Why I don't vote

I don't vote because I don't believe in the offices that we are voting to fill.  I don't believe we should even have those offices.  I don't believe anybody should have the powers of those offices.  I view emptying or eliminating these offices as a worthy goal, and I view voting as a detriment to that goal, because it legitimizes those offices.  I view not voting, and telling people that I am not voting and why, as the best option for proceeding toward my goal.

As a Christian I am glad for the opportunity to get involved in the process, and I do so by not voting so that I can advance what I think is the best goal for the land: eliminating the existing political offices.  I would welcome the ability to have more input in the process, such as a chance to vote to leave offices empty, or a chance to secede.  Failing that, I'm grateful for what I can get: the opportunity to make a difference by declaring how important it is to eliminate the existing monopoly government.

Practical anarcho-capitalism

What would anarcho-capitalism look like, if we had it? How would it work? How would we solve all the problems that government now solves for us? It is easy to see how the need met by such things as government postal delivery might be met. It is not so easy to see how defense would be handled, or how we would be protected against tyranny.

Many people love the original Constitutional United States government system because they believe it to be the best system mankind has discovered for protecting liberty. Often you'll see such good patriots attempting to educate today's public about the fact that the U.S. system is not a democracy; it is instead the superior system of a Republic. Of course, in practice our system has been attempting to devolve from republic to democracy, and from there to socialism (did you ever know a Communist nation that didn't like to refer to itself as "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of [Region]?"). And personally I think the similarities between republic and democracy are greater than their differences. But I do agree that Republican government was a great protection for liberty, and a great check against tyranny.

History has produced a long list of such checks against tyranny:

• the rule of law


• Constitutional government


• law applying to the ruler as well as the ruled


• democracy


• republicanism (not the political party, the form of government)


• separation of powers


• bills of rights


• checks and balances

In the end, though, none of these is sufficient to guarantee liberty is never violated. And in fact some of them don't work nearly as well as advertised. And unfortunately many of them get equated with "liberty." Right now we say we want to spread "democracy," and we act as if that means spreading "liberty." The very definition of democracy is actually incompatible with liberty.

Anarcho-capitalism surpasses them all. And what's more, anarcho-capitalism actually is liberty.

I think a Republic was a great advance and a great protection for liberty, but in the end I think it always devolves again into tyranny. I do not believe one government can check itself, even if you have separation of powers. I believe governments can only be checked by the people, or by other governments.

Being checked by the people has always been a part of government's existence, even under tyranny, even since the first raiders rode into a peaceful town and proclaimed themselves kings. The government takes a lot from its people, in the form of liberty and resources. It loudly gives a large portion back in the form of services. They give enough back to keep the people from revolting, and this keeps their power and income sources secure. It's a little more civilized under a Republic, thankfully.

This necessity that government be checked by the people is always the reason for the need for the rights granted by the US second amendment to be secure and absolute. I know a lot of people think the 2nd amendment is about hunting (I used to), or personal defense against local criminals (I used to think that, too), but the reason the founders talked about was the need to protect from the main criminals of history: government.

The second way of checking government is why a Republic is not the greatest hope for human government, and anarcho-capitalism is. Under such a system, every person would have the right to secede from their government, as well as the right to form new governments within the same territory. Noone would have the right to compel anyone to be a citizen of their government; government would be by true contract. If a government became tyrannical to its citizens, they could form a new one (or several) to protect themselves from its depradations. If a government acted tyrannical to those who were not its citizens, they could protect themselves by forming their own government. And this is pretty much exactly what the Declaration of Independence says, that government is an institution with the special purpose of securing rights, and that all people have the right to form such an institution as seems best to them (though I doubt Jefferson envisioned multiple such institutions in the same geographic region).

Noone has the right to do that which is wrong, not even governing officials, and in all history the biggest threat to man's rights has been the government; therefore the most pressing reason to form a government is to protect its citizens from another government. Under our present system government does much which is wrong. As it exists, taxation is simply legalized theft (indeed, the government is simply a group that has a monopoly on breaking laws such as this with impunity), and much of the rest of what governments do is simply legalized slavery. Under a system of anarcho-capitalism this could not be the case. A government's only citizens would be people who had explicitly agreed to its terms, which would include whatever fees the previous citizens or founders had deemed necessary. Governments could actually compete for citizens by trying to offer the best protection for the best price.

People who wanted to keep the existing institution, the United States federal government, could do so. They could support it with their taxes, pledge their allegiance to it and salute its flag, think of it as the greatest country on earth, and everything they want to do now. They just couldn't compel other people to do so, and they'd have to allow their children to make the decision for themselves when they grew up, and they certainly couldn't force everyone who lived in their land after they died to be bound to the same institution for hundreds of years or forever. They'd have to grant everyone else the right to be free.

I'm going to say something you might not have realized anarcho-capitalists believed: we do need government. At least, we need to have our rights protected, and we need to create institutions to do that for the common good. What we don't need is to take away the rights of other people in order to protect that for ourselves. Government as it exists today rests on the premise that you and I cannot protect ourselves unless we force other people to furnish the means and manpower to do it, and to surrender complete allegiance to our system and any decisions it makes as well. This is not true! It might provide some form of protection, but it is inferior to what could be developed in a world of true freedom, it weakens the foundations of society by making us interact together in forced ways rather than those we would naturally choose, and it damages our economy because of the damage to our freedom, resulting in decreased wealth and therefore decreased capacity for the very defense we were trying to achieve, as well as decreased capacity to enjoy the fruit of our labors.

One world government?

If the state is such a good thing, why don't we just have one of them? For the entire world.

When I was younger, I accepted all the good things people told me states were responsible for. Civilization would be impossible without them. States were the only way people could be protected. States provided needed services that couldn't be obtained in any other way, such as roads, schools, and certification of income tax preparation experts. Through democracy, states permitted completely diverse groups of people to peacefully coexist and cooperate and form civilization, in a way that would be impossible without a government. And through federalism local groups of people could have their own local government but still share the benefits of a common state.

So why in the world did the earth have many nations? Obviously the best thing in the world would be for every existing nation in the world to become a state in the United States. And then we'd all live happily ever after, or so I naively thought.

The reality is that the state is pretty much only a good thing when it is protecting us from the next level up, and/or the rest of the world. Increasing centralization wrecks the structures that man creates through the voluntary association of the free market. And unfortunately our trend is toward increasing centralization of everything. Apparently a lot of people still believe what I believed as a boy. I wonder why those same people still want nations to retain their sovereignty? If their logic is true, they should accept that one government would be good for everybody.

In the early united states, education was the private decision of each household. Near universal literacy prevailed. Then education was assumed by the community, then the state, and now finally the federal government (a federal government legally prohibited from doing so by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). It's only gotten worse, but at each stage flaws in the system have been used as justification for fixing things at the next higher level. Somehow making only one decision instead of fifty is supposed to magically work better. Somehow federal government is a magic realm where people can solve problems they can't solve in states. Somehow state government is a magic realm where people can solve problems they can't solve in cities or counties. Somehow government in general is a magic realm where people can solve problems they can't solve on the free market. Remember the big lie: the risk of leaving this up to people we don't control is too great.

Health care tells the same story as education, and so do a thousand other issues.

Morally, why should people in New York have the right to tell people in Kansas what to do? Why should people in Houston have the right to tell people in Dallas what to do? Why should people on the north side of Boston have the right to tell people on the south side of Boston what to do? Why should a household in Denver, Colorado have the right to tell the household living next door to them what to do? The answer is that they don't, and in fact when they do the economy produces less than it would have if left alone.

Somehow people can see that it wouldn't do to have people in China telling America what to do. Somehow they can even see that it wouldn't do to have people in England telling America what to do. Why then don't they follow that logic through to its obvious conclusion: any such institution which compels people to obey it, rather than protecting those who voluntarily join it, is immoral and damaging? If it's a bad idea for America to give up its sovereignty to a one world government, it's a bad idea Wyoming to give up its sovereignty to Washington, D.C., and it's a bad idea for Muncie, Indiana to give up its sovereignty to Indianapolis, Indiana, and it's a bad idea for the household on the north side of town to give up its sovereignty to city hall.

An institution that protects us from possible violation of our rights by other people, including by other people in institutions called states, is a good thing. In fact, it is so much of a good thing that I think we should have several of them, competing with each other, and you should choose which one you want to belong to (hire), or several if you choose and they are still willing to serve you under such an arrangment.

But compelling other people to be a member of your institution is wrong. Compelling your children to be a member of your institution after they are grown and emancipated (and even after you are dead) is wrong. The Americans of 1789 created an institution to protect their rights. (They had earlier declared their right to do this in 1776. Interestingly enough, at the same time they declared the rights of man to abolish such institutions and replace them with new ones that they thought would better secure their rights.) But creating this government in 1789 didn't obligate people who were born after 1889 to keep the agreement. (Especially since it's now conveniently reinterpreted and ignored.)

Right now the basic message defining our system of government is: "I can't protect myself from violation of my rights unless I violate your rights and compel you to help me." The reality is that individuals can protect their rights, and when they can't they can band together voluntarily in many ways to do so. The household that perceives some benefit to a local rights protecting organization can join it voluntarily, just as the household that perceives some benefit to shopping at the grocery store can shop there voluntarily.

Do we need a government?

Under anarcho-capitalism, government need not disappear. Instead, people could create legitimate governments, voluntary associations that pool resources for defense of rights. This is, after all, what Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said a government was. Assisting each other in defense of liberty is certainly a legitimate activity; compelling others to participate in our scheme, however, is not. As the Declaration says, governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed," and the governed should be entitled to "laying its [government's] foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." There's my right to anarcho-capitalism, under American philosophy. I know for a fact that democracy is not most likely to effect Safety and Happiness, and according to Jefferson I had the right to lay the foundation for a new system, since I don't consent to the old one. Of course, as a Christian, I am directed by God to honor "the powers that be" (Romans 13:1), just or unjust.

This principle also gives others the right to establish their own systems. Want to live under communism? Under anarcho-capitalism, that would be allowed. Establish your system, invite people to participate, and do things as you will within your group. Just count me out. That's the key: you have the right to your system, but you do not have the right to make other people participate. You could also set up a democracy, if you wish, but again, only those who wanted to participate would have to. People from different systems wouldn't be forced to submit to the will of others; they would only have to respect their rights and property. (If they didn't, they'd find justice enforced by the government of their victims. Anarcho-capitalism realizes Jefferson's ideal of governments merely being rights-securing organizations.) If you had somebody you really wanted to obey for life, you could pledge your fealty to him and his offspring and set up a monarchy. All of these are legitimate, to the extent that they do not do anything which their members could not do, to the extent that they use force only to defend the rights of their members, rather than to take what does not belong to them and compel all of society to do things their way.

Do we need a government? Probably most of us do, in some form or other. But do we need to use force to compel innocent people who have not violated our rights to participate in our government? Not at all!

Am I passionate about anarcho-capitalism?

Am I passionate about anarcho-capitalism? Have you noticed there's a bit of emotion behind my writing in this blog? Yes! I'm deeply committed to this concept. There's two main reasons.

First of all, anarcho-capitalism works. It's been demonstrated time and time again that the free market outperforms all the actions of the state. The state's actions are merely interventions in what would otherwise be the natural order of things, and those interventions disrupt efficiency, cause waste, and even wreak havoc. A large part of my aim in writing here is to demonstrate this, repeatedly, for issue after issue, that we would be better off if we quit supporting the state and its actions. (Of course, as Christians, this is not to say that we should rebel against the state. Just that we should not be authorizing it to act in our behalf. We should not be governing, and we should work to show people what a mess it makes when people perform these kinds of interventions.) Since the free market works, I'm very frustrated that we have to live with the second-rate system we have now. I'd love for it to change some day, but I'm disappointed that it probably won't happen in my lifetime. Everybody wants freedom, but those of us who know what true freedom is aren't allowed the freedom to enjoy it. Democracy and socialism are forced on us.

Second of all, the reason it works is because it's God's way. As I'm showing here, God commanded us to respect property and the free market, God commanded us not to govern, God commanded us not to steal. Should I not be passionate about God's way? Of course I am. God has written His law into the fabric of the universe in such a way that societies that do not obey these laws suffer. A society that respects the free market will prosper, a society that does not will have perpetual famine and scarcity. But Christians shouldn't need this kind of proof that God's way works. By definition, we have faith in God. Faith means a believing trust. It's based on the evidence of God's past dealings with man: we know that we can trust Him because we know His history and character. When God commands, those with faith obey, even if they don't fully see why His way is best.

Christian anarcho-capitalism

This blog is dedicated to spreading the message of anarcho-capitalism, particularly within a Christian context. Anarcho-capitalism is the responsible belief in privatizing all functions currently monopolized (socialized) by government. It is a type of anarchism, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "chaos," as most people use it; instead, it means "no ruler." (Compare with the word "monarchy.") It also doesn't mean going out and wreaking wanton destruction. That would be a violation of the rights, liberty, and property of others, and would be repugnant to an anarcho-capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is a scary thought for most people of Christian faith, but there are two surprising conclusions which I want to teach through this site:

1) Anarcho-capitalism is the system of government the world gets when everybody obeys God's commands. Anarcho-capitalism is God's way. If a Christian is obeying God's commands, he will not be supporting governing systems that interfere with anarcho-capitalism.
2) Anarcho-capitalism has been proven to be the best system possible in this fallen world. Imagine that; God's way works best.

Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes called "right-anarchism" or "right-wing anarchism," distinguishing it from the more common "left-anarchism" or "anarcho-socialism." Anarcho-socialists tend to consider themselves the only true anarchists, rejecting anarcho-capitalists. And vice-versa. Anarcho-capitalism is also considered by many (including myself) to be a type of libertarianism, the other type being "minarchism" (belief in a limited government).

Under anarcho-capitalism, government could and would still exist. It's just that you wouldn't get the right to force other people to be a part of your government. Want to be communist? That's great as long as everybody who participates does so voluntarily. Likewise for other systems: democracy, republic, monarchy. Theocracy even. Unless someone violates your rights, you have no cause for interfering with them.

Under anarcho-capitalism, needs currently addressed by government would be provided instead by the free market, and they would be provided better. This should not surprise us, because God ordained the free market. Like most people, however, most Christians have been educated to fear the free market and think that it produces "failures." They've been taught that government has to provide some things the market simply will not, that we have to provide some things by taking money away from a lot of people to pay for it. The fact is that this system originated when conquerors took over, took what was not theirs, and provided a small pittance of services back to the conquered people to keep them from rebelling by persuading them that they were being "served" by the government. (Compare this with Luke 22:25-26, by the way.) After millenia, we've all become scared of the thought that we could receive these things and take care of ourselves without such force being employed. But it is God's way that we repudiate such force.