the word of 9 robed apparatchiks as far as whether people may or may not live their lives freely and unmolested by bureaucrats and their armed goons is a society of “sheeple.”

But, if we must have a U.S. “Supreme” Court, we would be better off if they erred on the side of the individual, and on the side of one’s rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and on the side of one’s justly owned property.

Instead, we have apparatchiks who err on the side of the State, and who don’t want to “second guess” the wise judgment of the police, as well as the CIA, NSA and all those other agencies that are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to begin with.

For example, if a case is a lawsuit by an individual against the CIA for violating the rights of the individual, I want the “Supreme” Court Justice to rule that the CIA was not even authorized by the Constitution in the first place, and that it be abolished. Throw the case out! (Of course, the obedient sheeple who are indoctrinated to believe that the “national security” bureaucrats in Washington have the interests of the people at heart would go nuts if their beloved CIA or NSA were let go.)

And also, in many cases it shouldn’t matter what the details of the case are. For instance, if there is a dispute between an individual and the IRS, it doesn’t matter what specific bureaucratic laws have been disobeyed by the individual serf, or the details of the case. The Justice should recognize the criminality of an agency demanding someone’s funds or earnings in the absence of a voluntary contract, or demanding one’s private, personal information such as one’s employment or compensation matters that are none of the government’s business. If the U.S. Constitution needs to be cited, then it doesn’t even matter if the dubious 16th Amendment authorizes an income theft and an IRS. The unconstitutionality of the IRS racket and its bureaucrats can be cited by the “Justice” by bringing up the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the Ninth Amendment as well.

And the “War on Drugs” needs to be “overturned” as well. The “Supreme” Court upheld the government police breaking into someone’s home, terrorizing the people there and arresting and abducting them, because the police smelled marijuana and/or heard the toilet flushing. An 8-1 decision with the “liberals” (except Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joining the majority of the authoritarian neanderthals. They’re useless.

All laws and government bureaucracies intruding into the people’s private decisions regarding what they ingest are unjust laws. Who owns your body? If you own your body then you decide and control what you may or may not, or will or will not, put into your own body. Prohibition laws violate your right of self-ownership. This also applies to forced vaccine mandates as well.

But if the government owns “your” body, then of course the government decides for you and controls what you may or may not put into “your” body as well as the government may inflict whatever “medicines” including vaccines (or whatever poisons it chooses to call “medicine”) into you, involuntarily.

What kind of “Supreme” Court Justice would approve of such a society, such a life of serfdom to live? That’s not the kind of “Justice” I would want on a “Supreme” Court.

Replace Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee, who says she “has no agenda,” with someone who does have an agenda, one that protects the individual from the criminal intrusions of the rulers, bureaucrats and armed police.

Always Distrust the Lying Thugs of Government, And More News and Commentary

Richard Enos: How I Obtained A Conscientious Exemption From Mask-Wearing At School For My Child.

Politico: CDC Backtracks on Warning That Coronavirus Is Airborne.

Jonathan Cook: The Guardian‘s Deceit-Riddled New Statement Betrays Both Julian Assange and Journalism.

Jacob Sullum: The Legal Response to Breonna Taylor’s Death Shows How Drug Prohibition Transforms Murder Into Self-Defense

Lew Rockwell: Self-Defense and ‘Taking the Law into Your Own Hands.’

Jeffrey Miron: Breonna Taylor Is Another Victim of the War on Drugs.

Bradley Thomas: What “Experts” Miss About Economic Inequality.

Jacob Hornberger: What is a “Libertarian-Conservative”? Part 2

David Swanson: WWII Was Not Fought To Save Anyone From Death Camps.

Mark Episkopos: Meet the Russian Oligarch Who Helped Drive Russiagate

And Eric Spitznagel: Why Silicon Valley CEOs Are Such Raging Psychopaths.

News and Commentary

Becky Akers: Given That Marxists Murdered Hundreds of Millions, Why Is Humanity Marxist?

Caitlin Johnstone: From Ego To Empire, All Our Problems Stem From The Impulse To Control.

Jonathan Turley: Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action.

Karen Selick: Here’s Why I Wouldn’t Take the Vaccine

Lawrence McQuillan: Immigration, Migration, and the Naiveté of Nativism.

Mandy Smithberger: Trump Was Right to Call Out Defense Industry Influence on the Pentagon.

Moon of Alabama: Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism’s Daily Bread.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Meaning of an Oath.

Michael Rozeff: Antifa Is An Organization

And Nils Nilsen: 12 Steps to Create Your Own Pandemic.

Earlier Post on Mob Violence, Riots and Decentralization

I posted this in March of 2011 and thought it might have some relevance today in the difficult times we are having in Amerika.

March 1, 2011

Our Choice: More Government Intrusions and Mob Violence, Riots and Looting; or Decentralization and Freedom.

I don’t know how much more I can stand all this doom and gloom regarding the future, and the economic outlook. Americans’ foolish continued dependence on the centralized federal Leviathan is what’s going to cause actual economic collapse, rioting and looting, social unrest and violence. The answer as far as preventing all that is staring us right in the face, and that is freedom, particularly just getting rid of the federal government.

The Anti-Federalists were right in that not only does having a centralized bureaucracy not help the society in any way, but inevitably, it can and will lead to (and is leading to) totalitarianism. That is what we already have now, but there are too many people, most of whom spend too much time sitting in front of the TV continuing their hypnosis or playing with their little texting/gaming gadgets, who just have this blind faith in the State no matter how bad it is, no matter how criminal it is, regardless of the State’s increasingly severe abuse of the people’s liberty and property. But why must we in the minority, who recognize the true inherently evil destructive behaviors and history of the State, suffer and be abused and enslaved because so many in the majority amongst the population are masochists?

The Economic Collapse Blog had a post on the various incidents recently of “mob robberies” and rioting and looting, as well as brawls in restaurants and retail areas during the holiday season. It doesn’t even appear that these examples have anything to do with the economic recession/depression or unemployment, just that they are examples of the general moral decline and reduced respect for the rights of others in America. In my opinion, that is all thanks to the growth of government, the criminality of the government and how so many people have enriched themselves via the powers of the State, from the big banksters, the defense contractors of the military-industrial-complex, to the professional politicians and bureaucrats (such as Barney Frank, Dick Cheney, etc.) who have never produced anything of actual value to others and who could never actually survive in a world based on totally voluntary contracts and without being parasites of the State.

The Economic Collapse Blog notes that “Frustration and anger are rising from coast to coast and millions of Americans are losing faith in the system.  The thin veneer of civilization which we all take for granted is already starting to disappear.  So what is going to happen when the economy collapses?  As our economic system fails, mob robberies and rampant looting are only going to become more common.”

“Losing faith in the system”? What system? Do you mean faith in a system of freedom, private property and individual liberty? Well, we haven’t had that in America. We have had State control of everything. People have had faith in the government — the State — to do this, that, and the other thing. But because of its compulsory and monopolistic nature, government has done nothing but screw up this, that and the other thing, actually everything it gets its grubby paws on, everything! Especially the federal government. How stupid the Founders were to cave to those who wanted a centralized bureaucracy with actual power!

One of the videos the Economic Collapse Blog included on that post was from the Rodney King riots, nearly 20 years ago. And that wasn’t really even to do with economic troubles, only racial troubles, in which the racist white police department got away with beating a black man. That in and of itself is disgusting, but nothing justifies going and destroying other people’s property, robbing people and looting stores and injuring and murdering people.

Of course, if neighborhood policing were not an activity monopolized by the State, and there were competing policing firms all held accountable under the Rule of Law, then none of that kind of crap would happen, and security agents would not get away with beating presumably innocent people. Only under a system of monopoly can that happen, because monopoly is inherently corrupting.

Now, regarding the economic collapse that the doom-and-gloomers are predicting, the Activist Post blog has this post on how the economic collapse is deliberately designed and is so designed in order to “reduce the population.” I think that’s a bit much, and that the current economic recession/depression is not designed by any one individual, group or organization, but, like the Great Depression, it is occurring through various situations including mostly the incompetence and the “fatal conceit” of government officials. Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke are control freaks, and they have been given huge compulsory powers as agents of a State-run bureaucracy, the Federal Reserve. But as with the usual results of other compulsory State bureaucracies, everything they do results in the opposite of what they intend. They and their fellow statist nincompoops in Washington live in a total fantasy world. “They’re out there,” as Jerry Williams used to say.

The real answer, and how to prevent further economic collapse and to reverse what is happening, is freedom. Even just decentralizing America by abolishing the federal government completely, abolishing all its monopolies especially in territorial protection and the production and issuance of currency, will free up the country a great deal. If each state had its individual independence and sovereignty as is the inherent right of any people within any given territory (the right to not be compelled to be dependent on any centralized federal bureaucracy), then, if the people of any given state did not like the intrusions of their own individual state government, then they can abolish the state government as well, and let each city and town have its own independence and sovereignty as well.

The more decentralized a territory, the more free and independent the people are.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe addressed these ideas in his great book, Democracy: The God That Failed. Prof. Hoppe noted in that book that, given the choice (not that we have the choice right now), a society with many smaller states is preferable — and certainly freer and more prosperous — than a society of one centralized State, i.e. the federal authoritarian government dictatorship that we have now. Prof. Hoppe made this point in this interview.

It is said, for example by the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels, that economic prosperity has increased dramatically with increased political unification. In reality, however, political integration (centralisation) and economic (market) integration are two completely different phenomena. Political integration involves the territorial expansion of a state’s powers of taxation and property regulation. Economic integration is the extension of the interpersonal and interregional division of labour and market participation. In general, the smaller a country and its internal markets the more likely it is that it will opt for free trade.

I think that a world consisting of tens of thousands of distinct countries, regions and cantons, and hundreds of thousands of independent free cities such as the present-day “oddities” of Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Singapore, would be a world of unprecedented prosperity, economic growth, and cultural advancement.

One of the economically most prosperous nations however is the United States, which is a big country.

Yes, in fact there is no direct relationship between territorial size and economic prosperity. Switzerland and Albania are both small countries, while the U.S. and the former Soviet Union are large. However, there is a highly important indirect relationship. Smallness contributes to moderation. In principle, all governments are counterproductive in taxing and regulating private property owners and market income earners. A small government, however, has many close neighbours. If it taxes and regulates its own subjects visibly more than its neighbours it is bound to suffer because people will “vote with their feet”: they will leave to live and work elsewhere. And they need not go far to do so….

It is assumed that larger political units – and ultimately a single world government – imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. However, this is untrue. The larger the territories the lower a government’s incentive to continue its domestic liberalism will be because people will lose the possibility of voting with their feet. Throughout the entire period of European and, indeed, global unification we have witnessed a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation and regulatory expropriation. In the light of social and economic theory and history a very strong case can be made for secession…

Here is a link to the introduction to Hans Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed.

In a decentralized U.S. sans federal government, if some people of a particular state don’t like the intrusions and rules of that state, they can vote with their feet, certainly much more easily than Americans can do presently if we don’t like the way our federal totalitarian regime is ruining our whole country. For most people, it is difficult or impossible to vote with our feet and leave America.

But why should anyone have to leave America because they don’t like State violence and trespassing into their private lives and property, and because they don’t like their labor being enslaved by parasitic, professional politicians and their flunkies who don’t want to make their own way in life? Why should anyone have to leave America because the federal government is destroying the country?

And why must we endure the abuse and tyranny that the federal government has been causing us, either directly by its intrusive and invasive policies, or by the increasing violence that its policies have wrought in America? That shouldn’t be the case, so, let’s get rid of the federal government before its intrusions kill us all.