The Return of Anarchy and Aphorisms

A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT 4/10/2015

After a long hiatus Anarchy and Aphorisms is going to return for a hopefully much longer run. There are a number of new articles and ideas in the works and a fresh post will appear by this time next week.

New looks at Peter Kropotkin and Ayn Rand coming up first (sorry to any supporters of the latter, this blog's author is not a fan) and then a series of articles that will strive to find out the essential components of anarchism and how it could function in the real world.

I hope some new readers will find some articles of interest here, and maybe a few of the old readers will return. Thanks to the thousands (I was very surprised by the size of the number) that have taken the time to peruse my humble and neglected blog.

The time has come for the sun to rise on the ideas of anarchism again.

Anarchist Personalities I: Alexander Berkman

“The People! My Greek mythology moods have often pictured him to me as the mighty Atlas, supporting on his shoulders the weight of the world, his back bent, his face the mirror of unutterable misery, in his eye the look of hopeless anguish, the dim, pitiful appeal for help.”

From Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist by Alexander Berkman

This blog mainly exists as a forum to consider different aspects of anarchism, to question its philosophies and the real world consequences or benefits of a large group of people living without the aid of government, class or any ruling bodies. I may be staunchly anti-government and anti-capitalism but that doesn’t mean I don’t try to discern whether these personal opinions are morally good and feasible in the real world. I don’t desire simply to express my opinion nor do I expect others to agree on every aspect but hope they will question and argue many of my comments.

That being said I am also a lover of history; I respect what the past has to teach us about the present and future so it makes perfect sense to me not only to use this as a forum of thought but also to include short biographical vignettes of historical figures that have had a great impact on the development of anarchism. This is the first in a series that will develop gradually called “Anarchist Personalities,” and since I am a moderate in anarchistic ideas, believing them to be true but questioning whether I am correct in that assumption or not, I thought it would be appropriate to begin with a personality quite the opposite, Alexander Berkman. Berkman had no qualms about his beliefs and as an anarchist he could be classified as an extremist, which is easy enough to see in the story of his life.

Instead of briefly going over the facts of his entire life in one 1,000 word or so post I thought it would serve the purpose of illuminating the type of man and anarchist Berkman was through one event in his life. It is impossible to appropriately detail even the dullest of lives in less than a few hundred pages at least, and Berkman certainly didn’t live a dull life by any standard.

In late June and early July of 1892 the iron and steel workers at Homestead Pennsylvania went on strike. At the time the chairman of Carnegie Steel, the company that owned the Homestead Steel Works, was Henry Clay Frick, a no-nonsense manager who already had a long history as a strike buster and had no intention of negotiating with the strikers. The workers were locked out, the steel works fortified, scabs smuggled in and the Pinkertons, a detective agency of the day that would hire out men to protect the interest of companies like Carnegie’s, were called in. When the Pinkertons arrived by boat a battle ensued between the strikers and the Pinkertons which cost lives on both sides. No one is sure who shot first, but the Pinkertons were eventually driven back by the overwhelming number of the strikers. The victory was short lived, however, as the national guard soon came in to ‘restore order’ and though many of the workers eventually returned to work their demands were not met and the union was a broken relic.

This is relevant backstory to one of the most famous events in Berkman’s life. The Battle of Homestead garnered much infamy and the number of innocent civilians that were killed was greatly exaggerated, by the time the news of the battle reached Berkman supposedly many women and children were murdered in cold blood by the Pinkertons and the strikers won a righteous battle. This was mostly a fairytale, but it didn’t matter much to Berkman.

In his book Prison Memoirs Of An Anarchist, Berkman describes the news of the Homestead strike and battle as something magical. Here was the turning point, thought Berkman, a sign that the proletariat, as he referred to ‘the people’ in his memoir, was ready to throw off the shackles and yoke of the capitalist giants and their governmental backers. Berkman formulated an insidious plan.

He left Worcester, Massachusetts where he was living with another famous anarchist, Emma Goldman, and headed for Homestead by train. Apparently he stopped by Frick’s office on 5th Avenue prior to the 23rd of July, introducing himself to Frick as one Simon Bachman, and was dismissed by Frick. He returned in the early afternoon of that July day, a couple days after his first visit, brushed past the astonished receptionist and entered Frick’s office again where the man was speaking with John Leishman, the vice-president of Carnegie Steel.

There are conflicting results of what followed, but both agree on one important detail; Berkman drew a revolver and attempted to assassinate Frick. In a biography commissioned by Frick, Henry Clay Frick: The Man, Berkman managed to shoot Frick twice in the neck, then pulled a dagger on him before Frick attacked Berkman himself, gained the upper hand and with the help of two assistants subdued Berkman in a chair. Ingeniously Frick seemed to possess some kind of premonition and forced Berkman’s jaw open where Berkman allegedly concealed an explosive capsule that would have blown the hell out of them all.

Berkman’s account differed in many of these details, especially in the extraordinary heroism of Frick. In his memoirs Berkman describes the event as over in a flash. His first shot hits Frick but he is unsure of where and if he is dead or not. It soon became apparent that Frick was still very much alive as he yelled out “Murder!” and Berkman was struck from behind by an employee after the gun misfired and he struggled with a Leishman. There is no mention of an explosives are hand-to-hand combat with Frick himself who apparently hid behind his desk.

Whichever account is true (if either) isn’t as important as Berkman’s basic actions. In his memoirs he made no secret of his ideal anarchist, a selfless man willing to do anything for ‘the people’ at a moment’s notice, even if that meant sacrificing oneself…or committing murder against an enemy of freedom. He was even somewhat disgusted by the hero of What Is to Be Done?
a popular novel among radicals like Vladimir Lenin and the anarchists, because the character showed too much hesitation and unwillingness to upset his own life for the revolution.

I won’t dive into the complex and controversial question of whether Berkman’s actions were justified or not. Some will say yes, others no. Personally I vouch for pacifism; more was accomplished by Martin Luther King Jr. in his non-violent marches than any bombing attack by revolutionaries. But one has to admire Berkman for his dedication and willingness to act. Berkman lived a life of extreme commitment. He suffered atrocious treatment in prison which his memoirs will expose, faced deportation from the United States for his anarchist views and many other tragedies in his life but never wavered in his beliefs. These are the facets of Berkman’s personality that are praiseworthy, even if his violent actions as a young radical are not.

Should Anarchists Vote?

“[…] the truth is that government is so massive and so complex that it is almost impossible for any individual to make a huge difference. It’s like being the captain of an enormous ocean liner. It is going to keep on going no matter who is at the wheel.”

-From Meet You in Hell by Les Standiford (attributed to an unknown modern president)

For any readers of this blog out there, welcome back. The holidays are a hectic time for many of us in this overly commercialized society of advertisements and consumerism, a.k.a., the United States, and my so-called ‘day job’ requires an added dose of dedication (which I do not possess but fake quite ably) which leaves me drained for some time afterwards. But Anarchy and Aphorisms has returned with regular updates once again each Sunday, until next December at least.

This first new post of this new year is focused on one simple question which is and will become increasingly relevant this year: should those of us that consider ourselves anarchists and anti-government still be involved in the election process? Like many simple questions this does not possess an equally simple answer, and inevitably the answer arrived at here will not be agreed to by some. But the relevance of it in our currently government run semi-democratic society makes it a particularly pressing and important question as it potentially affects the lives of any American citizen or those living in a country where legal, somewhat non-corrupt, elections take place.

Before we move to the ultimate answer/opinion let us take a quick look at the presidential candidates the United States is dealing with this year. At the moment the Republicans are still in the process of nomination with three hopefuls taking up most of the limelight: Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Ron Paul is also out there making his best effort…but we all know that his chance of winning the Republican nomination is somewhere between none and none.

Whichever one of these three gentlemen actually wins the nomination is essentially irrelevant. While the Republicans can be kindred spirits in their belief in smaller federal government, this slight similarity to the anarchist doctrine is overshadowed by intention and the quagmire of uber-conservative nonsense that is spurted from these, and every Republican candidate, this year. Their preference in smaller federal government isn’t because they want American citizens to have more freedom (with the exception of Paul) but stems entirely from a desire for deregulation of the free market. The problem with free market in the American tradition is that with it government is a necessity or otherwise the enormous gap in wealth and the level of financial irresponsibility in the private sector would run rampant and probably collapse our already fragile economy. Without regulations we are facing something catastrophic. As long as there is free market in the sense we have now true anarchism cannot exist. But this is not a post intended to linger on free market concepts, that is for another time.

While Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are lost in debates about abortion, gay-marriage, contraception, their religious beliefs, integrity and mostly other unnecessary topics and Obama is stuck in a deadlock with a bickering do-nothing congress it really seems like whoever wins the eventual race this November won’t make a lick of difference one way or another. And it probably won’t.

Despite this the fact is, as the reader will be well aware of, we do not currently live in an anarchistic society. Holding fast to your political philosophies and belief in personal freedoms is important and speaking freely and openly about these beliefs to help get the word out (even if all of us anarchists don’t agree on every detail) is equally important. But as long as we live in a society where elections are vital to how the established government functions it serves no purpose to stand on the sidelines.

Just like it would be if we lived in a world where anarchism was the way of life it is essential to be involved. While there is no shame, and plenty of reason to do so, in not attending elections as a form of protest against a government that seems to do much more harm than good it is also obvious that taking a part in trying to better this fractured system is commendable. As long as this system is in place, with no sign of disappearing in the near future, taking a stand and being involved is the best the average man or woman can hope to do in changing that system. This may come only in the form of choosing the lesser of two evils since, again let’s face it, many an election has two unappealing and often worthless candidates to choose from. It may not seem like it but your vote does count under the right circumstances. If enough of the usually non-voting, likeminded people of this country would actually hit the polls it might be enough to help initiate some change, however small.

Until the day might come when our society is ready to shed the restraints of government and realize that it is nothing more than a superfluous device of oppression, anarchists should not be afraid or feel hypocritical about taking action in our political system by choosing candidates more endearing to their opinions for office. A vote will ultimately be more effective than a Molotov cocktail, a much overused a cliché symbol of anarchists which is far away from what most of us stand for. Whatever your opinion is stay true to your convictions.

The "C" Word

“[…] raising the curse of poverty from society must become the transcendent objective of all men of good will.”

-Edward Bellamy

Communism. At this point in history this social-economic form has been an abject failure, and in the west we have a still standing, but comparatively muted, tradition of viewing anything associated with its concepts as base, ignorant, tyrannical or just plain Godless. Even though no country has successfully applied the tenets of communism the fault does not lie entirely with the ideas and practices it preaches, but with the dictatorships or autocracies that implement themselves as rulers during the often chaotic revolutionary period that served to uproot the old regime. There has never been a truly communistic state.

Anarchism serves as the political mate for communism’s economic principles of a classless society and common ownership of the means of production. The “State” is incompatible with economic equality, as the old adage says “power corrupts” and as long as there are governments there will be people with more influence, wealth and power than others. The one thing people with power want is more power.

There are many people in the world angry at capitalism and the financial inequality it inevitably breeds. This has been made obvious by the multitude of protestors occupying the streets and financial sectors. Why one man sits in a multi-million dollar mansion and another is struggling simply to stay out of the gutter is a question we are beginning to ask in mass. This has served to intensify interest in the ideas of socialism, and in smaller numbers, communism, and how these systems might improve the quality of living in a society still governed by the democratic process.

In 1887 the writer Edward Bellamy published the book Looking Backward: 2000 - 1887
a utopian novel about a wealthy man from the late 19^th century who, through the bizarre habit of sleeping in a hermitically sealed room, wakes up one morning to realize that he has been asleep for 113 years. The man finds that the America he knew from the 1880’s has transformed into a thriving socialist society where poverty has been eliminated. In a nutshell the book is told through discussions the man has with his guide, Dr. Leete, and others in the doctor’s household, about how the new society works and why the old society was destined to fail. It’s something like Rip Van Winkle…if it had been written by Karl Marx.

The book is far from flawless, although it proved to be very influential to the Marxist communities of the day, it is predominantly a utopian fantasy. When I originally read the book a year or two ago I was not impressed, it seemed no more than a dreamer’s dream of a perfect society governed by flawless, industrious people. But there was one concept that stood out to me; everyone, whether a doctor, government official, store clerk or an assembly line worker, received the exact same annual salary, or “credit” as it is referred to in the book, for their labor.

Originally I shared the sentiment of the main character when he exclaimed “Some men do twice the work of others! […] Are the clever workmen content with a plan that ranks them with the indifferent?” How can it be fair, no matter how hard one works or how valuable ones profession, to receive the exact same amount of money as anyone else. It wasn’t until recently when I came upon a Princeton University survey about happiness and money that I reevaluated the concept.

According to the survey 75,000 is the magic number when it comes to income. “The lower a person’s annual income falls below that benchmark [$75,000], the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don’t report any greater degree of happiness,” writes Belinda Luscombe in an article for TIME magazine about the study. The survey reminded me of Bellamy’s book when I thought to myself (and got out my calculator) “what if everyone received a weekly salary of $1,442? What sort of impact would this have on society if people were given the optimal salary to be happy, and would productivity in the industrial and business sectors rise, fall or stay the same?”

But once again the issue of fairness rears its head. Should a waitress really make $75,000 in a year, while the oncologist down the street working 60+ hours a week helping cancer patients is making the exact same amount? The issue revolves around the individual’s impact or importance to society. Usually our point of view focuses unconsciously on the microcosm, the individual job holder. The waitress’s job looks unimportant when presented next to the oncologist in the microcosm, but when viewing the whole of society, the macrocosm, the distortion fades out. What if there were no restaurants, so no waitresses, or grocery stores, so no cashiers to check out customers, or food distributors, and going a little further, no farmers. Individually the jobs of a waitress, cashier, wholesaler and farmer seem less important or prestigious than the oncologist, but without them there could be no oncologist since the person’s main focus now wouldn’t be on a health care career, but on finding food. Looking at the macrocosm of society the people, down to those running the cash register, involved in creating, distributing and selling food are as essential to the structure of civilization as a physician. Take out one element and the system has to restructure, or perhaps cannot function at all.

Without garbage collectors, truck drivers, manufacturers, store clerks, teachers, grunt laborers, construction workers, programmers, cooks, janitors, etc. etc. there would be huge gaps in society that would disrupt daily life enough that those in other careers would have to adjust, or even completely change, what they do. While these jobs lack the prestige of a surgeon, CEO or engineer, these latter three examples exist only because others, in the capacity of their employment, provide through goods and services the necessities that allow them to focus their energies elsewhere.

Society is like the human body. We often refer to the heart or brain and think of these organs as essential or more important than other parts, but without the intestines, bones, stomach, liver and kidneys, the heart and brain cannot function.

In his book Bellamy broached the subject of wage equality and how capitalism makes it impossible for the majority of society to receive a truly fair compensation for their labor or services.

“How […] can you adjust satisfactorily the comparative wages or remuneration of the multitude of avocations, so unlike and so incommensurable, which are necessary for the service of society? In our day the market rate determined the price of labor of all sorts, as well as of goods. The employer paid as little as he could, and the worker got as much.”

With capitalism society marches under the banner “your necessity is my opportunity.” Even though each part is necessary to the whole, they are not treated as such. As Bellamy pointed out, “the most perilous, severe, and repulsive labor was done by the worst paid classes…” If the argument against a universal standard wage is that it is unfair to certain professions, then why isn’t that same argument applied to the current system where the lowest paid people often work longer hours under more physical strain in potentially more hazardous conditions?

In a society organized under the principles of anarcho-communism compensation for work wouldn’t be dictated by a job title but by participation, the only requirement would be that each person work to the best of their abilities at the job they do, which, do to individual differences, would fluctuate greatly from one person to the next.

On a fundamental level humanity is essentially consistent. The argument that a greater number of people would make less of an effort at work if their compensation was guaranteed and unalterable seems unlikely. Undoubtedly those people would exist, as they exist today under the current system, but society will have its flaws in any form. The best we can do is organize ourselves under the principles of a system that allows the greatest amount of happiness, freedom and equality. Utopias do not, and cannot, exist, as their very name implicates (the word “Utopia” was coined by Thomas Moore in 1516 from the Greek words ou and topos, roughly translated as “not a place” or “nowhere”).

In the United States, as in many democratic nations around the world, we claim to value freedom and equality above all else. But those who have managed to grab onto power through their affluence and deception value only more money and power, while claiming to be champions of liberty. Communism, anarchism, socialism: they have become taboo words and concepts because of the fear the upper class has of a system in which it is impossible to become rich and grab power. Equality in compensation is not an idea at odds with our values, but one that embodies them at a higher level under the edict "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The New American Revolution: Occupy Wall Street

“In a society based on exploitation and servitude human nature is degraded.”

-Peter Kropotkin

Finding truth in media is like finding honesty in politics – it is there in small doses, but it’s hard to define and filter out from the subjective white noise droning through the airwaves and cluttering up popular publications. Searching for information on Occupy Wall Street, what it is and what it stands for, brings in results as varied as the protesters themselves. TIME magazine says one thing, radio pundits another, T.V. coverage finds a different angle (depending on the channel, and the channel’s corporate owner) and the internet is like a myopic game of bobbing for apples.

The information can be confusing and conflicting. Our poll-manic media has already released a number of surveys to establish how popular the movement is with Americans: the TIME/Abt SRBI poll claims 54% of Americans have a favorable view of the protesters, supposedly from a ‘random’ group of 1,001 people. Another survey found 59% are favorable, while the Wall Street Journal’s survey has only a 37% approval rate (no surprise there). Obviously each organization has its own opinion and the so-called ‘random’ groups being surveyed are probably randomly selected from subscribers of the publication, so a liberal leaning magazine like TIME will have more favorable results and the more conservative Wall Street Journal less so. Such polls are essentially pointless, as are most claims and ‘facts’ perpetuated by corporate media, no matter where their sympathies lie.

Trying to pin down an amorphous movement like Occupy Wall Street and present it in a specific light will serve only to make the matter more confusing. The protests are not about any single objective or idea, the best way to describe it is as the anger of the people at the vast inequality of this county come to a head.

The protestors have resisted forming a list of demands or any specific idea as a primary objective; they want it to remain open. It is a noble practice, preventing any small group involved in the protests from taking charge and speaking their opinions in the guise of the entire crowd’s opinions. It is a waiting game to see what impact, if any, will eventually come from the protests. That is one of the problems of the lack of specific demands, because the movement is more emotional than cognitive, what will the government do in response? Increase taxation on the wealthy? It seems unlikely that congress will pass any legislation to this effect. Another commonly heard protest associated with O.W.S. is that corporations, and the wealthy, have too much power is Washington. If that is true, appealing to Washington to end this practice is futile.

Anarchists were among the first to show up on Wall Street on 17 September. There are a few members of O.W.S. that say the President has become irrelevant, it is likely that the anarchists are the preachers of this doctrine. The depth and complexity of the bureaucracy that truly controls the U.S. government does appear to limit presidential power; the people, and not any branch or member of government, are the only ones with any true power to change the establishment. The only sure victory is if O.W.S. continues indefinitely and continues to grow.

The universal goal of anarchism is complete individual liberty. With corporate power growing (Mitt Romney is now referring to corporations as “people”), what limited liberty we currently enjoy, thanks to the founding fathers forethought in drafting a Bill of Rights, is under threat. The movement still growing on the streets could be the first step towards breaking the chains that government and an unrestrained free market forge to keep the populous in check. One of the definable objectives that all the occupiers share is that the wrong groups have too much power over this country, and that these groups have taken control of the American government with their bottomless well of money.

Occupy Wall Street has proven that the people are well aware of what is happening to this country, and that powerful minorities are halting the natural growth of society to their own advantage. The people are not as ignorant as these minorities like to fool themselves into believing. The people are not blind to these facts, and they are becoming very tired of it, and very angry.

While the government is bogged down in disputes and partisan bickering, and the President views O.W.S. as little more than a way to gain support and win another election, the people involved, walking the streets, not only in New York City, but in Oakland, Detroit, Bloomington, Hong Kong, Tokyo and other cities in the U.S. and around the world, are the ones working for change.

Technorati: 6VT6TAKFVDNU

Why the Constitution is Irrelevant, and the Bill of Rights is Indispensable

“It has been said that all of us are naturally anarchists at heart, - which is only to say that we all desire the largest possible personal freedom and the least possible external restraint.”

-Roger N. Baldwin

Much is often made of our “Constitutional rights” in political debates; it is a phrase evoked in the context of explaining the legal rights of Americans or to attack something that is considered contrary to these rights. The mistake in the usage of the phrase is in the content of the Constitution, which hardly mentions individual freedoms and instead establishes our government’s structure, term lengths, which branch has what powers, financial issues, etc. (transcript of the Constitution). The document that should actually be evoked is the Bill of Rights.

Technically, of course, the Bill of Rights (transcript of the Bill of Rights) is a series of amendments to the Constitution and therefore a part of it. But in our minds it is often seen and treated as a separate document, which in many ways it really is, or should be.

The Constitution without the Bill of Rights has little impact on individual liberties, nor is it the perfect document we are led to believe in grade school. The original document devised in 1787 actually had a section that limited personal freedom and supported the right to own slaves.

Article IV

Section 2

No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Most of us are familiar with the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. We can criticize the Supreme Court’s decision that Scott had no rights as “a person of African descent,” but according to the Constitution, which the Supreme Court is supposed to view as the “law of the land,” they did exactly as they should have done, legally speaking. So the Constitution actually supported an extreme case of injustice by law. For 78 years this was an acceptable segment of the United States highest laws, until the passing of the 13^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in 1865 which superseded that section of Article IV.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent just such travesties from occurring; it is the true great achievement of America’s founding fathers that still resonates in the modern world. Before the Bill of Rights was drafted, some at the Constitutional Convention feared the central government would use the “laws of the land” to “open the way to tyranny.” Their fears were obviously justified.

The Constitution is irrelevant because its only purpose is to establish a form of government, and all governments, even republics, will suppress and trample the inherent rights of its citizens at some point. The United States government has even used its power to use the Bill of Rights, a document that’s purpose, by its very name, is to protect and uphold freedom, to take away certain rights they deem inappropriate or to use it to further the government’s own needs at the people’s expense.

Until the last 100 years the Bill of Rights was exactly as its name implied, but since 1913 the government has added new amendments that negatively affect people’s liberty. The 16^th Amendment was used to increase the central government’s power to levy taxes (no amendment that increases the government’s power is to the people’s benefit) and in 1919, the most famous amendment to take away freedom, congress ratified the 18^th Amendment which took away the right to sell and imbibe alcohol. This amendment is one of the main reasons we have large networks of organized crime flourishing in the U.S. to this day.

Recently there has been talk about another proposed amendment, this one used to legally establish a definition for marriage: one man and one woman. This amendment is obviously an attempt at conservatives to make gay marriage illegal in all states permanently. Definitions are the work of dictionaries, not laws. It seems the Bill of Rights, in the hands of a government, has lost its original intention to protect the people under that government’s authority and now is predominantly used to suspend certain freedoms that some elected officials believe should not be granted. They believe this as if they had the power to grant or take away freedom. That is a dangerous and slippery slope.

When taking into account the Bill of Rights, the Constitution seems like a superfluous document. The idea, during the time of the American and French Revolutions, that there should be a universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, is the lasting achievement of the enlightenment era. The evolution from monarchy to republicanism served a great purpose 230 years ago, but the evolutionary process is not complete and seems to have stalled because of the vested interests of a tiny minority of the population obsessed with greed and power. With anarchism the Bill of Rights still has a place in society; a universally accepted document that prevents one person, or group of persons, from suppressing others. That should be the “law of the land,” that there is no law besides universal freedom.

No Taxation Without…

[Andrew Carnegie] was a very great millionaire who proved that it pays to work hard and save your pennies. He was wrong, but that doesn’t make any difference. He’s dead now and he left us a chain of libraries which makes the working people more intelligent, more cultured, more informed, in short, more miserable and unhappy than they ever were, bless his heart.

-Henry Miller from The Colossus of Maroussi

With the ‘Buffet’ tax on the wealthy and the American Jobs Act in the news the idea of taxation and how it affects us is prevalent on many minds. A little over 230 years ago the United States began when the American colonies rose up and demanded “No Taxation Without Representation.” The idea that began our country was formed because of taxation, but the colonists didn’t hate the idea of taxation, only the fact that by English law they shouldn’t have been taxed without a representative in parliament, but were anyway.

Facing the reality of this nation’s current situation the proposed laws don’t seem like such a bad idea. When one man is raking in 100 million dollars a year and another is barely scratching by with 12 grand (the wonders of a free market system), it hardly seems like a travesty to force the first man to pay more. Our current necessities aside, the moral idea of taxation of any kind is a different story.

Taxation is theft. Legally sanctioned theft. We are not asked to pay for social works, not asked for financial support to fund government spending, we are forced by the threat of penalty. Democracies and Socialists justify taxation as a way to pay for public provisions like education, health care and other social welfare programs, which are the cornerstone of our ideas of modern civilization. Very good, even though we fund these programs today through these means it is amazing how ineffective they are, the state of the education system, health care, social security, etc. are somehow all in shambles and generally sub-par. This system obviously isn’t working. Taxation is a law violating our basic liberties. Without our consent part of our income is taken by the government for their own uses-which we have little, if any, say in. An entity forcing another to hand over money, whether they are willing or not, with the threat of force behind it is essentially the basic definition of theft.

I don’t believe this system can change overnight, as of today, and for the foreseeable future, it is a necessary evil. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong and we should gradually move away from it. Moving into the future, one step at a time, the middle ground between our current federal government and free market economy and true anarchism (anarcho-communism) would be the mix of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in the balance of the natural laws of the market. Free markets take care of themselves and any government interference can only be negative. In other words, government is superfluous to the system we are currently in. The social works we depend on can be funded through a variety of different means, including voluntary contribution. This may sound farfetched to say people will voluntarily give up some of their income to fund these programs, but odds are, if you have the choice to give up a small percentage of your pay check to ensure you’ll have proper hospital care and your children will go to a good school, you’ll do so willingly. No laws demanding a certain amount, or threat of force, necessary.

Over 200 years ago our ancestors fought against taxation under certain terms. The world may be readying itself for the next leap to abolishing taxation. Instead of “No Taxation Without Representation,” our new slogan would be much simpler: “No Taxation…” It may still be somewhere in the unforeseeable future, but it is possible. People have been naturally organizing themselves for the entirety of known history. Governments have made us believe it is impossible to do so without them; in reality governments are a hedonistic excess that drains wealth instead of creating it.