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.

Compulsory education is slavery

Texas state Representative Wayne Smith wants to make it illegal for parents to miss parent teacher conferences, in order to encourage more parental responsibility.

As homeschooling parents, we're not worried about missing any parent teacher conferences. (Though according to the old joke, if you talk to yourself you only have to worry about yourself answering back...)

In a free society, free citizens can never be told what to do, where to go, when to be there, etc. The only exception to this is when a free citizen steps outside the law, by violating another person's right, and thus loses his freedom to the extent to which he took it away from someone else. (In older times, the term "outlaw" meant someone who had literally been deemed outside the protection of the law because he had chosen not to abide by the law.)

If we're telling grown parents where to go and when to be there, aren't we taking away their freedom? Of course we are!

But we crossed that line long ago. We tell the children where to go, right? We force the parents to make their children go to school. We've been violating the liberties of parents and children through compulsory schooling for almost one hundred fifty years.

The founders of the United States knew that the free market (the organic institution you get when you respect God-given liberties) furnished the best possible education. Until about 1850, every one of them was privately schooled, either through a private institution or at home. Literacy was near universal, and love of liberty reigned. Then some people who wanted to take away liberty decided it would be a good idea to have a centralized, universal education system so that all children could be educated in the same values. The result is over a century of indoctrination, and a society that is less educated and less interested in liberty. In fact, amazingly, lots of people see forcing children to go to school as being essential for liberty. The founders would've disagreed.

A book you might like to read on this subject is John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. You can buy the book, or read it for free online at the link provided. I promise it will open your eyes.

You might also like to know that Thomas Jefferson explicitly declared it to be wrong and inconceivable to violate the liberty of parents and children through compulsory schooling:

"It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father." (Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.)

Of course, in a free society, uninterfered with by criminal force (whether exercised by the state or others), people have natural incentives to see that their children receive the education they find to be most fitting. But the state has eliminated an enormous number of incentives for this. Chalk up Representative Smith's idea as yet another misguided attempt by the state to correct a problem caused by itself. The solution is less government, not more, Mr. Smith. Government IS the problem.

In earlier posts, I've proved that taxation is simply another name for stealing. Compulsory funding of education means robbing people to educate children. What kind of lessons does this teach? What kind of lessons does it teach when the children themselves and their parents and all of their neighbors have their liberty violated for the sake of this education? As an answer, think how many people (maybe even you, dear reader) will react negatively to this essay, asserting that the state (or society) does in fact have a claim to the lives of its citizens -- perhaps we should say its "subjects" -- and the right to violate their liberty in these ways. Yes, compulsory education teaches its lessons well.

Has God entrusted you with the authority to command other people what to do? I don't think so. Don't support the government doing so in your name.