'The late Robert LeFevre made one such effort to transcend the popular meaning of the word ["anarchy"] when he declared that "an anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." But an even better understanding of the concept can be derived from the Greek origins of the word (anarkhos) which meant "without a ruler." It is this definition of the word that members of the political power structure (i.e., your "rulers") do not want you to consider. I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives. Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver's license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.'

'#Daily Bell: You have made distinctions between capitalism and free markets in the past. What are they? #Wendy McElroy: Laissez-faire capitalism is a specific economic arrangement. I think it is the arrangement that best reflects individualism and promotes a general prosperity. But I am not overly evangelical about it because, first and foremost, I advocate freedom. I want peaceful people to be able to choose an economic system and economic arrangements for themselves. If my neighbors wish to set up a voluntary commune that operates along communist economic principles, it is their right and I do not intend to become an Austrian version of a Jehovah's Witness who knocks on their door to ask, "Have you let Mises into your heart?" The ability of everyone to peacefully choose their economic path for themselves is my overwhelming priority; this is the free market at work. My secondary priority is to explain to those who are interested why I consider my choice of a specific economic arrangement – that is, laissez-faire capitalism – to be superior.' -- "Have you let Mises into your heart?" :)

'In this lesson we introduce the concept of Catallactic Competition and explore where is comes from and how it is creates prosperity in a free market.' -- "The better [people] satisfy other people, the more means they acquire to achieve their own ends."

"People steal because their childhood was stolen from them."

'More and more people are starting to sense that they don’t need a different government; rather, they don’t need a government at all. They see that the institution is just a scam for the benefit of some people: those who are in it, their friends, and those who act as parasites by using the state to live off others. I think we’re on the cusp of seeing new forms of social organization arise. That’s what Stephenson postulated, and I think he’s right. In the not-too-distant future, we’ll see more and more people grouping themselves in phyles. They’ll stop identifying themselves as Americans, or Russians, or Chinese – unless that accident of birth is really important to them. Racism and nationalism are the hallmarks of an unevolved, or even degraded, person. I have neither time nor patience for either of them. I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: I have less affinity with my neighbors in Aspen than I do with friends in the Congo – even though we’re of a different race, religion, culture, and mother language. Why is that? Because those things are unimportant to me. What’s important to me is character, and the values one holds dear. So, sure, I think the advent of phyles is a very good thing. There would be phyles of all types, including those that value strict control, regimentation, and limitations. Groups like monks and nuns are proto-phyles, as are the Mennonites. A phyle can form around anything that’s most important to any group of people– and that could include everything from business, to hobbies, to religion, to culture, to philosophy. There are endless possibilities.' -- Be like the internet

'In this episode I talk about the concepts of Exchange, Division of Labor and The Law of Association!'

"Once you've really gone against social convention you realize how almost all rules are enforced through social convention and how powerful that is. And people who say anarchism doesn't work are people who I know have only swum with the current their whole life."

But who will re-regulate the roads?!?!?!

Ayn Rand usedthe word “axiom” in this way: An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. In this sense, Rand’s “axioms” resemble Misesian/Kantian “apriori” concepts the denial of which leads to self-contradiction. For this reason alone, it’s better to refer to the non-aggression principle instead of the non-aggression axiom. -- Confusion has arisen, I believe, because of failure to treat separately self-ownership and ownership of external objects. Property in one’s body is based on the fact that each person has the best link to his body, because of his direct control over his body. Property in external objects is based on Lockean homesteading, where first use, or original appropriation (“embordering,” as Hoppe refers to it), serves as the link between agent and resource.'

'#Trust as Currency: Consider this example: Condie, who has no rep good or bad, posts a $1,050 escrow bond. The bondsman mints $1,000 worth of “trust Condie” coins and exchanges them for Condie's money. Condie then offers to paint your house for $100. You agree on terms and chop a contract. She gives you a $100 “Trust Condie” coin to back up her commitment of “satisfaction guaranteed for 30 days or your money back”. If Condie does good work you pay her. A month later you return her coin. If she spills paint on your driveway you redeem the coin from the bondsman with a copy of the contract and a photo. The coin is your proof that Condie is bonded and has not overextended her bond. Likewise she can redeem them all herself at any time for her deposit less fee. This works because the currency is specific to the trustee. It's not the same as Condie giving you a $100 coin of more broadly negotiable currency. You can only redeem it from the bondsman and only with evidence of misconduct.''

'...it is not possible to insure oneself against every conceivable "risk." Rather, it is only possible to insure oneself against "accidents," i.e., risks over whose outcome the insured has no control and to which he contributes nothing. ...the un-insurability of individual actions and sentiments (in contradistinction to accidents) implies that it is also impossible to insure oneself against the risk of damages resulting from one’s own prior aggression or provocation. Further, due to the same reasons and financial concerns, insurers will tend to require that their clients abstain from all forms of vigilante justice (except perhaps under quite extraordinary circumstances), for vigilante justice, even if justified, invariably causes uncertainty and provokes possible third party intervention. -- Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk.'

'This is the first draft of the specific protocols for justice in cyberspace including arbitration proceedings. Law in the absence of centralized force has worked quite well, depending upon ostracism, reputation, and outlawry as its primary enforcement mechanisms. It was generally replaced by state law, not by popular demand, but by force of arms. Our justice rests upon our commitment to these common principles. Strong commitment to our principles will give us justice that is as complete as possible; partial commitment will yield inferior justice. The protocols are voluntary. They form a reference point for commercial activity. Entities may describe their expectations in economic interactions by stating "we follow the Common Economic Protocols explicitly", or "we follow all of the Common Economic Protocols except...", or "we follow all the Common Economic Protocols, plus...". -- 3.0 Maxims of Law: #Where there is the same reason, there is the same law.'

'How our childhood experiences have an enormous impact on our openness to anarchic thought.'

'So there are no police, only private security guards. There are no “laws” per-say, but most people deal with trade disputes through private “loser pays” arbitration courts. So contracts between organizations and people define what the “law” is. Private insurance companies basically deal with private property protection in the future, just as they do today. So most people subscribe to an insurance contract which indirectly funds their local security and fire\emergency protection services. Engaging in a crime voids your insurance protections, which typically doesn’t end well for the criminal. Since victims don’t like paying to put their assailants behind bars, the prison industry evaporated. This left justice to be dealt with at the individual and neighborhood level. It is important to note that reputation plays a massive role in your future society. People don’t rob or harm others because a bad reputation can force you into total poverty.'

'#Ostracism of Persons: 55. Social boycott; 56. Selective social boycott [Positive social preferencing of voluntaryists]; 57. Lysistratic nonaction [The withholding of sexual relations]; 58. Excommunication [Negative social preferencing of statists/government workers]; 59. Interdict #Withdrawal from the Social System: 65. Stay-at-home; 66. Total personal noncooperation; 67. "Flight" of workers; 68. Sanctuary; 69. Collective disappearance; 70. Protest emigration #Action by Holders of Financial Resources: 86. Withdrawal of bank deposits; 87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments; 88. Refusal to pay debts or interest; 89. Severance of funds and credit; 90. Revenue refusal; 91. Refusal of a government's money #Political Intervention: 193. Overloading of administrative systems; 194. Disclosing identities of secret agents; 195. Seeking imprisonment; 196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws; 197. Work-on without collaboration; 198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government'

'Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" was set some years after encrypted currencies removed most economic transactions into darknets beyond the government's capability of monitoring and regulating, and thus caused tax bases around the world to implode. This was followed, in short order, by the collapse of most nation-states. In the ensuing Interregnum, the defunct nation-states were replaced by city-states and by networked global civil societies called "phyles." The major phyles leased enclaves in most major city-states around the world, much as the Venetian merchant guilds leased "Venetian quarters" in the major port cities of the Mediterranean. Membership in the phyles was voluntary, and the provision of the kinds of public services and social safety nets formerly associated with states was generally tied to voluntary membership subscriptions of some sort. -- If Bitcoin isn't the Messiah of the darknet economy, at the very least it's John the Baptist preaching its immanent arrival.'

'A tour through historical and contemporary economic issues through the lens of rational philosophy.' -- "There are two ways that societies or individuals change: They have an intellectual or moral or philosophical enlightenment where they rise above the everyday moments of their disasters and look at the big picture. The other is that they simply hit a wall..."

'Another variant is geoanarchism, in which people would live in contractual communities whose public goods are financed from land rent. The members would share the belief that the land rent should be collected and distributed to all members equally or else used for public goods. Members could secede, but would lose the package, so secession would be limited. Folks would therefore have the advantages of a state, but without the tyranny. The greater association could include “anarcho-capitalist” communities that do not use land rent for their public finance. Economic theory indicates that the geoanarchist communities would have greater prosperity, since communities that do not use land rent for public goods would find that their public works get capitalized into higher rents, making the residents pay double for public goods, once as fees and then again as higher rent. Most folks would rather pay once than twice, so they would move out of anarcho-capitalism into geoanarchism.'

'We will not have an equitable nor a healthy economy in an information age, until we have information technology which empowers us equitably -- that is decentralized, peer-to-peer and operates by mutual agreement. We are building those technology tools, protocols and platforms. To fully meet our criteria, people need to be able to transact directly with each other with no segment of that interaction relying on a centrally controlled system. #Non-centralized rules (like the rules for money today) #Non-centralized database (as 99.99% are today) #Non-centralized namespace (like DNS) #Non-centralized address space (like IPv4 or IPv6) #Agreements are made by mutual consent #All levels of participation are sovereign -- Currency: a formal system used to shape, enable or measure currents. "If we measure different flows, we start behaving differently."'

'A private defense agency (PDA) is a conceptualized agency that provides personal protection and military defense services voluntarily through the free market. A PDA is not a private contractor of the state and is not subsidised in any way through taxation or immunities, nor does it rely on conscription and other involuntary methods. Instead, such agencies would be financed primarily through insurance companies, which are penalized for losses and damages, and have an incentive through competition to lower costs and maximize service. This method of social order is advocated by anarcho-capitalism.'

'Too many people are starting to understand the grandiose and meretricious manipulation that has been created in the name of the modern Western economy. The Internet in particular is helping to show people other, less exploitative ways of creating economic progress (via real free markets and honest money). In fact, the current system carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. It destroys too much and leaves behind too much human wreckage. People grow increasingly angry and their anger is directed nowadays not at "bankers" or "tycoons" but at the system itself. This is what the power elite fears above all, but in our view it is too late to stop the increased knowledge of what is going on along with a realization of the correct targets. Eventually, Western economies will begin to stabilize, and when they do a new era may emerge, one based on the Invisible Hand rather than the merciless grip of the Anglosphere.'

'We’re going through a process of horizontalising of everything, of “small pieces loosely joined”, of “high cohesion and loose coupling”. Platforms are now no longer hierarchical, they’re closer to being independent layers, often of different sizes and shapes. Attempts to implement end-to-end control in such environments are doomed to fail; in essence there is no point in attempting to tighten what is designed as loose coupling, it doesn’t work. Which is why platforms leak. The horizontalising nature of the internet and the web, of the digital age, needs to be understood. Layers must be independent of each other. Where they are not, the joins will come apart. And leakage will happen. Of course, given what happened with Wikileaks, given what happened with Egypt, there will always be attempts to recreate vertically integrated control. And more leakage will happen. Because the internet, and the web, route around obstacles. By design.'

"Where are you going to go politically? American-style democracy? Look at gas canisters that are choking you -- 'Made in the USA!' -- look at the bribes of the American government that keep your rulers in power. Don't head that way. Egyptians -- stop choosing your rulers -- make the only choice that matters -- no rulers! 6,000 years ago, Egypt was the birthplace of the state -- wouldn't it be wonderful if, in 2011, it also turned out to be the grave of statism?"

'The madness of Obama's State of the Union speech, Zetigeist: Moving Forward, the sociopathy of political power, the riots in Egypt and the death of statism.' -- "Nobody 'runs' dating."

'The elite-controlled media is working overtime to make sure that people don't get the "wrong" ideas. Plainly regulatory democracy doesn't work; the central-banking economy ... is a horrible mechanism that ruins people's lives. But even as the media and elite proxies blame banks, so they must make sure that new ideas don't creep into the conversation. This can be accomplished by linking ideas to violence – and then repressing them, forcefully if necessary. The problem with this sort of strategy is that it doesn't work very well in the 21st century. The truth-telling of the Internet has taken a tremendous toll on the elite's fear-based promotions. ...free markets increasingly may be viewed as a logical alternative to the failed solutions of a centralized and rigid Western system. Anarcho-capitalism itself may even come to be seen as a reasonable evolution of free-market thinking. Times are changing. It is possible that the elite does not have the answers.'

'#6. Shifting Psychology = Shifting Power: 2011 will bring a psychological shift in individuals and groups. Social media, social networks, and mobile technologies have caused a fundamental change in the core assumptions about how the world works. People are more publicly expressive and vocal. Expectations of having voice don't exist in a vacuum. If you speak, you want to be heard. This will redefine relationships at all levels of society: between business and consumers, governments and people, teachers and students, and social and cultural groups. #11. Creative Problem-Solving: Low technological hurdles, collective information pools, global access and real-time information inspire creative solutions to problems. Empowerment, agency, and technological competence and the belief that individuals can make a difference will fuel a massive flood of Do-It-Yourself solutions to everything from job creation to philanthropy.'

'Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. ...the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another.'

'The psychogenic theory of evolution is based not upon Spencer and Darwin's "survival of the fittest" products of the most ruthless parents but upon the "survival of the most innovative and cooperative" products of the most loving parents. The processes of historical evolution, based upon the very slow growth of love and cooperation, are therefore the exact opposite from those of neo-Darwinian natural selection, based overwhelmingly upon conflict and competition. They include: #1. The production of variations through psychogenesis is by creating through more love different early epigenetic environments – more advanced fetal and early childhood developmental paths – not through random genetic mutations and recombinations i.e., through variations in the structures of neuronal groups achieved during post-genetic development after inception, not through mutations in DNA prior to inception...'

'Some thoughts on philosophical parenting...'

'Choice is quality.'

"You can't get people to make sacrifices based on economic calculations and the argument from effect. But you can get people to make sacrifices for virtue. Human beings are so fundamentally driven by morality that, if you can hook into that power, there's no stopping the movement."

'To run a really successful tyranny, the leaders must have increasing wealth as well as more reliable data. They need wealth to hire the programmers, the data collectors, and the police. Computer costs keep falling, but they fall much faster in the private sector (microcomputers) than the government sector (mainframes). Yes, governments have access to ever-growing quantities of data. But the public has far greater access to low-cost information that it uses to increase the overall complexity of society. The task of monitoring what is going on becomes ever-more utopian. The government is always falling behind... The greater the complexity of society, the less able the State is to monitor it, assess it, and use the data to control it. The police State is doomed. It cannot possibly keep up with the constant innovation of society. It cannot gain access to enough resources to maintain control. It wastes the resources it commandeers. The free market is winning.'

'...the now-sovereign individual will have to meet the dictum of the marketplace: produce or you do not eat; no law will help you. In his public behavior he must be decent or suffer the sentence of social ostracism, with no recourse to legal exoneration. From a law-abiding citizen he will be transmuted into a self-respecting man. If we should quit voting for parties and candidates, we would individually reassume responsibility for our acts and, therefore, responsibility for the common good. There would be no way of dodging the verdict of the marketplace; we would take back only in proportion to our contribution. Any attempt to profit at the expense of a neighbor or the community would be quickly spotted and as quickly squelched, for everybody would recognize a threat to himself in the slightest indulgence of injustice. Since nobody would have the power to enforce monopoly conditions, none would obtain. Order would be maintained by the rules of existence, the natural laws of economics.'

“Right now we have this crazy system where to protect your property, government takes half your property. If there was no government and you proposed it, people would think you’re insane!”

DB: Comment: 'After the crash, a new form of company was created - the "public" company - and one responsibility of the public company was to provide by MANDATE audited financial statements every year. What was the result? A market-driven service to consumers (a voluntary audited statement) was turned into an obligatory presentation. The result was that companies began to spend their time and energy seeking ways to make the statements fairly indecipherable and not representative of the true state of affairs, necessarily. What was once a voluntary good in a competitive marketplace became a kind of complex mess. Companies with sterling audits still went broke unexpectedly and because the audits had become mandatory, their competitive value was voided. Just another example of how mandated "complete disclosure of risk" within a regulatory environment is a chimera, a false hope. You are correct that the disinfectant is sunshine. But sunshine is only available via competition.'

All the standard points well articulated. In comments, the 'anarchists' do a good job at pushing back against the inevitable pro-"government" temper tantrums.

'Legal diversity has substantial costs [that provide] an incentive for arbitration agencies to adopt more uniform law, to be balanced against the incentive for non-uniform law provided by the differing desires of different customers. -- Each agency can threaten to refuse to agree to any arbitrator, subjecting both to the costs of occasional violence, or at least of ad hoc negotiation to avoid violence. Each knows that if no agreement is reached, they are both at risk of losing their customers to other agencies that have been more successful in negotiating agreements. -- Each individual is both a buyer and a seller of legal assent, buying from and selling to every other individual. ...the interaction is essentially one of bilateral monopoly. ...the goods they are selling are not substitutes. Because of this, a conventional analysis of a uniform good sold at a single price by all sellers and to all buyers does not work for this market.'

'If the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies. ...why would we expect such virtuous people, as consumers, to patronize agencies that routinely used force against weak opponents? Why wouldn’t [they] patronize defense agencies that had interlocking arbitration agreements, and submitted their legitimate disputes to reputable arbitrators? -- ...it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be rulers would have to start from scratch. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.'

'In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life—without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you’re off their list. However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system. What happens then?' -- You either rejoin an existing DRO or you start your own.

'Geoism includes a moral philosophy regarding property. Human beings properly own their own bodies and lives. George therefore stated that it is morally wrong to tax wages and the products of labor. He may have been the first to say that such taxation is theft. But self-ownership does not extend to land. Geoists recognize that markets function well when the owners control the use of property, and so geoism includes individual rights to possess land. But it is not necessary for the title holder to keep the rent in order to put his land to best use. The rent is a surplus due to its better location, not to any effort by the title holder. -- Geo[anarchist] communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.'

'The genius of hunter-gatherer societies lies in their abilities to accomplish the tasks that must be accomplished while maximizing each person's experience of free choice, which is essential to the spirit of play. They manage to accomplish that through their extraordinary willingness to share everything, which removes any immediate link between work and the receipt of life's necessities. Even the most industrious and successful hunters and gatherers receive no more of the food brought back to camp on a given day than does anyone else in the band. Why should those who get the most intrinsic rewards from play—because they enjoy it so much, and are so skilled at it, and therefore participate in it the most—also reap the most extrinsic rewards from it? Hunter-gatherers simply trust that, as long as work is play and as long as people are treated well and are truly free to make their own decisions, the great majority of people will quite gladly contribute to the band in the ways they can.'

'2.3. "What's the 'Big Picture'? 2.3.1. Strong crypto is here. It is widely available. 2.3.2. It implies many changes in the way the world works. Private channels between parties who have never met and who never will meet are possible. Totally anonymous, unlinkable, untraceable communications and exchanges are possible. 2.3.3. Transactions can only be *voluntary*, since the parties are untraceable and unknown and can withdraw at any time. This has profound implications for the conventional approach of using the threat of force, directed against parties by governments or by others. In particular, threats of force will fail. 2.3.4. What emerges from this is unclear, but I think it will be a form of anarcho-capitalist market system I call "crypto anarchy."' 2.5.3. "Who needs crypto? What have they got to hide?" + honest people need crypto because there are dishonest people - people encrypt for the same reason they close and lock their doors'

Gisted 2/2 -- It is the truth-telling slave who extends the universalization of ethics to the masters – and thus exposing them as morally evil – who is the greatest threat to every other slave because of their past horror and humiliation of having been enslaved to evil through their desire to be good, of having that which is the best of you turned into service of that which is the worst in humanity: lust for power, domination, theft, murder, war, debt. They react with the hair-trigger psychological defenses called slave-extending-morality-to-masters-will-get-us-all-killed! People can't easily process the universalization of morality, so all they can do is get mad at it. They have to create exceptions to universal morality because that's what we've all been programmed to do throughout the violence of history. So how do we change this? We have to reveal the negative consequences for immoral actions. We have to replace statism with voluntaryism. WE have to replace violence with ostracism.

'#Ethics of the Free Market: The ethical touchstone of free market thinking is consent. Activities universally treated as crimes, such as robbery, burglary, embezzlement, assault, battery, rape and murder, are unethical because they are done without the consent of the target. Free market thinkers generally regard fraud as unethical because it operates by subverting the target's ability to consent. From the free-market point of view, it is the lack of consent, not the fact that such activities are prohibited by government, that renders them unethical. Conversely, any transaction based on consent is presumably legitimate, even if governments have declared it illegal. Carried to its logical extreme, the ethical dimension of free market thinking leaves little room for modern government. If ethical transactions require the consent of the parties, no transaction that requires the coercive force of government can be ethical.'

'#Ethics of the Free Market: The ethical touchstone of free market thinking is consent. Activities universally treated as crimes, such as robbery, burglary, embezzlement, assault, battery, rape and murder, are unethical because they are done without the consent of the target. Free market thinkers generally regard fraud as unethical because it operates by subverting the target's ability to consent. From the free-market point of view, it is the lack of consent, not the fact that such activities are prohibited by government, that renders them unethical. Conversely, any transaction based on consent is presumably legitimate, even if governments have declared it illegal. Carried to its logical extreme, the ethical dimension of free market thinking leaves little room for modern government. If ethical transactions require the consent of the parties, no transaction that requires the coercive force of government can be ethical.'

#Fraud lies hid in general expressions. #It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. #Once a fraud, always a fraud. #What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust. #He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived. #Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived. #The propriety of words is the safety of property.

'A short example of how to use a universal theory of ethics to prove the validity of property rights.' -- “It is impossible to argue against property without using property.”

'The majority of those interviewed stated . . . that nobody has any natural or general responsibility or obligation to help other people. . . . Most of those interviewed said that it is nice if people help others, but that nobody has to. Taking care of other people in need is an individual’s choice. If you want to do it, good. If not, that’s up to you... ' -- Underneath the abused nihilism – voluntaryism! There IS hope for the future.

"Once you get that self-bullying doesn't work, you know that violence doesn't work, you know that to your very core." -- Stefan Molyneux

'...this public versus private purpose is a ruse. Virtually every benefit to be obtained by way of forking out our wealth is a private benefit, something that serves the interest of some human individual in a society – maybe many of them, sometimes many of them all at once, but all are private individuals and that includes Marx and Galbraith and all their pals who are so eager to confiscate everyone else's resources for purposes they deem to be important. If they think these are important purposes, they ought to get up a collection and convince their fellows to part with what is needed to obtain them. But it is so much simpler to send out the police to collect these funds rather than to raise them by means of convincing us of the worth of these projects. When this isn't accepted much by the citizenry, the statists are deeply miffed.' -- Now listen, Statie. Mommy and Daddy really don't need to take care of you now that you're all grown up, OK? *wipes the tears from Statie's eyes* :,-(

'A philosophical examination of our ambivalence towards spontaneous order, political compulsion and the liberty of the everyday... We must recognize the basic paradox: We love the anarchy we live. We fear the anarchy we imagine – the anarchy we are taught to fear.' -- The entire book is available for free at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/EverydayAnarchy.aspx

"I know who I am and you know who you are."

"When we're comfortable with something – morally – we call it by its proper name." -- "You cannot frighten people out of their fantasies because they're only in those fantasies because they're frightened already – they are frightened of the society they live in so they create all these words to pretend that its not what it is."

'...no one is made a morally better individual by way of being beaten or threatened to be beaten to do what is morally right. How could they, since moral goodness, if it amounts to anything intelligible at all, must involve the agent's free choice. ...nearly everything in human life can be made to appear utterly complicated so that people can be intimidated into thinking they have no way to tell right from wrong about it. To be civilized is to deploy not coercive force in how one acts toward others but rational persuasion, often indeed patient and prolonged rational persuasion. Some will say, "Well all this preference of coercion is simply the natural hunger for power in human nature," but that surely can't be right since millions have no such hunger at all, quite the contrary. What millions and millions have yearned for and are yearning for is peaceful, civilized interaction with others but with a fraction – albeit influential faction – choosing the shortcut of coercive force.'

'eBay expects sellers to consistently provide service that results in a high level of buyer satisfaction....if you don't meet buyers' expectations, it can lead to: #A bad experience for you and the buyer #Low detailed seller ratings (DSRs) #Negative or neutral Feedback from buyers #A buyer opening a case in the Resolution Center to fix problems -- If you don't meet the minimum performance standards, your search placement will be lowered and there may be limits to your selling activity until your ratings improve. You may also be restricted from selling items on eBay if your performance falls significantly below the minimum requirements. If your account doesn't meet the standards, you: #Need to resolve all issues on the account before buying or selling with other accounts #Can't register for a new account #Can't use an existing eBay account to avoid buying and selling limits or other policy consequences'

'...the nation-states of the world are on their way out; they're anachronistic at this point. Most of your fellow citizens today are basically liabilities to you, recipients of your tax money. The Internet lets people relate to each other purely as individuals, instead of viewing themselves as American or French or Brazilian, seeing themselves as citizens of some nation-state. I think in the future people are likely to see each other as citizens of informal organizations – not countries – and will seek each other out on the Internet and join together on that basis. The nation-state is going to be replaced by groupings of people that find each other on the Internet. I expect the Greater Depression is going to last quite a while, and it's going to turn a lot of what you see today completely upside down, things are going to be very different. I think the world is going to re-organize itself in ways that are going to impress people in the future as very different than what we have today.'

'To gain the beauty and virtue of anarchism, we sacrifice nothing but our illusions. The truth, as Socrates gave his life to show, remains highly threatening to entrenched interests and has a very personal and volatile effect on our immediate relationships. In reality, it is not so much a stateless society that we fear, but rather a family-less and friendless society where we rock gently, hugging our useless truths to our chests; solitary, ostracized, alone, rejected, scorned, derided. The truth is a desert island, we fear, and so as evolutionarily social animals, we join our corrupt circles in mocking and attacking the truth, and resent those who tell the truth, for revealing the corruption that formerly was only visible unconsciously. You may find that as you read this book, you experience a rising frustration and irritation with its contents – and possibly with me as well, if experience is any guide. It is not my fault that you have been lied to your whole life long.'

'The key to the game is that it does not foster aggression or competitiveness. ...it is no psycho-sexual drama of the fuckers and fucked - the possibilities are greatly expanded! ...penetration of the defence by two opposing teams imposes upon the defence the task of counterbalancing their disadvantage through sowing the seeds of discord in an alliance which can only be temporary. This will be achieved through exhortation, body language, and an ability to manoeuvre the ball and players into such a position that one opposing team will realise that its interests are better served by breaking off the attack and allying themselves with the defending team. Bearing in mind that such a decision will not necessarily be immediate, a team may well find itself split between two alliances. Such a situation opens them up to the possibility of their enemies uniting, making maximum use of this confusion. 3-sided football is a game of skill, persuasion and psychogeography.'

'...what does the word “anarchy” really mean? It simply means a way of interacting with others without threatening them with violence if they do not obey. It simply means “without political violence.” When we think of a society without political violence – without governments – specters of chaos and brutality always arise for us, immediately and, it would seem, irrevocably. However, it only takes a moment of thought to realize that we live the vast majority of our actual lives in complete and total anarchy – and call such anarchy “morally good.” ...love, marriage, family, career, finances – we all make our major decisions in the complete absence of direct political coercion. Thus – if anarchy is such an all-consuming, universal evil, why is it the default – and virtuous – freedom that we demand in order to achieve just liberty in our daily lives? ...we must recognize the basic paradox: We love the anarchy we live. We fear the anarchy we imagine – the anarchy we are taught to fear.'

'The dominant social theme is clear to us: "If the current economic system collapses millions and perhaps billions will die." Without the current system in place there will be only ... anarchy! Without (fill in the name) Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, etc. to help support and supervise regulatory democracy there will be ... chaos! If not this, the current Western system, then nothing. A black hole. Despair ... Diaspora ... Desolation ... -- We're inclined to put our trust in "Misesian" human action. We think people are fairly resilient. We believe – absent the chaos and murderous violence of war or authoritarian declarations of martial law – that most of the middle class states of the West would manage to create new and freer societies in either longer or shorter time spans, and potentially without serial, genocidal panics. Many or most would extend a helping hand to neighbors. Many or most would survive and eventually, even thrive.'

"You *have* to demonstrate freedom before you can inspire freedom in others. You need to *feel* the same fear that other people feel when you talk about freedom. When you say, we need a radical re-evaluation of our ethics and human relationships: from coercion to voluntaryism, from dictatorship to property rights, from collectivism to individualism, from war to peace, from violence to words, from governments to DROs – people feel as freaked out about that as you would about deciding not to see anyone you feel obligated to ever again. It's terrifying. If you talk to people about getting rid of bad relationships in your life, they're going to feel unease and they're going to need to immediately create a defense and label it: he's an extremist and I'm nice – so they can manage their own feelings through disassociating from you and making you wrong in their own mind. And when you talk about the evil of the State it's even worse for people because what they hear is, your parents are evil."

"The family is a mythology: these people had sex, they gave birth to you, they housed you when you were growing up – and that's it. There's nothing that you owe them. If you don't find pleasure in them, there's nothing that you have to give them – at all, whatsoever, ever." If enough people ditch bad families then 'the family' will become better. "If it begins to be understood by society as a whole and by parents in particular, that if you don't treat your children well, then they're not going to stick around – imagine what a blow that would be to corruption and malevolence in the world. If adult children continue to support their parents even if they don't like them, then the corruption that's at the root of society will spread. All relationships should be voluntary for mutual advantage. The only way to overthrow the State is to overthrow the tyrannies we have within our own lives because that sends the message to all the bad people that they do not get to interact with moral people."

Gisted -- You can't understand how a stateless society will work if you've never stood up to a social group; if you've never stood up for what is right in the face of what is socially accepted. But if you *have* stood up, you totally get how powerful social ostracism and non-violent methods are in enforcing social norms. One of the ways we really understand how society works is to act against its prejudices. And through that process we experience first hand the power of social cohesion, of social exclusion, of social ostracism, of disapproval, of criticism, of negativity, etc. And once you've understood how incredibly powerful social ostracism is as a form of social organisation, then you're pretty comfortable with the idea that it can run society.'

'The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State. This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State, not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded. ..if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs?'

'A dispute resolution organization, or DRO, is a conceptualized organization providing services such as mediation and arbitration through the private sector. A perceived advantage of dispute resolution organizations over governmental court systems is that the former can exist in a competitive marketplace in which entrepreneurs on the lookout for profits seek to outdo their rivals in providing good service, low prices, and other features valued by their clientele. #Enforceability of verdicts: Murray Rothbard opines that court decisions need not be enforced by the government in order to be effective. Even before the decisions of dispute resolution organizations were considered legally enforceable in government courts, merchants obeyed them to avoid the risk of ostracism and boycotts. A merchant who refused to abide by the verdict would be blacklisted and thus become unable to avail himself of an arbitrator's services in the future.'

'Voluntaryism, or voluntarism is a philosophy that opposes aggressive force or coercion. Most voluntaryists regard much of what government does as aggressively coercive, and call for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of anarchist philosophies, voluntaryists support strong property rights which they regard as a natural law (self-ownership) that is compatible with non-coercion. The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take, only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish.'

'Since free men and women may not be forced to stop doing the wrong thing unless it involves violating other people's rights, there are limits to what may be done to them. Sadly this point is often overlooked by even the most earnest reformers who want to make others good. It cannot be done and may not be tried with violence, coercively. Human goodness must come from the heart, as it were, voluntarily. Otherwise it isn't really goodness. -- ...you can restrict those with who you will do business, provided these are fully disclosed... Many institutions operate this way already. ...if you did make an announcement, such as "No blacks or women or 7 feet tall people served here," you would alienate a great many potential customers and so it is not likely that anyone with a modicum of rationality will try to do business that way. Still, one could. And that is what freedom means, among other things, that you can be an ass so long as you do it peacefully.'

'You and I sign a contract. In the contract, we specify a private arbitrator. The contract includes the private arbitrator’s public key. The contract is digitally signed by both you and me. Now, you think I violated the contract. You demand arbitration. The arbitrator rules that I owe you damages. I refuse to pay. The arbitrator writes a brief statement that I agreed to—that he would be the arbitrator of disputes, that he gave a verdict, and that I refused to pay the damages. Digitally signs it and gives it to you. You now have a package. That package consists of the original contract which I digitally signed, so provably I agreed to it, and the arbitrator’s verdict, which he digitally signed, so provably the arbitrator I agreed to, said that I cheated. You may now e-mail that package to anybody else in the industry. -- You want the arbitrator who gets the right result at low cost. This is a market mechanism for generating efficient law for the private market.'

'The artists provide a wide range of imaginative services. One artist, trained in yoga breathing and self-soothing, helps breast-cancer patients remain calm and centered while they are waiting to be seen. Others might read to pediatric patients in that waiting room. An actor might put on role-playing sessions for staff, helping them rehearse how to break bad news to patients and loved ones. Photographers taking pictures of newly-borns to give to the mother as a thank-you for choosing Woodhull hospital. In return, the artists earn 40 credits per hour of service. Uninsured patients at this public hospital pay a flat fee for doctor's visits, between $15 and $60 depending on their income. Most artists end up paying around $20 per service, which also includes emergency room and clinic visits. For each hour they devote to helping the hospital, they earn enough credits to pay for two medical visits. By the end of 2008, more than 400 artists had earned credit this way.'

'When this war ends, and it won't be long, the global economic and financial system will be the victor. Once that occurs, the nation-states of the West serve only to enforce the interests of the global economic system. The clear and unambiguous message to every citizen of the West will be: 'You are on your own. You are in direct competition with everyone else in the world, and your success or failure is something you alone control.' -- For those that think that this will bring about a surge of peaceful economic vigor, you will be wrong. You have a choice. #1. You can stand alone and do nothing. Thereby suffering the predations of this new criminal class. #2. You can join them and prey on your former compatriots, enriching yourself in the process. #3. You can build something new. Resilient communities and independent economic networks based on freedom, prosperity, and a new moral compact.' -- No guns: Give up the government addiction. Expand the range of voluntary interactions.

'With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are NOT the government; the government is NOT "us."'

'In a stateless society, the only person who is "King" is the consumer. -- Medieval Iceland illustrates a well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today. Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent. Icelandic settlers held similar philosophical ideas toward the state and the law as where held by the founding fathers of the United States, including distrust of a strong central government. Instead of a judicial branch of government there were private courts that were the responsibility of the godar. There was no public property during the era of the Vikings in Iceland, all property was privately owned. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason [for Iceland's collapse].'

'...the really big idea isn't figuring out how to USE online gamers for real world purposes (as in the dirty word: crowdsourcing -- people doing work for you for FREE -- blech!). Instead, it's about finding a way to use online games to make real life better for the gamers. In short, turn games into economic darknets that work in parallel and better than the broken status quo systems. As in: economic games that connect effort with reward. Economic games with transparent rules that tangibly improve the lives of all of the players in the REAL WORLD. This isn't tech utopian. It's reality. The global electronic marketplace and the political system that currently dominates our lives is at root a game but with hidden rule sets. As a result, it's a game that being run for the benefit of the game designers to the detriment of the players. The reason we keep playing is that we don't have any choice. Let's invent something better and compete with it. Let's provide people with a choice.'

''...capitalism is a dreadful tag. There we've said it! It was presented and defined by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital" and was meant to be derisive. The opposite of "bad" capitalism is "good" communism, of course. Why must we constantly be exposed to the spectacle of pro-free market individuals describing their sentiments using terminology invented by a determined enemy of the marketplace and the invisible hand? Free-markets of course are not particularly about money. They are about the ability of individuals to take individual, unfettered human action to build better lives for themselves, their families and their communities. -- It is not fashionable to note, but people, when they are not preoccupied with their own survival are often most charitable – and personally not institutionally. This is an aspect of the human condition that is all-too-often downplayed in modern life by state apologists who only emphasize human evil to raise up the meretricious mechanism of redistributionist smut.'

'Anarchists should abandon their mad hopes and buckle down to some REAL political action - the argument from practicality...' -- Starve the Beast

'The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150. [This is] the one single reason society doesn't work. The problem is that eventually, the needs of you or those within your Monkeysphere will require screwing someone outside it. -- [S]ome people in the distant past naively thought they could sit all of the millions of monkeys down and say, "Okay, everybody go pick the bananas, then bring them here, and we'll distribute them with a complex formula determining banana need! Now go gather bananas for the good of society!" Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own..." As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive.'

Gisted -- Leftists won't talk about the true nature of power disparity in society which is first of all parenting, second teaching, third universities, and way down the list after the government agencies, the taxation, the military, the police, and all of the vast apparatus of State power, is the "evil" capitalist who survives only by the grace of people's voluntary interactions and so has no 'power' and can't fight back—which is precisely why cowardly leftists like to pick on them. -- But the power disparity that exists within the classroom where you can't argue, can't question, and where you absolutely can't think for yourself... By the time the child hits puberty the true self is so buried under accumulated years of neglect, indifference, humiliation, punishment, scorn, and boredom, that the personality is left completely undeveloped and all you have in its place is this vain, useless, petty false self that has been grown like an evil weed in an untended garden.

'#Autonomy: People want to have control over their work. #Mastery: People want to get better at what they do. #Purpose: People want to be part of something that is bigger than they are.' -- Sounds like anarcho-capitalism to me.

'...the nation-state has been largely co-opted by increasingly powerful non-state entities -- from parasitical banks that sit astride core functions of the global system (they profit from the ability to distort core financial and economic functions to manufacture virtual "wealth") to transnational gangs that puncture borders with drugs and other smuggled goods -- and that corruption is spreading. Nothing can get done at the nation-state level anymore and what does get done (as the recent health and finance legislation in the US proves), is only being done to drive forward profitability in parasitical firms or sap our resources (making us more vulnerable to predation by local threats). Worse, nation-state bureaucracies are becoming more insulated and focused on self-preservation by the day from the institutional level down the individual government employee contractor.'