Skip to main content

That Bread is Mine, Too

Okay, so the State was smashed yesterday morning. Now what?

Obviously, everybody will go his/her own way and make oodles of gold. Some of it will be spent on protection agents and arbitration. And we shall be ever-vigilant against the return of the State!

But what are we going to do if someone wants his money back?


Such a question is far from academic, for one’s view of justice seems to determine one’s revolutionary tactics. Robert LeFevre, the anarcho-pacifist, pursues a purely educational route because he has foresworn the use of defensive restitutive force. What else can he do? Murray Rothbard, enamored with “temporary” political expedients, pursues popular fronts with rightists, then leftists, then partyarchs. With his “double restitution” or “restitution plus punishment” theory, he finds himself allied with the Penal Institution crowd regardless of other alliances.

Ayn Rand seeks unlimited restitution, and since infinity can only be achieved mystically she must resurrect a gover…

The Practicality of Anti-Politics





The Zero Sum Game of Parliamentary Seats

The idea of democracy, and the idealistic sculpture its supporters have carved out of that idea is nothing short of a bootleg & a fraud. The propaganda surrounding the idea is so strongly rooted in the public DNA that it has become alien to question the institution of democracy itself. If you follow the norms and codes of the day, you might have permission to nibble on the corners of individual ideas from the institution, but don't you dare touch the structure, that one is built on sacred land!

It isn't hard to see why the idea is protected and nurtured by willing participants in the fraud. It's promoted, packaged and marketed neatly - but when there is no correlation between the product & it's description, you are just buying into the trailer's glamour and special effects, not the movie.

You get one vote. If your idea (vote) is part of the majority, you win, otherwise your side lose.[1]


The reality outside of parliament, however, isn't that binary or direct: You have several choices in almost anything. The parliament on the other hand removes choice. One can argue that it might not be the whole point, but for sure a great part of the point. If I decide on a purchase, or pick a different road to take home than I did yesterday, it doesn't mean the other options vanishes.[2]

I'm not particularly interested in removing choices for others that aren't directly opposing me. What if theirs was the best choice? Or the only one they could afford? What if the choice of others evolve to something I don't want to miss out on in the future?

It isn't in my best interest to restrict options, but rather to expand them, and that is strike one against participating in parliamentary politics. For me; voting and hoping to win is force. The system is set up in such a way that if my side wins an election we are restricting others for participating in something they believe in. Parliamentary seats are limited, there is a zero sum game being played. Something I take removes something from someone else under such conditions.


I'm not interested in doing that, I'm interested in building something completely different. Let those democratic worshipers go to their temple and do their business.


Print your own Permission Slip

"What is a more effective way of protecting your privacy rights: Giving your money to Bill Weld or downloading Tor?" - Sal The Agorist [3]

One common stance on the insistence on using politics is "If you don't partake in politics, you open yourself up to become a victim to the decisions of others". Which looks like a fair position to take, until you realize the vast amount of time and money you need to pool together to protect yourself.

In the last Swedish election the participation was a staggering 87%, last American had 61%. Granted, not everybody is going to vote against your particular idea, but to get your idea from your head and onto a government paper and getting it stamped and filed into the states ledger will still require an insane amount of money and energy. Elections are a billion dollar industry in America. It is a finely tuned and sophisticated business you need to elbow yourself into & good ideas alone aren't going to cut it. Even if you gather the resources to do it - you're still not guaranteed that it will work in an acceptable manner.


The power is far removed from the people, contrary to popular democratic propaganda. That single vote you have in your back pocket isn't going to buy you anything but a piece of a representative.

If you have millions of dollars to dedicate to a political cause, you can build an industry instead. If you have the ears of millions of people ready to listen to your ideas, you have a customer base. If you have neither, what do you think you will accomplish in politics except wasting your time?

"But the state will send its foot soldiers, tax you or shut you down!" - That might be, but that is nobody's fault but my own. The camouflage was weak, precautions weren't taken, I didn't trade with trusted parties, the trace could be followed straight back to me and so on.

Instead of spending time on a political vote that could get overturned come next election, it's more productive to work on solutions to the problem at hand. If there is no solution to a particular problem, hack the problem. Print your own permission slip. Build your network of like-minded people.

--- Alex Utopium
Editor for Utopium.blog
Support my work via crypto here
Tweet with me, Gab with me

----------------------------------------------------
[1] The negative 'lose' part is hardly ever spelled out in the official programming.

[2] To be precise, the choices doesn't vanish when government bans something either, but make the opportunity costs higher, artificially, which is hardly ideal.

[3] From Sal's Article: Against the Partyarchy


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 


Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Don't Vote for Alex

It is 2019 and in Norway, that means county and city-election year. You can vote for me, but this article is all about why you really shouldn't. [1] There are several ways to say 'No'. This is a story about the time I said 'Yes', what I will stay positive to and what I will be negative toward. 

"But it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve us one oppression" - Samuel Edward Konkin III


First of all, there is some explaining to do: In my last article on the New Libertarian I argued that party politics is a waste of time and that you could use that time more productive so this entire piece seems like its contradicting that one. It might, that is up to you to judge for yourself (and if you want a chat I'm very approachable on Twitter), but in my defense, I will highlight two things:

One: I'm not against solution-finding, culture-building or exchange of ideas. I can give no brighter example of this happening than the…