Involution, Then Revolution

On Mar. 23, Michael Eliot published an article called “Involution, not Revolution” in which he argues that a violent revolution is not the correct strategy for creating a free society, and that the use of methods such as seasteading will be more successful. In this rebuttal, I will attempt to show that this position is not only unsound, but naïve and dangerous.

While libertarians have long been accused of not being real revolutionaries for not wanting to violently overthrow the existing order, this is not a universally valid accusation. While some libertarians have either conflated the non-aggression principle with pacifism or have a more limited view of defensive violence than what is logically justifiable, other libertarians have no philosophical objection to such a strategy. Their objection is a practical one; libertarians currently lack the manpower and resources to engage in such a fight with a reasonable expectation of success.

Of course, those who wield state power would wish for the current number of libertarians to attempt self-defense against the state. What they would not wish for is for even three percent of the civilian population in their geographical area to do so, as this would likely destroy them and their minions outright, not vice versa. Even the personnel and firepower at the disposal of the United States government proved no match for the determination and resourcefulness of insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq to remove foreign occupying forces from their soil. How much more difficult would they find a domestic insurgency of their fellow Americans?

A government military would face limitations if deployed at home that it does not face abroad. (Forget posse comitatus, as it is just words on paper which would be ignored at the convenience of the rulers should a serious challenge to the state be made. Also dismiss the idea that soldiers would disobey orders to kill the citizens they are supposedly serving to protect; history and psychology suggests that many, if not most, would obey.) As of late, government militaries cause a fairly large number of civilian casualties for every enemy combatant they kill. Do this domestically and the number of loyalists to the regime quickly shrinks while the number of people willing to rebel quickly grows. They also could not bomb infrastructure nearly as much because this would destroy their own supply lines and logistical capabilities as well while convincing more people to rebel. Also, a domestic deployment could endanger family members and friends of the soldiers, leading to loss of morale, disobedience of orders, and defections to the rebel cause. Finally, a soldier who fights overseas hardly ever faces reprisals after the war by those who were victimized. But if the military were fielded domestically, it would be much easier for the details of a person’s military service to be recorded and publicized by alternative media, resulting in a soldier having to watch out for revenge-seekers for the rest of his or her life.

It must be said that a libertarian anarchist revolution would be notably different from what has been tried before. The point of such a revolution is not to “restore the republic” or “put the right people in charge,” but to render an area ungovernable for the foreseeable future. After all, history has clearly shown that deposing rulers without dealing with the belief in a need to be ruled simply results in another ruler, and usually a worse one. As such, this new type of revolution does not primarily target the rulers, but their minions in the enforcement classes. If the aforementioned three percent of the civilian population were so opposed to the idea of being ruled that they would shoot at anyone who tried to enforce against them the whims of rulers, then it would not matter what the whims of rulers are or what the other 97 percent of people vote for. The ultimate reason that people are voting on ballots is that they fear the consequences of voting with bullets, and the ultimate reason that agents of the state are carrying out government policies is that they are being paid to do so. But if the job of being an agent of the state is made so hazardous that taking such a job guarantees death, then no one who is intelligent enough to live will take such a job, as dying on the job defeats the purpose of getting a paycheck. This leaves voters with the options of either living peacefully or trying to perform the crimes of the state themselves, and their current behavior shows that they fear the latter. The strategy at the time of this writing, then, is to convince enough people who control enough resources that rulers are unnecessary, immoral, and harmful, and that self-defense against their minions is justifiable as to create the conditions for a successful revolution.

Some will say that people who believe that all human interactions should be voluntary cannot force this viewpoint on others, and that the aforementioned revolution would do just that. The only time that force can legitimately be used within the norms of libertarian philosophy is in an act of defensive violence to stop aggressors, reclaim stolen property, make criminals perform restitution, etc. Thus, the forcing of these norms on people would only occur when people commit aggressions and are met with defensive force. As such, forcing voluntaryism on people is compatible with voluntaryism. Furthermore, anarchists can force anarchy on statists because statists impose their wills on people through force, thereby estopping themselves from complaining that force is being used against them.

So far, we have a philosophical case for a libertarian revolution based on the use of force in self-defense against the state, but a means for convincing enough people who control enough resources to perform such a revolution is still needed. Eliot is correct to note that the most important means to this end is involution, or shrinking the state through disuse and the creation of alternatives. In fact, they are vitally important because it is through involution that the number of libertarians can be grown, the technology to avoid and replace the state can be developed, and the best alternatives to statism can be worked out in action. Without involution, it may not be possible to convince enough people who control enough resources to partake in revolution. As Eliot says, many people are not going to become libertarians by reading Rothbard, Huemer, and Hoppe. The majority of people erroneously put empiricism before rationalism, experience before reason, and observation before logic because they were forcibly indoctrinated with a state-sanctioned curriculum in government schools. These people will need to be shown examples of libertarian theory being applied to solve real world problems in order to overcome such faulty upbringing, and this is what involutionary methods can do. Many advocates of involution seek to end the state without direct confrontation. To be sure, there is nothing immoral about such efforts, but it is naïve and dangerous to believe that involution alone will be sufficient because such a belief implies that existing states will treat libertarians peacefully just because the efforts of libertarians are peaceful. All historical evidence says otherwise.

Some libertarians would point to Hong Kong as an example of what happens when property rights are respected, laws are stable, and people may follow their interests, but this leaves open the door for a minarchist analogue of the Laffer curve. Such an argument would posit that there is an ideal, small amount of statism at which individual liberty and economic prosperity are maximized, and that deviations toward either anarchism or big government will have negative consequences. This argument is of no help to people who seek to cure the disease of statism rather than restrain it in an unstable remission.

Several methods of involution are already in practice, such as agorism, ride-sharing, and homeschooling/unschooling. The particular method of involution that Eliot discusses is seasteading. The idea is to colonize the oceans by building permanent dwellings on the high seas outside of the territory claimed by any government. Possible methods include building floating islands or submerged habitats, or taking over decommissioned oil platforms or anti-aircraft platforms. Notable benefits include easy access to shipping lanes and the ability to operate an economy outside of existing statist regulatory schemes. Seasteading could be the way to create an anarchist control zone that allows anyone to make an effort to live there, escape the state, and build a better future for oneself and one’s descendants. In such an environment, those who need an empirical example of how society can function without the state can get one and be convinced without having to understand libertarianism in a philosophical sense.

This is all well and good, but it is not likely to be enough. Governments do not have a track record of going gently into the night or of tolerating existential threats. Those who see involution as sufficient and revolution as unnecessary or even undesirable ignore this track record at their own peril. If history is any guide, then the response by governments to seasteads that are brain-draining, talent-draining, youth-draining, and investment-draining the entire world will be to initiate the use of force against them. The lead-up to this would have strong parallels to that of all of the military misadventures of today. As Hermann Göring said at the Nuremberg Trials,

“Of course the people do not want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

The rulers will blame the seasteaders for attracting people and capital away from their nations. The lapdog media will promote the narrative that the seasteaders are not only refusing to “pay their fair share of taxes” but are undermining the very survival of the population remaining on land. (Of course, some will have been forced to remain on land against their wills, but this will be conveniently ignored.) Those who sympathize with the seasteaders will be denounced for hating the poor, lacking patriotism, and endangering the economic survival of society. This may take some time to happen, as the seasteaders will be trading with the people who are still on land, and armies do not tend to move between nations if trade goods are moving between them. Public support for war with the seasteaders will thus be more difficult to manufacture, but as conditions grow comparatively worse on land with the best and brightest people leaving for the seasteads and taking their capital with them, the rulers and their propagandists will eventually get the war they want.

When the attacks do come, the seasteaders will have disadvantages that the statists on land do not. A platform or underwater habitat on the high seas is more vulnerable to attack than a land-based target. Targets at sea can be attacked from below by submarines, while undermining a structure on land takes time and effort. Floating platforms can be damaged enough to sink and underwater habitats can be compromised, thereby exposing the inhabitants to the dangers of the open ocean. Of course, the seasteaders may put their talents and resources to work purchasing and inventing defenses for their homes, but the most powerful governments of the world are likely to keep escalating the use of force in their efforts to end the threat that seasteading poses to their control.

None of this is to suggest that seasteading is a bad idea, only that it cannot bring about the change to a stateless society by itself. Like other tactics, such as civil disobedience, peaceful parenting, unschooling, agorism, and technological advancement, seasteading is a means of weakening state power and growing the ability of anti-statists to resist state power to the point that ending the state through the use of defensive force against its agents becomes a realistic possibility. Involution, then revolution is the path to liberty.

A libertarian case against mandatory voting

On Mar. 18, President Obama held a speech and Q&A session in Cleveland, Ohio. Toward the end, he suggested the idea that voting should be made mandatory, saying, “Other countries have mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything. The people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities… There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”

First, let us consider the morality of the situation. Compulsory voting laws, like all other laws in a statist society, are murder threats against the citizenry. While this may be obscured by various procedures and propaganda, the fact remains that if a citizen refuses to pay a fine, eventually agents of the state will invade the private property of the offender to kidnap and cage the person. If the person resists, then the agents of the state will use as much force as necessary to bring compliance, up to and including deadly force. Other methods, such as refusing state-required licenses to non-voters, would also eventually lead to state-sanctioned violence following a sufficiently long and strong defiance by a citizen. Additionally, a compulsory voting law is a form of slavery because it compels one to perform labor against one’s will for which one will not be compensated.

Then there is the morality of voting itself. Voting is not an act of self-defense, a fundamental right, or a civic duty; it is an act of aggression. When one votes, one is effectively asking a particular person who seeks to violently dominate society to commit actions on one’s behalf which would be considered criminal by any objective standard, and which are considered criminal if an ordinary person commits them. This is on the same moral ground as hiring a thief to steal property from one’s business competitors or hiring a hitman to kill an innocent person. Those who are so victimized are justified not only in defending themselves from the aggressors, but from those who hired the aggressors as well.

With the moral repugnancy of the situation established, let us look at Obama’s claims about the effects of mandatory voting versus what can reasonably be expected to happen. First, he claims that other countries are doing it. This is true, and those countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cyprus, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, North Korea, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Uruguay, and one canton in Switzerland. Some of these nations are relatively free places otherwise, but others are not, and among them is the most repressed country in the world. Of course, suggesting that an action should be taken simply because others are doing it is a bandwagon fallacy.

Next, Obama claims that mandatory voting would be transformative. This is true, and highly unlikely to be a good thing. One effect is that money which is now spent on “get out the vote” efforts would be freed up to spend on propagandizing voters with lies, and as mandatory voting forces the least intelligent people (most of whom currently stay home) to vote, the polling places would be filled with sheeple mindlessly following orders. The end result of this will be a march toward communism and a flight of investment capital, as the rich find that leaving the country makes more sense than trying to convince the entire population, most of whom are economically illiterate, not to use state power to legally plunder them. Another effect is that established parties and office holders will be even more difficult to defeat, as alternative parties and candidates will have to spend even more money to reach the larger population of voters. In addition, while politicians at least have to pretend that they are working for the citizens rather than farming them when voting is voluntary, there would be no need to feign interest in the opinions of the unwashed masses when they cannot choose to stay home on Election Day. We should also expect to see the quality of candidates to suffer (I know this seems like a stretch, but trust me, things can always get worse) when they make whatever promises they have to make to get votes from people who currently stay home.

Third, Obama claims that mandatory voting will counteract money in politics. The problem with this idea is that government offers a service to those who can afford it, which is to use violence to help the few at the expense of the many and protect established interests from disruptive innovation. Those who want this service are going to find a way to get it and pay for it as long as it is available. The only question is whether this will be overt (in the form of campaign contributions) or covert (in the form of bribes). If anything, mandatory voting will make matters worse because those who sign up for a chance to violently dominate society will have a larger number of people to bribe with stolen money in the form of promising them new government programs and handouts. The only way to counteract money in politics is to abolish one or the other, and even leftists are generally not economically ignorant enough to attempt the former (though exceptions exist).

Fourth, Obama claims that people who tend not to vote are more likely to be younger, have lower incomes, and be immigrants and/or minorities. This is partly because people who are younger, have lower incomes, and/or belong to racial minorities are more likely to have experiences to show them how the system is rigged against them. Such experiences would also teach them that the people who are causing them the most difficulties are those who are not subject to elections, such as police deputies and government regulatory agents. And of course, democratic government is a persistent threat to the smallest and most vulnerable minority of all: the individual.

Finally, Obama claims that there is a reason why some people try to keep the kinds of people mentioned in the previous paragraph from voting. While racism may play some part in this for members of the far right, the more common reason is that they are statistically less likely to be intelligent, thanks to government indoctrination and a lack of life experiences. (These two causes are mutually reinforcing, making matters even worse.) This leads them to vote for government programs that are designed to appeal to their own selfish interests, at the expense of people who are forced to pay for said programs. They will also be less capable of making logically sound decisions about leadership.

Clearly, mandatory voting is a terrible idea in terms of human liberty, but liberty has never been the true motivation of the ruling classes. The only good that mandatory voting could possibly accomplish from a libertarian perspective is to show the inefficacy of withdrawing from politics as a workable strategy for ending the state. The number of people who do not vote is already larger than the number of people who support any particular candidate in nearly all cases. If voter turnout drops enough to threaten the perceived legitimacy of state power, then the rulers will simply decree that voting is mandatory. If they are serious about enforcing this, then the citizenry will be faced with the choice from which they have generally fled: that of submission or rebellion.

The 100 and a libertarian perspective on innocent shields

The 100 recently wrapped up its second season. The show is based on a book of the same name, but only loosely follows it. The show is set about a century after a nuclear war occurred on Earth. There are three major types of survivors: those who lived on space stations (Sky People), those who remained on the ground (Grounders), and those who took over a military installation at Mount Weather and have lived inside the mountain (Mountain Men). The Grounders are adapted to the higher radiation levels, and so are the Sky People due to exposure to radiation in space. The Mountain People, however, are not adapted and will die almost instantly upon exposure to the outside world. The show mainly focuses on the Sky People, beginning with their struggles in space which force them to return to the surface and continuing with their interactions with the other two types of survivors that they find there.

The finale, “Blood Must Have Blood, Part 2,” contained an interesting moral dilemma. The Mountain People are led by Cage, a tyrant who is willing to use any means necessary to make his people capable of living on the surface. He has captured about 40 Sky People and his underlings are forcibly extracting their bone marrow for transplants into his people so that they can have resistance to the radiation. Cage intends to exterminate the captives in the process. Clarke, the leader of a small strike force of Sky People, only has one way to stop him: reverse the air filtration of Mount Weather to flood it with radiation, thereby killing all of the Mountain People, including hundreds of innocent civilians who are not involved with or even supportive of Cage’s actions. She struggles with this decision, but ultimately chooses to flip the switch and kill the Mountain People to save her people. From a libertarian perspective, was Clarke’s decision justified? Let us see.

Essentially, this is a more complicated version of the problem of innocent shields. The Mountain People other than Cage and his underlings are innocents, but so are the captured Sky People. Clarke effectively kills the aggressors (except for Cage, who has already made himself resistant to radiation but is killed by a Grounder shortly after escaping Mount Weather) but wipes out the innocent Mountain People to save the captured Sky People. Unquestionably, Clarke was justified in killing Cage’s underlings and trying to kill Cage. They were committing acts of murder and were therefore estopped from complaining about violations of their own rights to life. But what of the innocents among the Mountain People? To answer this, we need to consider two libertarian theories on the matter of innocent shields: that of strict non-aggression and that of negative homesteading.

Strict adherence to the non-aggression principle would suggest that the Mountain People civilians are non-aggressors and that harming them is immoral. But if this is true, then the captured Sky People are doomed. If Clarke cannot kill the Mountain People, then Cage and his underlings will murder the captured Sky People. But the non-aggression principle is not an axiom; it is a logical corollary of the right to exclusive control over one’s physical body, which is the starting point for any logically rigorous moral theory. (To argue against this right would result in a performative contradiction.) To have another theory for this situation, we need to find another such logical corollary of bodily ownership and use it. Toward that end, Walter Block introduced the concept of negative homesteading. To quote Block,

“In ordinary homesteading, or what we must now call positive homesteading to distinguish it from this newly introduced variety, it is the first person upon the scene who mixes his labor with the land or natural resource who comes away with the property rights in question. It is the first man who farms a plot of land, who becomes the rightful owner. A similar procedure applies to negative homesteading, only here what gets to be “owned” is a negative, not a positive. This concept refers to some sort of unhappiness, not a benefit such as owning land. The ownership of misery, as it were, must stay with its first victim, according to this principle. He cannot legitimately pass it onto anyone else without the latter’s permission.”

At first glance, the case at hand appears to be more complicated than the case Block discusses first:

“A grabs B to use as a shield; A forces B to stand in front of him, and compels him to walk wherever A wishes. A then hunts C in order to murder the latter by shooting him. C also has a gun. Is it legally permissible for C to shoot at A in self defense under libertarian law?”

Here, there are groups rather than individuals, and A is using B as a shield while killing C that is not armed. D must decide to either kill both A and B or to allow A to kill C. Replacing D with C is functionally equivalent because D (Clarke) is acting as C’s (Sky People’s) agent, and the moral limitations of one’s own actions are identical to the moral limitations of the actions of one’s agent. As groups have no existence apart from the individuals which comprise said groups, this difference may also be discarded. As such, we are back to the original case: C must choose either to allow oneself to be murdered or to kill both the aggressor (A) and the shield (B).

To use the theory of negative homesteading, we must identify the first homesteader of the misery. This is the Mountain People. Cage started this scenario by assuming a leadership position over the Mountain People, to which they did not object even though they were numerous enough to overthrow him. It is impermissible for the Mountain People to transfer this misery to the Sky People. Even in the best case for Cage and his underlings, which is that they would let the Mountain People go free after giving them the Sky People’s bone marrow, the Mountain People will have succeeded in passing off enough misery onto the Sky People to kill them. Thus, the theory of negative homesteading permits Clarke to do what she did even though a strict view of the non-aggression principle would not.

25 statist propaganda phrases and how to rebut them

In the discourse of statists, there is a group of phrases of which one or more tend to be present in nearly every argument. While this is not an exhaustive listing of that group, it does contain twenty-five of the most common phrases that statists use in their arguments. As propaganda has a tendency to be repetitive, some of these phrases contain the same logical fallacies, and will therefore have similar refutations. As such, the phrases are ordered so that earlier rebuttals also apply to some later phrases.

  1. Our government”

“Our” is the possessive form of “we.” This phrase assumes that a collective exists and has ownership of the government, which is another collective. To exist is to have a concrete, particular form in physical reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of where they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically observable entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what physical form they take, as all available physical forms are occupied by the individuals which are said to comprise the collective. Thus, there is no “we”; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By the same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each gun, etc. exists. As such, the phrase “our government” is meaningless. Additionally, to own something is to have a right of exclusive control over it. Part and parcel of this right is the right to physically destroy that which one owns. As governments use force to stop citizens who attempt to physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a government.

  1. We are the government”

This phrase confuses society with government, which is as serious an error as confusing an entire human body with a malignant tumor growing inside of that body.

  1. The social contract”

A valid contract must be presented honestly and agreed to voluntarily, without duress or fraud. The social contract does not meet this standard because the state will initiate the use of force against anyone who does not voluntarily enter into the social contract. The state is also not automatically dissolved when it fails to uphold its obligations under the social contract, so the presentation is dishonest if it even occurs at all. Therefore, the social contract cannot be considered a legitimate contract.

  1. Our leader”

In the case of the state, we are not speaking of just any kind of leader, but a ruler. No one owns the ruler, and the ruler falsely claims to own those who are ruled, as the ruler claims a right to exclusive control over the ruled and has no logically defensible basis for doing so. Thus the leader is not “ours.”

  1. The leader of the free world”

“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.

  1. You don’t have to like our leaders, but you should respect them”

Respect should be a response to virtue. Ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, therefore it is unworthy of respect.

  1. You don’t have to like the president, but you should respect the office of the presidency”

The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent criminal institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect.

  1. Our military”

If the military is “ours,” then “we” should be able to exercise exclusive control over it. But “we” neither command the military nor have the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not “ours”; it is a tool of the ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in the form of martial law should the citizens succeed in violently overthrowing the government, and present a deterrent to other rulers elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and capture the tax base for themselves.

  1. We need to make the world safe for democracy”

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. This sort of behavior should not be made safe; it should be made dangerous by giving the sheep means to resist the wolves. Some will say that this is what a constitutional republic does, but this is false. A constitutional republic is three wolves and a sheep voting for a representative among them to decide who gets eaten. To claim that establishing a constitutional republic counters the negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making a chocolate cake double-layered, one can magically turn it into something that is not chocolate.

  1. You don’t have to like what the police/military are doing, but you should support them”

Again, respect should be a response to virtue. Just as ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, carrying out said orders is also not virtuous. Therefore it is unworthy of respect.

  1. The homeland/Our nation”

As only individuals are capable of action, only individuals may rightly own property. There is no such thing as public property; there is only privately owned property and property which has been stolen or otherwise interfered with by agents of the state. Thus, there is no homeland or nation because these require collective ownership.

  1. National defense/security”

There is no such thing as national security apart from each individual person’s security because there is no such thing as a nation apart from each individual person.

  1. It’s the law”

In a statist society, the laws are a collection of opinions written down by sociopaths who have managed to either win popularity contests or murder their competitors and enforced at gunpoint by thugs in costumes. The implication of the phrase “it’s the law” is that this state of affairs is both necessary and proper, rather than inherently illogical and immoral. Also implied is that the law is somehow sacrosanct and immutable, which is clearly false because the aforementioned sociopaths both frequently alter the laws and routinely disregard the laws they make for everyone else.

  1. Voting is your voice in government”

This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted correctly, that vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that politicians will do what voters tell them to do. Each of these assumptions has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is demonstrably false on several occasions at worst.

  1. Voting is a civic duty”

A legitimate duty can only come from a legitimate right or contract. There is no such right or contract that could create such a duty. In addition, there can be no legitimate duty to perform an immoral act. Voting is immoral because it helps to impose violent rulers upon peaceful people and gives the appearance of legitimacy to institutions which deserve none.

  1. If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”

This is exactly wrong. People who do not vote are the only people who have a right to complain. Those who vote for people who win elections are endorsing politicians and their minions who will engage in activities under color of law that would be punished as crimes if you or I did them. Those who vote for people who lose elections may not be vicariously responsible for the crimes of state agents in the same degree, but participating in the system helps to create the appearance of legitimacy for that which is inherently illegitimate.

  1. The public good/The good of society”

Society, or “the public,” does not exist. Each individual person exists. As such, there is no such thing as the public good or the good of society. There is only what is good for each individual person.

  1. For the children”

Those who wield state power subject children to forced indoctrination that leaves them with few marketable skills and restrict the ability of suitable guardians to serve as their parents. They do not care about children as anything other than a means to shame and guilt people into handing over more liberty and property to the state.

  1. Government is necessary”

This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.

  1. Anarchy is chaos”

The word “anarchy” comes from Greek αναρχος, meaning “without rulers,” or more accurately, “without beginning to take the lead.” It does not mean an absence of order, rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is chaos plus organization.

  1. Taxes are the price for a civilized society”

This is exactly wrong. Taxes are the price for failing to create a civilized society based on voluntary solutions, and the degree of taxation corresponds to the degree of failure.

  1. Paying taxes is a civic duty”

Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and freedom of association. There can be no legitimate duty to comply with immorality.

  1. We owe it to ourselves”

This would make one both a creditor and a debtor in the same transaction. This is a contradiction, therefore it is false.

  1. We’re going to hold them accountable”

This is contrary to the nature of the state. The state apparatus allows some people to do what is ordinarily forbidden for anyone to do. Thus, the objective is to avoid responsibility for the commission of crimes. Avoiding responsibility is the opposite of being held accountable.

  1. Who will build the roads?”

If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? It does not matter. What matters is that slavery is morally indefensible. So it is with government and who will provide services in its absence. Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular answer is incorrect. And who will build the death camps? The state also provides intolerable disservices which would almost certainly not occur in its absence.