Even in Sweden, a country known to be so faithfully “neutral” that it does not engage in conflict and rather take the side of totalitarians to avoid getting dragged into diplomatic hardship, politicians are using the “threat” of terrorism to instate mass surveillance of the state’s serfs people. In an article published today I tell the story of the political game played by both sides of the “aisle” to have a law enacted, which gives a military-run agency the right – no the responsibility – to go through all people’s communications.

In the case of Sweden it is obvious that the media has no role. If this political game had been played 20 or 30 years ago no one in Sweden would have heard anything about it until years after the law was passed. The media is not interested in such reporting that can truly hurt government, since the media’s sole source of “information” is government itself. You cannot bite the hand that feeds you for long without starving.

The discussion in Sweden, and the reason people are upset about the new surveillance scheme, is solely a result of private bloggers digging up facts, interviewing people, and analyzing public statements as well as behind the scenes talk and events. The “blogosphere” has made the mass surveillance of Swedish citizens by “its own” government news, and now the media – reluctantly – is following its lead.  To the politicians’ chagrin.

Whereas the Swedish government is undoubtedly trying to take the lead in surveillance and “security” issues in Europe, currently a political realm dominated by the United Kingdom, it is but a few steps ahead of the pan-European body of political rule: the European Union. While the Swedish government has now enacted a law that makes the privacy of anyone in Sweden the property of its military defense, the European Union will soon call for national legislation to further strengthen the State’s and Super-national organization’s hold on people’s lives. Surveillance is the first step, now comes international cooperation and a European “situation center” with access to all national data and with the implicit power to do whatever it feels like all over Europe and beyond.

The European Union is indeed a politicians’ project to make Europe even uglier than the United States, and they are not far from succeeding.

As has been pointed out by bloggers, the law recently passed in parliament is only the first step towards a fully Orwellian society. It is not the case that we “might” be heading that way and it is also not the case that a State with total control of its people will emerge from this: it has already emerged. What we are currently seeing is but the friendly face of government that is necessary to gain people’s acceptance before it unleashes all of its powers. Just like in the United States, where the federal government has effectively stripped people of all notion of having rights, they do not use it yet in order to make people feel that “it wasn’t so bad” and that the whistleblowers were wrong “again.” It will soon be time for government to use the powers it has formally given itself.

There is no doubt which side won the Cold War in terms of values: the Soviet Union may have disappeared, but the States of the so-called “free” West have adopted almost all of its policies. The “land of the free” has even publicly announced that they have their own Gulag on a military base in Cuba, and with the full-scale surveillance and secret police forces all over North America and Europe it will soon be impossible to claim that the freedoms and rights formulated during the Enlightenment have survived the 20th century. They have not, and people are bound to find out sooner or later.

For more information, see my articles On The War on Terrorism Brings Mass Surveillance – In Sweden and The Endarkening.

One possible answer has to do with how and why economics evolved from a theorizing social science to a math-dependent natural science wannabe pseudo-science. As the story is often told, economics became a solely calculus-based “science” during the time of world wars. Prior to this period the common understanding of economics was that it would not be possible to exactly foresee how people would act; rather, the task of economics was to explain why we see certain phenomena arise in the unhampered marketplace.

At the time of war the neglectedy minority proposing to calculate human action the same way the law-based movement of atoms or molecules were hired by the State to find efficient ways to use resources and transport equipment. In a time of artificial shortages in most markets these economists were relied on to find the super formula to make the most of what was still available–to calculate an optimum of consumption for the population so that the war machine could continue without interruption.

After World War II this bastard strain of economists had won the State’s approval and were therefore made “mainstream” in economics research through appointments in [public] universities and government agencies. Since that day what was previously real economics has been a suppressed and ill-conceived theoretical social science deemed “unscientific” due to its lack of exactness in calculations.

Whether this is what really happened to the economics profession or not is not relevant to the fact that economics since World War II is a theoretically ill-founded but calculus-driven social science pretending to be an exact natural science. It is also true that the economics profession like no other social science profession serves the State in numerous agencies and departments.

The State relies heavily on economics to say what the exact effect of certain scenarios or the enactment of certain policies will be. And as a result economists rely heavily on the State for their financial well-being as well as the prestige they have become accustomed to.

Asking the question “que bono?” (who benefits?) makes it easy to see that economists themselves would directly benefit from using definitions and theories that directly or indirectly makes the State look good. As a supposedly exact science, which at least manages to give exact answers to questions, known for not ever being right in its predictions, it wouldn’t make much of a difference if definitions and theories used were to benefit a certain party. After all, it is a win-win situation for economists–they still cannot provide a correct answer to the questions asked and will keep their prestigous jobs while the State that feeds them isn’t hurt “too much” by the numbers and explanations derived from them.

It is of course impossible to tell if this is the reason the commonly adopted definition of inflation is the mainstream’s “general price increase” while the Austrians’ definition of inflation as “increase in money supply” is neglected or ignored. In either case, the price increase definition effectively hides a large portion of the real inflation even if we adopt the mainstream understanding of the market. My article discusses the obvious propaganda ingredient in this false definition.

This is sadly true of many minarchist libertarians, who tend to somewhere deep down believe that government is a just entity, that it in some sense is rational and in the interest of the people. Therefore it comes as a horrid surprise when government does its deeds and “breaks the law” or acts in such a way that it

violates contracts it has entered. So we see comments such as this:

The dispensary’s manager [...] told me that a group of federal thugs agents smashed not only the ten-foot window you see above, but also over twenty glass display cases inside. They then proceeded to steal all the medicine. This isn’t the first raid, either. [...]

Remember, this is a state certified business. It is legally entitled to operate in every way under California law and was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Here we have a conflict between a state government, which allows a certain act (selling medical marijuana) that the federal government doesn’t like. The effect? At least one of the governments will act to the detriment and cost of the business owner. And at least one government will not do much at all, at least not to protect the business owner.

We have to realize that government does not act to protect us, it acts to primarily protect itself and its interests. And it is usually the case that what is in the interest of the State is not in our interest. Actually, it is usually the very opposite: we would rather not have it, and would even be willing to fight not to get it. I’m of course talking about surveillance, control, taxation (theft), and imprisonment. We could do without these things, and we would probably do a whole lot better without them than with them.

But it is in the State’s interest to keep us under surveillance, to keep us under control, to tax us and imprison us. So the State does exactly those things.

In the case of the business owner in the quote above, he’s acting under the laws enacted and “enforced” (note how our negative rights are often neglected, whereas the State’s self-granted privileges are often hastily enforced) by the State of California but against he policies of the federal agency DEA. There’s a reason he stands unprotected from a federal agency while the protection of his rights by the State of California simply isn’t to find.

The reason for this also lies in the nature of the State: it acts in its own interests, and it strives to centralize power. The State builds and consists of hierarchy, and the higher the levels the better. Power is always pushed upwards, away from the people so that it cannot be taken back or reached by members of the populace. This the exact opposite of how liberty works, which is why the idea of minarchism is at best a bad joke.

Liberty is decentralizing. Liberty can always and only be enjoyed on the lowest level – when there are no hierarchies. Liberty requires, in this sense, equality – without the equal right to liberty there is no liberty. Also, there can be no arbitrary restrictions to liberty – if anyone assumes the right to set the limits of someone else’s liberty, he has claimed the power to rule that individual. And Liberty is immediately lost – for both. Liberty is extremely volatile and tender.

It is therefore impossible to have both government and freedom, both a State and liberty. They are each others’ very opposites and contradict each other. Where there is a State there can be no liberty, and where there is liberty there can be no State.

I have touched on this nature of politics, force, coercion, aggression etc in a previous article, but it is important to repeat this fundamental truth as were it a dogma.

The problem the aforementioned business owner is experiencing, even though he is “not breaking the law” and has “the right” (a.k.a. the State’s permission), is a result of the centralizing process of political power: the State. Whereas the State of California has granted him the right to sell certain substances, the federal government – which is higher in the hierarchy of power – has outlawed it. It is “legally” the case that the State of California still enjoys the “right” to legislate in such issues, but can easily be directly derived from the nature of the State that this “right” is soon to be assumed by the higher level: the “federal” government.

This is a conflict between levels, even though neither of the levels have engaged in direct conflict with the other (rather, they leave each other alone, and let the business owner bear the costs). The natural outcome of the conflict is that the State of California is further stripped of its “powers” to the benefit of the federal government, just like the nature of the State calls for the establishment of a world government to one day take over powers from the federal government.

The power moves further away from the people ruled by it. Just like it is meant to be.

The only alternative is to reinstate liberty and to do so completely. Going half-way to liberty will only leave the State still striving for higher levels of authority and power, and liberty will once again – step by step – be rolled back, limited, restricted, and undermined. The powers of the State cannot be restricted since the State by its very nature must always be growing – it is as possible to have a stable, non-growing State as it is to establish “restricted liberty.”

I discuss this topic further in my latest column on Strike the Root: Should we Hope for Civil War? The column is available here.

For more on decentralization as a way towards liberty, see Freedom Is Never Up.

Despite the personal attacks, it is easy to see why people find the article so disturbing. Most of the negative comments (there are but a few positive) try to defend the destruction of property and even the attacks on people, saying it is self defense to destroy corporations’ property since corporations exploit humankind through wage slavery. I do not say such exploitation does not exist, nor that wage slavery is but a fiction, but I do have a hard time understanding the self defense argument (especially when it is indirect and directed towards things).

I have discussed the issue of self defense numerous times before (see my library of writings and the blog entry on my take on pacifism) and don’t intend to repeat the arguments in this post. But I do wish to discuss the issue of destruction and attacking people as part of a “strategy” to bring about freedom.

Those commenting on the article claim I am literally attacking a great part of anarchism and a fundamental anarchist strategy, the so-called “black bloc” protests. Even though anarchists are plenty in such protests I fail to see how black bloc is synonymous with anarchism, or why anarchists necessarily have to support black bloc protesting. I personally support some of the views advocated among people taking part in these protests – e.g. anti-corporatism – but I don’t support destruction as a means more than I support violence. I don’t see how such means can ever be just, and neither can I see how they can ever be effective in trying to achieve something (unless the goal is destruction per se).

But the article I’m discussing here doesn’t speak of the tactic of the black bloc – it discusses anarchism in general terms. Actually, the article doesn’t discuss such corporate property vandalized by the black bloc at all – it discusses destruction of people’s “belongings.” I was, when writing the article, very careful not to mention the word “property,” simply because I know anarchists in general are opposed to the concept and equate it with government privilege and exploitation. My article isn’t about that.

Yet so far I haven’t seen one negative comment that doesn’t miss the point in the article; they all seem to go for the kill against some poor straw man. I do mention McDonald’s in the first paragraph, which was obviously a mistake – this one trademark obviously blinded most of the readers to such a degree that they were utterly unable to understand the rest of the article.

The article is about anarchism and “anarchism,” the latter being a number of people taking the “chaos and destruction” definition of anarchy to heart thinking they can enforce anarchism. Doing this, I claim, means accepting the statists’ agenda and allowing the state and its advocates set the rules for anarchism. This is very different from the old philosophy- and theory-based movement of anarchism, which was definitely not about destruction of anything but the state and its hierarchies, privileges, and structures of forced subjection.

I don’t even discuss the tactics of anarchists in the article; I know anarchists advocate a number of very different types of tactics, black bloc being one of them (even though I don’t support this particular “tactic” to the degree it is violent). The purpose of the article wasn’t in any sense to attack anarchists or the anarchist movement – it was to show that there is a difference between being anarchist and being destruction-loving. So I left corporate and state property aside, and talked only about destruction of individuals’ belongings and attacks on “innocent passers-by.”

Please enlighten me, since when are attacks on innocent people who happen to pass by, and the destruction of people’s belongings, parts of an anarchist tactic?

I happen to personally dislike violence of all types, even if directed at government employees and government property, but I can understand the frustration and hatred causing some anarchists to accept violence as a means. (To me, however, it is contradictory to claim “no one has the right to subject me to their wishes” and then violently subject other individuals because they perhaps work for the faceless organization requesting everybody’s allegiance.)

But I understand it only, however not fully, when directed towards the State or its agencies. Not when directed at people – even though people working for and supporting the State (through e.g. being public servants or voting) are indeed criminals. Assaulting a criminal doesn’t lessen the crime, and it certainly doesn’t undo the crime. It is as effective as the State’s locking people up to undo their crimes; it not only doesn’t work, it is illegitimate and wrong. If nobody has the right to use violence, then certainly you don’t have that right either – even if you are using violence against someone who used violence.

The latter could easily become an endless chain of people using violence on people who used violence on people who used violence on people who used violence.

After all, killing a murderer is still murder (under most circumstances), just like stealing from a thief is theft. It is, however, different if you are “stealing” that which was stolen from you – then it is merely taking back your stuff. But in what way is this the same as destroying people’s belongings as a means of “getting even” at the State? It isn’t. You may have the right to destroy your belongings, but how do you identify that which is yours among the vast properties of the faceless State? More importantly: how do you destroy that which belongs to you without illicitly destroying someone else’s [stolen] belongings too?

The problem of belongings is a tough one, but it is more interesting to discuss the assaults on “innocent passers-by.” How about attacking them, is that a legitimate means? Violence cannot be a means to voluntaryism just like destruction is no means to creation, statism is no means to freedom, and war is no means to peace. Laying your hand on another person, unless it is in direct self-defense, is in every sense statist – you are acting exactly like the State, while – calling yourself anarchist – claiming you are opposed to the State.

I believe anarchism is not only possible but also within reach, but it can only be realized through setting great examples. If we claim society can work without power structures and privileges, then how do we prove this through using power and taking the privilege to destroy and do harm?

The State will fall by itself sooner or later, but it will fall because it is a monstrous creation that is inherently destructive and dangerous to humankind as well as human accomplishments. It will fall when people finally realize the truth about the State and therefore withdraw their passive support. This can be achieved through the setting of examples and showing the other path; indeed, when the State finally is about to fall we need to stand firm and educated, and show people the way. The effect of shouting “anarchy” while attacking people in the streets and burning stuff to the ground does not make people appreciate anarchy – it makes them embrace the State even tighter, and ask for its support and protection. Protection against anarchists.

Consulting any dictionary on the meaning of the word anarchism makes the confusion obvious, yet people seem to not take notice. This is what Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says about the word “anarchy”

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

It is fairly obvious that a and c go well together – they mean basically the same thing. b stands out as the “oddball” in the three-parted definition of “anarchy.” But b does seem to go well together with c through the word “utopian,” and also offers an “explanation” to the realized ideal in a.

I am not sure why the word “utopian” is necessarily a part of the definition of what the political theory of anarchism strives for. It seems “utopian” doesn’t add anything but the subjective assessment of this certain political theory’s validity, which is hardly a part of the word’s definition.

Nevertheless, Merriam-Webster doesn’t say that anarchy means chaos – only that it means “political disorder,” which is certainly true if “political” is interpreted as the organization of government. In anarchy there is no government, so such organization would definitely be “disorderly.”

A much more common definition of the word anarchy, where the contradiction is obvious, can be found in e.g. Microsoft’s Encarta:

an·ar·chy

noun

Definition

1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control

2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

Now this is very interesting, especially considering that the definition of “government” in Encarta is “political authority: a group of people who have the power to make and enforce laws for a country or area”. I guess without that “group of people” with “the power to make and enforce laws” the situation would indeed be chaotic.

The question is how people would react in a setting where no such group of people or their representatives are present. Say, in a school class, in a bus, in your apartment. Obviously a chaotic situation in desperate need for a “group of people who have the power.” So why don’t we all establish such power structures whenever we meet people?

The contradiction in the definition exists because there is no obvious link between the two separate definitions, and this makes the word ambiguous. Yet people seem to think there is only one definition of the word “anarchy” and that it always means “chaos” and “disorder.” And anarchists, they conclude, must of course strive for such chaos and disorder – that follows from the very word “anarchy.”

This is of course not true in any sense, unless we add the subjective assessment of the situation in which there is no group of people with power – that it would immediately cause chaos and destruction. As we have seen, such an assessment has been made part of the very definition of the word in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.

The problem here is that some people have taken all this confusion to heart, and exploit it. There is today an international movement of people who are only interested in destroying and fighting – and they call themselves anarchists. These idiots have nothing to do with the anarchist tradition or the real anarchist movement, but they free-ride on its name and are pretty effective in destroying the word as well as the reputation of the peaceful anarchism movement.

When journalists report on the rioting by the free-riders they tend to augment the distortion through calling the people busy burning property and terrorizing people “anarchists.” They have of course nothing to do with anarchism as it was spelled out by Proudhon and the other “greats” of anarchism, but they are successful in mooching trademarks and symbols. There is a reason they often use well-known anarchist symbols like the circled A and the black flag.

Even though some people who are well-read on the anarchist tradition seem to join them at times (I guess to blow off some steam), the rioting freaks usually know nothing of the ideas or aims – or understand the reasons. They are “anti,” but don’t have a clue what they are pro.

The fact is that this “movement” of rioters are the Mr. Hydes of anarchism. They are not the original or the true movement; they are freaks out of control who have chosen a name that was already taken. And the worst part of it is that they are utterly statist in what they do and say – destruction, violence, and terror are all means of state and power, not of anarchism.

The movement following the tradition of Proudhon, Tucker, Kropotkin and others are the Dr. Jekylls. And as we know, people take notice of and fear violent action, whereas voluntary cooperation seldom hits the news.

The article, Blame Anarchism?, is available here.

Al Gore is and has been preaching the end of the world for quite some time, and was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his long and hard work telling us we are destroying the world. He is investing a lot of time, effort, and money in making people believe he is doing everything to not make things worse; he is telling us what to do and wants to be seen as a good example. This is why his contract explicitly states that he refuses to be picked up at the airport in an SUV – he prefers a small car or hybrid – and he tries to avoid first class travel to save the environment through joining the crowd in coach class (or was it business?).

It is therefore not surprising that Gore was proud to announce that he took the electric train from Stockholm airport when having flown from Oslo to attend the Nobel Prize reception in city hall. However, he failed to mention that his luggage was picked up at the airport and transported in a Mercedes. (I guess he cannot carry such heavy luggage to and from the train because it would make him breathe too heavily.)

Also, this prophet of environmentalism, when leaving Stockholm for Brussels, was treated by the Swedish taxpayers to a flight with the Swedish government’s “private” jet. He cannot travel in an SUV because of the emissions, but a private jet for two or three people is probably very beneficial for the environment.

Meanwhile, the Swedish recycling disaster continues. It is definitely a system Mr. Gore would find commendable: it is thoroughly force-based, centralizes power, and distributes the main costs of the basically ineffective measures on common people. People like Gore and his friends in the top tier of government would not have to worry about the costs.

I write about this scam today on the Ludwig von Mises Instiutute’s web site. In the article, which is available here, I show how this system has at best no effect on the environment (even if we accept the ideological claims that CO2 will effectuate the end of the world) while generating enormous costs for society. The purpose of the recycling system, like most of the current environmental mania, is of course to increase the powers of the state in a way that, at least at first glance, would seem “legitimate.”

After all, the environmental threat has a fantastic potential in causing universal feelings of fear, shame, and guilt – feelings exploited throughout the centuries by religious powers. But even though we have been through all this before, I doubt we have learned from history. It should be obvious from how the environmental threat is propagandized that it is but another “leftist” attempt to have us all give up whatever liberties and freedoms we still have left in order to further increase and centralize power.

As is always the case with centralized planning systems: they are good for one thing only – power and the powerful. And the environmental panic around the world will allow the powerful to look good – in our own eyes! – while stripping us from our liberties. So trust me in that it will not be long until President George W. Bush will “come to his senses” and sign the Kyoto Protocol. After all, he should not be able to resist the obvious temptation.

I have discussed the improbability of the latter theory in previous texts, but it cannot be sufficiently stressed: if a society of men will degenerate into a chaotic war of all against all, then handing power to some of those men will not solve that problem. It can only make it worse – and at best no change at all is achieved. If people are fundamentally evil and respond mainly (or solely) to short term incentives, then a centralized power in human society is at least as destructive as the absence of one.

In the other case, if people are in fact fully able to peacefully get along and voluntarily interact and cooperate there is no reason for a state. If this is the case, then the state as an institutionalized body of coercion with sole objective to subdue, oppress, and exploit is necessarily and in every sense the negative of liberty.

Philosophically only these two alternatives are valid: either people can get along fine without being forced to (and then a state is not only unnecessary – it is destructive and oppressive), or they cannot (and then a state is not solution anyway). It thus does not matter what view of man you have, because in either case the state offers no solution and cannot be a tool for liberty.

The only way a state can be thought of as a solution is if we see humanity as fundamentally divided into a couple (or a few) collective groups with different sets of rights. In such a case it would be appropriate to advocate a centralized power such as the state, run by the only group of people wise enough to run it, and that could be used to force the stupid, ignorant, unintelligent, and violent class(es) to behave. This view of man is however racist in the sense that it identifies different groups of different value and different natural characteristics, and different sets of rights.

In a world such as that a state might even be necessary, since it might be the only way to protect the wise and peaceful from the violent and destructive masses. However, this is hardly a libertarian theory of humankind – it is the very opposite. And thus we should be able to conclude, from a fundamental assessment of how we view man, that the state is neither a necessary evil nor is in any way compatible with a libertarian world view.

Following this logic further we might wish to jump to conclusions a bit and claim that those engaging in politics, including those calling themselves libertarian, are necessarily racist in some respect. But as I said, this is probably to go a step or two too far.

However, the state as forceful power is essentially racist: it divides people into groups of different value and creates the illusion of group interests being incompatible and contradictory. The state creates a view of society as chaotic, and thereby it creates a need among the populace to be ruled by a power that has the might to destroy them – and, perhaps more importantly, has the might to destroy their enemies.

The state does not only mean power, it also means this power will always be used in the interest of those who keep it. It should therefore not be surprising or strange that challenging ideas are opposed, hindered, and thwarted whenever necessary. It also should not be a surprise that those with power would use whatever means necessary to maintain status quo – and to crush those who oppose power and how power is used.

The rules that we are told should limit the powers of the state and restrict how it uses force are not rules for the ruling elite – they are rules to feed the illusion of the state being “under control” by the people, and rules to keep challenging ideas and individuals/groups at bay. The rules do not really apply to those who have the power – they have the power to get away with what they choose to do. That is, after all, what power is about: to be able to use it as you want and to protect your privileges at the cost of others.

It is not surprising that a lot of people have fallen for this illusion of rules restricting the powers of the state, but it is sad that so many libertarians tend to embrace the concept of “constitution” as a way of restricting and limiting violent force. Such a set of rules will only keep the state at bay for as long as those with power agree the rules apply; whenever they no longer find reason to uphold such a constitution they will not.

I discuss this issue in other terms and connected with the ongoing Republican primaries in an article published today on Strike the Root. The article, called The Power to Get Away With It, brings up the issue of “vote fraud” in the primaries, and whether such fraud is indeed a factor.

This fact should mean, and I am generalizing of course, that the support for Ron Paul is real in the sense that it is not only a libertarian phenomenon. The thousands of people supporting Ron Paul’s campaign are not simply libertarians calling themselves republicans only to vote for “their” candidate. There are no doubt many such people too, but I suspect a large number of his supporters are actually republicans or “independents” in the party political sense. His support is real.

All comments I have received, however, are not positive. In a debate on Strike the Root following the publishing of my article, a number of points have been raised about the analysis in my article and arguments have been articulated to show how I am wrong. I dedicate this post to discuss two such points that I find particularly interesting – and that I think strengthens my view.

Initial remarks

Before beginning the discussion I would like to make one thing very clear in order to avoid confusion. I do not in any way support politics or political means, neither as a possible nor a moral means of change or liberty. In my view, I do not see politics as something that could ever bring about liberty – politics is a game of and for power, and as such it is utterly immoral and evil. This does not, however, mean I do not recognize differences between regimes; I would certainly be better off in one of the fifty united states under the constitution as it is written than in, e.g., Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

But I find those differences only different in degree, not in principle. The American constitutional republic is an oppressive state system of power just as Stalin’s USSR was, it is just that the systems grant their subjects different sets of rights and “freedoms.” Call it what you will, but both are state systems and as such I do not support them. One should not refrain from calling things what they are – and one should certainly not support something that is evil but “less evil” than other possible alternatives.

Some say it is a matter of semantics to not support but be “against but not as much against as other alternatives.” That statement is a mistake: support means action in favor of, whereas I have dislike for Stalin’s and Hitler’s state systems just as I dislike the constitutionalist union (federation). There are degrees to dislike without “less degree of dislike” necessarily transforming into support.

Having said this, I should admit that I would of course rather see Ron Paul as president than any other republican or democrat candidates. It is rather obvious to me that Paul might cause a lot less harm (perhaps even some good) to me than the others. But this doesn’t mean I support him as president – I don’t. Choosing between evils means you choose an evil, and I refuse to take on such responsibility. The fact that the political system is a system for creating a sense of legitimacy for power and rule should make it clear to all libertarians that the involvement in such a system (and thereby support of it) is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

Now, to the points raised. The first one is about Ron Paul’s rhetoric and what he can possible do – and why he supports certain things simply because they are in the constitution. I call this argument “He is against the state – but follows the law.” The other argument is more practical and claims Ron Paul as president would make a hell of a change.

He is against the state – but follows the law

It may very well be true that Ron Paul is a man who is strictly opposed to the state. I personally doubt it, but I don’t know him and therefore I won’t say it isn’t true. However troubling the statist libertarian (read: minarchist) view is, I find the supporting argument much more annoying. “Ron Paul follows the law.”

Of course, this argument is usually not stated this way, but rather in terms such as “he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution” or that “he uses the constitution as an argument against his fellow law-makers.” It is true that presidents and members of Congress alike take an oath to uphold the constitution. But it is equally true that very few throughout history have ever taken that oath seriously. So why would anyone who is against the state take that oath seriously, with the only effect being to restrain one’s possibilities to get rid of the state once and for all?

Since no one else on “the Hill” cares at all about the constitution and they frequently move to enact laws contradicting it only to further the state’s (their own) powers, then what good does the only person opposed to such behavior taking the oath seriously do? If this is really the case, if the libertarian on “the Hill” is really pro liberty, then the oath has only one real effect: it stops moves for liberty while having no effect whatsoever on those working against liberty. That should be reason enough to not care about the oath nor the constitution.

Another reason for working to uphold the constitution while not really believing in it might be that the person in office takes his or her word seriously. This is a ridiculous argument – if the person elected for congress is really for “more liberty” than allowed by the constitution, then being a member of congress itself is so evil and contradictory a position that breaking an oath to uphold something one does not believe in doesn’t change a thing. It only means tying one’s own hands – for what reason?

In either case, the libertarian on Capitol Hill has no reason to obey and uphold the constitution. It could be a strategic move with underlying good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are no arguments for working politically for the constitution unless one either 1) believes in it or 2) has as [sole] aim to “stop the others” – or both. If one believes in the constitution, which I believe is the case for Ron Paul, one cannot be anti state (and thus the argument above falls). And if one is only trying to stop the ongoing destruction in Washington, DC, then there is no reason to believe this person is at all libertarian – what are the ideals and ideas?

I believe that Ron Paul fits both – he both believes in the constitution (and is thus not anti state) and works mainly to stop the “madness” in the federal government.

Now to the second and final point:

He can and will make some real change

There should be no doubt this statement is only possible to make if one has a fundamental belief that change is, in fact, possible through the system. Without such a belief the statement simply wouldn’t make sense. At all.

It isn’t enough to claim the system has, indeed, been changing – I do admit to the factual statement that the system isn’t perfectly stagnant, it changes all the time. But I realize that the system continuously changes for the worse, not for the better. The system, no matter how “system” is defined, has never worked to strengthen liberty or roll back the powers of the state (these are really synonymous statements).

There are nevertheless events to the benefit of liberty, usually as a result of popular distress and risk of revolution or “losing control” or “chaos” (the latter two are usually used to describe such times when the masses no longer accept the authorities’ oppressive measures). But these events are only temporary setbacks for those with power – they realize they have tried to increase their powers a little too fast, and thus “take it back” only to do the same thing again at a later time when people aren’t watching (or have calmed down or are focused on something else).

The fact is that real change in society to the benefit of liberty only comes about as revolutionary leaps forward rather than gradual change. Such leaps may be the result of a tipping point having been reached, but the change is always great and happens almost all at once. Lady Liberty never approaches taking baby steps.

That said, what could Ron Paul do as president? With George W. Bush having made the U.S. presidency more powerful than admitted in the constitution, there should be some possibilities of change. Setting aside the fact that all such powers are unconstitutional (and thus president Ron Paul, taking the oath seriously, wouldn’t be able to use them – only to abolish them), Paul could make use of the presidential power as commander in chief and stop the slaughter and bring all troops home.

But what about spending? What about the welfare state? Those are matters for Congress and for president Paul to accept Congress’s decisions. Will Congress change because Ron Paul is president? He seems to think so, and maybe it will. But will it change radically? Hardly.

It seems to me what people in general hope for is that Ron Paul as sworn president means something much more than someone taking the oath seriously. It means the whole American society has changed, that the people has gotten sick and tired of government and wishes to abolish most (or all) welfare state programs. With such a change Congress will no doubt change radically as well – the reps and senators love their privileges too much to have ideals, and thus would throw out whatever agendas they have in order to stay in power and keep the people’s “confidence.”

But such a change really has nothing to do with Ron Paul and it has nothing to do with his presidential campaign. Rather, a Ron Paul presidency would then be an effect of a radical change that has already happened. So radical change by president Ron Paul is not an option – radical change would happen anyway, not depending on who is president. And if this is really the case, then why would Ron Paul have to adopt the view that he must restore the constitution (assuming the claim that he is in reality an enemy of the state)?

If there is no such radical change, which to me seems a lot more plausible, then Ron Paul as president would have to work with a lot of resistance – from both the people and Congress. Why anyone would believe such a presidency would mean real and concrete change I do not know. Politics, after all, is a means for oppression and destruction of liberty – not a means for liberation.

Of course, it may not be a problem to moderate or censor or even require personal information when you have a forum. As I mention in the article, one reason such “managerial” behavior can be legitimized is, for example, if the anarchist believes in property. It is also, I guess, possible to claim the forum is in the “owner’s” possession and thus certain restrictions on what other people can do with it are justified.

However, the point I wish to make with this article is that if you are strictly against control, against property, against censorship and thus pro free speech, yet moderate your forum, then you are a hypocrite.

Despite this fact, and the point being pretty clear (at least, I would like to think so), there has been some criticism toward the article. I agree that it is probably not one of my better articles, it is absolutely not the best, but the point I try to make should be very clear. Also, it should be read in a context – I explicitly link to another article on a certain kind of “anarchist statism” – that many anarchists have a rather statist mindset, at least with regard to certain issues, and generally engage in what I prefer to call blueprintism.

The point I make is not that all forums aren’t the way I would like them. It also isn’t a disguised way of advertising my own very open anarchist forum on the Anarchism.net web site. I personally don’t care what people do with their web sites, but I do care about ideas and principles. As a single issue it might not be a big deal that an anarchist forum is moderated, censored, and only open to registered users. But from the point of view of principle it sure is.

Are these anarchists moderating and censoring the forum the same people who demand freedom to express themselves, to choose for themselves, and even “freedom” from private property? In many cases they are, yet they treat their web sites – especially the forums – exactly the way as they accuse capitalists of treating their property: controlling, excluding, and as a means to make a profit. Is this consistent? Hardly. Is it legitimate? From a principle point of view – absolutely not.

I doubt that many anarchists would agree on these three points. My guess is they can somehow rationalize the fact that they are using what they identify as property the same way as their “enemies” use their property. Perhaps they “must” moderate their forums in order to protect them from the state? Perhaps the capitalist system and the culture it feeds makes it impossible to have an open forum without it being destroyed by “capitalist lackeys”? But some anarchists, I believe, would still agree on some of the points – or maybe even all three.

Of course, most anarchists would not agree on the latter point even if they do agree with the first two. The reason for this is no doubt the use of the word “profit” rather than the real meaning of “making a profit.” As any economist knows, profit is not only a monetary concept; it means to be better off. It doesn’t matter in what way – even if it is but an illusion, you are still better off and thus you have made a profitable choice. It is a matter of utility.

To make a profit does therefore not necessarily mean that you make dollars, pounds sterling, or rubles. It could also mean you do something that gives you satisfaction to some degree – and the reason you do it is simply that it gives you more satisfaction than any other alternative use of your time and energy that you can think of. To moderate a forum no doubt has benefits for the person doing it: you get to be a central figure, a needed person, and you might even become a celebrity in a limited circle of users. And in the forum you have the power.

This is definitely a driver for many of the people having and running forums on the web. And it is certainly a driver for many of the people who run anarchist forums too. They are driven by the profit motive, and it is because of the possible profit they observed or identified they are doing what they are doing.

This should be hard to swallow for many an anarchist, and I would believe it is. This, in turn, sets very human protection mechanisms in motion and thus we will (I presume) hear a number of arguments why this is not true (there is no profit motive), but most such arguments will be but rationalizations of the choices already made. It is difficult to accept that you have acted in the exact opposite way you preach people should act.

Let me add that this should be even more difficult for an anarchist, since statists often find themselves in situations where there is nothing they can do but choose one alternative of many that contradicts everything they have said, written, and believe. The state is itself a contradiction of human life and liberty, which calls for contradictions also in the lives and thoughts of statists.

But the problem here is not the state – it is the dogmatic use of words. There is nothing inherently wrong in the word “profit.” It is only wrong in a certain context and used in certain connotations. Profit is a bad thing for many anarchists not because it means someone is being better off (even though there are some who seem to believe this is the case) – profit is bad because it is the result of acts of exploitation carried out in a system based on enforced privilege. The problem of profit is not what it is, but what it implies.

This is why so many anarchists (and others as well) tend to direct their energy to fight the wrong things. If capitalism is truly a system of privilege making a certain class able to make enormous profits through their “right” to exploit the masses, then it can only be a system existent in a state framework. Which means capitalism, in this form, is necessarily dependent on the state and a symptom of the state. If we were intelligent we would cure the disease, not work to remove the symptoms. The former could make real change, whereas the latter simply makes sure there is an eternal, never-ending struggle.

Actually, you might even claim that it would be dishonest or even hypocritical to try to remove the symptoms without trying to find a cure to the real problem. Painting over the stains does not remove the causes of the problem, just like putting another guy in office doesn’t remove the problems of statism. This equally true with the state and capitalism as well as with saying you are an anarchist while not acting like an anarchist.

Consistency is very, very important. It is not only important for the cause or movement, but – more importantly – it is important for your belief in self and your values. Your self esteem is based on you honoring your principles. I need not say a principled mind is superior to the mind based on contradiction and conflict. A principled position is a strong position – a moral position – even if you are alone against the world.

Also, dishonesty and inconsistency is a problem for the movement. If anarchists aren’t principled in both thought and actions they will try to rationalize their imperfections and the contradictions they discover. Such rationalizations make you vulnerable, and this may very well lead to dogmatism and factionism. And this is what we are seeing in the anarchist movement – people seem more interested in denouncing fellow anarchists who don’t agree to 100% with the views put forth than fighting the common enemy.

In this sense, it is extremely important to do away with “anarchist forum statism.” This may only be a small issue, perhaps even unimportant in itself, but it is a symptom of inconsistency and unwillingness to live by one’s principles. And the result of such inconsistency is an anarchist movement in constant war between factions rather than a strong, united movement that can actually make a change.

Add a shiny plaque in the guy’s wallet and the reaction is the same. We would probably wonder what the hell is wrong with him and why he is flashing his wallet as if it gave him the right to boss us around. Many of us would think he was crazy, some might even think of calling for help. Some of use would definitely refuse to follow orders and perhaps even argue with the guy in school uniform and with shiny plaque in his wallet.

But if we change the design of the uniform so that it looks more “official” (which really means “intimidating” or “aggressive” or “militarist”) nobody would think the guy to be someone who had escaped a nearby sanitarium. Rather, we would accept the authority of the clothing and the shiny thing in the wallet at face value and obey the orders. How many of us would ask for this person’s authority, critically check what the uniform is about, or look closely at what the shiny thing in the wallet is?

Most people would definitely not do that. Especially if the person claims he is a “police officer” we would not even consider looking at the “badge.” Actually, we would accept his authority and obey whatever orders given without even thinking of checking the badge. The interesting thing is that most of us would probably not even have a look at the badge or even the uniform – if the “police” just sounds very sure and decisive we would obey.

This is a very interesting psychological effect, in part. We, as humans, tend to believe a person who tells us something if he or she makes the impression he or she is confident it is correct. It should be fairly easy to make people believe the most outrageous things – it has been done before. “This guy really knows what he is talking about,” is the general response.

Add to this the so-called “respect” we have been brainwashed with since we were infants, and it is easy to understand why people so easily can be told what to do and obey the orders of anyone. In any social context the person being a police officer would not be an authority – it is the uniform that makes him one. We have learned to “respect” (meaning obey) the state’s authority no matter who is calling for our “allegiance.” And most of us never question what we have been taught.

What we do not realize is that it is not the person’s natural authority that we accept and choose to take into account when we act (or don’t act). It is the uniform.

Part of the reason we immediately and without question do what we are ordered to do is of course fear – we know this person telling us he is a police officer will be protected by the state and thus can, with the help of the guns of government, lock us up more or less indefinitely – or use physical force only because he is not content with us or our actions.

But the underlying threat of the use of force, ultimately deadly such, is not the only reason we back away and obey whatever orders tossed at us. Many of us voluntarily choose to do things even though they can definitely mean we might get killed – we drive way too fast just for the fun of it, we stay out late in cities we don’t know very well, try foreign and domestic foods in restaurants where we are pretty sure we don’t want to see the kitchen. A lot of things we do can very well be the end of it all.

As the bad joke from medical school goes, the most severe condition a person can have is life – because it has a 100% death rate.

No, the reason we accept the stupidest orders from alleged police officers is not primarily that we fear them. Actually, there are numerous examples of people witnessing obvious police brutality where their victims are close to suffocating – without anyone doing anything. Is it because we fear the police officer, even if the people witnessing the brutality are 50-1? No, in most of these cases these people have much greater fear for the life of the victim. Yet they do nothing.

The problem is that no one takes the first step. If someone would take one step forward and state clearly that they will not allow for this brutality to take place many will most certainly follow their example. And they can all tell the same story in a court of “law” if there will be a trial. The police officer will definitely be acquitted and found guilty on all charges (if any), this is always the case (not surprisingly when the state is to judge whether the protectors of the state acted “justly”). But so would probably the people stopping the obvious brutality – it cannot be fear of repercussions that stops people from helping a fellow human being from being brutally assaulted and perhaps even killed before their very eyes.

No, we hesitate because we have been taught every day of our lives that we have a duty to obey when the state or the representatives of the state give us orders. And since we all hesitate nobody ends up doing anything. We all wait for someone to take the lead, to show us the way – to act in such a decisive manner so that we can interpret it as an order.

We are thus back again to authority and our desperate need for someone to show the way, for a leader – a Führer.

The centuries living under a state’s rule have made most of us so unable to act, and so uncomfortable with making decisions ourselves, that we are in every sense sheep looking for a shepherd. And we believe everybody else is also sheep, which means that if we actually do something we will be the only ones.

This is the most fundamental problem with the state system – we have lost the confidence in being men and women. We gladly accept authority wherever we see it and in whatever shape it is shown to us. It is, from this perspective, strange that kidnapped often end up working for the kidnappers against those who try to set them free? This “phenomenon” has been studied extensively, but no one has made the connection between our society of sheep and the need for authority that we have been force fed since we were born.

What this means is not only that we subject ourselves to authority and the state; it means not only that we subject ourselves and everybody else; and it does not only mean we feel uncomfortable with people without uniform (in whatever form) taking the lead. It means we have fundamentally accepted that some people have the right to do whatever they think necessary with other people’s lives. It means we have accepted inequality.

Inequality is necessary for every oppressive and exploitative relationship between people or groups of people. The sad truth is that there cannot be freedom as long as there are different “kinds” of people – with inequality there is no chance for freedom.

My latest article published on Strike the Root, Inequality Is the Threat to Liberty, discusses this relationship between inequality and freedom.