The Greek default isn’t total, yet. Perhaps it won’t be. But more defaults, across Europe and the rest of the world, are an inevitable consequence of modern banks’ and governments’ twisted corruption of capitalism.

Modern capitalism is built on the idea of investment: that by stockpiling more resources than are immediately needed and dedicating those resources to productive tasks instead of consuming them, you can end up with more resources. This works very well, and has been the policy of every Homo sapiens sapiens who bothered to plan past his next meal. Capital accumulation allowed us to progress past our hunter-gatherer roots, although we didn’t have a name for it at the time.

The concept of capital accumulation leads directly to the idea of lending. If you have more resources than you can effectively employ, you might as well lend those resources to someone else, so that he can use them to go produce even more. In exchange for this loan, you expect to receive your resources back, plus a share of those the borrower has produced.

Once you’re comfortable with the idea of lending, another concept might occur to you: that of fractional reserve banking, the backbone of modern finance. In fractional reserve banking, depositors lend their money to a bank, which then lends it back out at interest. This works because the depositors will not, presumably, come to the bank en masse and request the full return of their deposits. There is a tacit understanding that depositors will at some point have access to the funds they’ve put in the bank, just not “right now.”

Fractional reserve banking is hugely important. It makes credit much more accessible, which allows entrepreneurs to do things like discovering the Americas and founding small businesses. Unfortunately, this easy credit market also makes it very attractive for governments to take on impossibly huge obligations in order to win short-term political victories. Governments issue bonds in order to fund these obligations, which are purchased mostly by banks and investment funds. Greece funded their citizenry’s early retirement pensions and short work hours on such bonds; their tax revenues were not and are not nearly sufficient to maintain that standard of living.

Now, if it were possible to make good on these loans, the problem would be restricted to Greece. The Greek people’s standard of living would fall and that would be difficult for them. Unfortunately, there is no way the Greek government can repay what they owe; if the required austerity measures were implemented, the Greek people would simply tear the country apart, form a new government and repudiate the debt, leaving the lenders holding the bag. This is a huge problem for the European Union, of which Greece is a member state. Therefore, the wealthier and more responsible EU members (most importantly Germany) will make further bad loans to Greece, prolonging the problem but cushioning the blow, at least in theory.

If it works – if the partial default makes it possible for the Greek government to meet its obligations, and the lenders are compensated under the new terms – this still only solves the problem for Greece. A number of other EU nations, notably Ireland and Spain, are still similarly troubled – and the Germans only have so much excess capital to share. How long will the wealthier nations of the EU carry the poorer nations? What would be the fallout if they were to stop?

The best solution, perhaps the only solution, is to allow the lenders to deal with the consequences of their bad loans. Greek debt was a bad risk to take, and those who took it should not have their losses socialized.

In any case, we in the united states have the advantage of seeing this unfold from afar. We can learn the difficult forthcoming lessons by watching the European situation unfold, rather than facing our own states’ forthcoming defaults without any reference. The question is whether we’ll pay attention to those lessons.

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
– P. J. O’Rourke

The alleged debt crisis is at the top of the news now.  The usual suspects in Mordor on the Potomac are proclaiming that if they do not leverage the unborn into further debt they will be unable to fulfill their fiscal and fiduciary obligations to a wide variety of parasites and looters at the government trough ranging from pensioners to killer robots.

I would submit to you that there should be no limit on the government’s debt ceiling.  None.  It should be unlimited.  It is illusion and misdirection to think that any entity which can simply force assets and wealth from a captive population would think these limitations important except as a good, if insincere, public relations campaign with the host they are draining.  Within the next six months, these united States will achieve a signal triumph:  an alleged national debt that is equal to the established consensus on the amount of the GDP.  We are presently at 95 percent of that goal and rising.  Russia is at 19 percent and China is at 11 percent.  Even communist countries know better. Mind you, I didn’t mean to besmirch the communist idea in front of the chattering classes as they may find that disturbing since that is their philosophical touchstone for economic prosperity.  Much like a demonic telethon to enslave young and unborn generations to enormous debt obligations, the good ship USS Leviathan continues to happily navigate toward these dangerous fiscal shoal waters.  I say alleged debt because we are all certain the government cooks the books and hides spending it wishes not to reveal, therefore future financial historians may discover evidence of the real debt as they poke and prod the ruins of a former global hyper-power in North America.

Non-funded obligations approaching anywhere from 60-115 trillion dollars loom in the future as the demographic tsunami of pending entitlements crashes on the shores of the Potomac.  Some estimate this as high as 202 trillion dollars.  A slight grasp may be entertained by realizing that there are two trillion seconds in 64,000 years.  In reality, this bespeaks one devilish conclusion:  not only is the Federal government NOT too big to fail but it should have failed decades ago.  What the usual suspects and the punditocracy fail to grasp is that the government has reached such gargantuan and unmanageable proportions, its failure is inevitable.  The entropy of imperfect information used on such a large scale and steered by the kakocracy that is the American political class and the shambling bureaucratic masses employed by the State will end in history’s largest collectivist car crash.

Even if they were to tax the productive classes who make 250,000 dollars per annum or more 100 percent, they would be hard-pressed to fund the budget for four to six months.  FDR even toyed with the idea of a 100 percent tax rate in 1943 but finally settled on the paltry figure of 94 percent.     You will note this is a little over a million souls.  Also keep in mind that this tremendous debt is not being used to fund expensive tooling and plants for viable enterprises which would generate profit yield in innovation and production.  No, these wealth transfers mostly end up both literally and figuratively in the septic tank.

Other commentators have covered more than sufficiently and with aplomb the manifest reasons why an increase in the debt is wrong and why by extension the entire fiscal apparatus is wrong.  I agree with them.  But, in the end, the State’s very existence is wrong and they are simply using thimbles to bail the Titanic after the fatal collision.

My keenest desire is for the US Federal government to spend with abandon, print as if there is no tomorrow (they are prophetic, aren’t they?) and produce a state leviathan so large and cumbersome that Lenin would be chagrined at the excess.

There is no such thing as a courageous politician because they are self-selected strata of psychopathy whose prime directive is preservation and expansion of power at everyone’s expense except their own.  Any expectation otherwise will always result in severe disappointment on your part.  It is ironic that the worst elements of humanity are those in charge but history is rife with such folly.

This time I want Obama to win and to continue to print and spend as if there is no tomorrow.  My prognosis is fiscal collapse and the future is bright.  Wait for it…

“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?
– Will Rogers

Copyright © 2011 by


Peter over at Western Rifle Shooters turned me onto this.  Codevilla wrote this scintillating short essay on why Obama is who is and why Communism is far from a dead letter.  I always enjoy Codevilla, he is a thoughtful and clear-headed writer.  I caution anyone to carefully pick and choose what you read at the Claremont Institute which is the world headquarters for Lincoln hagiography and idolotry & ground zero for Straussian Trotskyists.  It is ironic that they would publish an essay critical of someone so close to their own ideological pedigree as Obama.  -BB

In sum, Barack Obama grew intertwined with the narrow, self-referential left side of the American Left. They helped one another believe they had come up the hard way, as underprivileged but brilliant, square-jawed tribunes of the common man. Their common problem, however, is that their agendas are antagonistic to people unlike themselves, and that they cannot keep from showing their contempt for the common folk in whose name they would ride to power.

Since the days of Karl Marx’s First International a century and a half ago, this very human opposition between socialist theory (egalitarianism) and socialist reality (oligarchic oppression) has bedeviled the Left. Marx laid the problem bare in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in What Is to Be Done? (1902)—the foundational document of Communism. By acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people’s representative, but rather its “vanguard,” Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habits it forcibly reshaped. Communism’s undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from What Is to Be Done? and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man’s suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., “false consciousness” and “socio-economic anxiety”). But that is ever less convincing. This is why the movement argues so strenuously with itself about whether and how much it should dissimulate its agenda.



“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”
– Joseph Stalin

Government is a death cult. It is the most profound mechanism outside of planetary extinction events to rid the globe of human beings.  There have certainly been disease vectors like the plague in medieval times that wiped out significant parts of Europe but even that can be attributed to human volition to a certain extent.

Since the first agricultural communities attracted the government predator’s eye thousands of years ago and led to the tax accountancy records Charles Adams first pointed out to us.  Hunter gatherer communities were quite a bit more difficult to pin down and cage within the confines of a tax jurisdiction.  Tax jurisdictions are the center of gravity for governments to germinate and expand their nefarious enterprises.

Whether the murderous paroxysms of violence in the endless wars created by tax jurisdictions dressed in fancy bunting and flags in ancient times or today have more advanced killing machines, the mission is the same.  Peter McCandless is fond of saying that a government will ultimately kill you for non-compliance of a seatbelt violation if your lack of obedience and insistence on resistance continues and escalates.

The more extreme examples of bureaucratized slaughter and mayhem visited on populations by governments are illustrative of the potential of every government to do the same. That is the genius of government, not only to elevate the absolute worst psychopaths to positions of power because they seek to rule others by default but it industrializes murder machines.  How else can one explain the killing fields in Kampuchea, the bone yards in the former USSR and the mass starvation campaigns either inadvertently or intentionally launched against subject populations?  From Rwanda to Armenia under the Turks to the North American aboriginal destruction in 18th and 19th century America, governments kill.  That is their ultimate failsafe mechanism.  If their power is threatened in any fashion, the cage and the sword and the grave are essential tools of governance.

Beria’s Death Warrant for 20,000 Polish Officers During the War to Save Josef Stalin

Let’s travel down memory lane:


Many thanks to Dr. Rummel for the research he has pioneered in this effort.

The Russian attempts to starve significant parts of the Ukraine under Stalin’s reign:

Conquest quotes the later testimony of an activist:

“I heard the children…choking, coughing with screams. It was excruciating to see and hear all this. And even worse to take part in it…. And I persuaded myself, explained to myself. I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity…. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining grain for the socialist fatherland….

Our great goal was the universal triumph of Communism, and for the sake of that goal anything was permissible — to lie, to cheat, to steal, to destroy hundreds of thousands and even millions of people….

This was how I had reasoned, and everyone like me, even when…I saw what “total collectivization” meant — how they “kulakized” and “dekulakized,” how they mercilessly stripped the peasants in the winter of 1932—3. I took part in this myself, scouring the countryside, searching for hidden grain…. With the others, I emptied out the old folks’ storage chests, stopping my ears to the children’s crying and the women’s wails. For I was convinced that I was accomplishing the great and necessary transformation of the countryside; that in the days to come the people who lived there would be better off for it….

In the terrible spring of 1933 I saw people dying from hunger. I saw women and children with distended bellies, turning blue, still breathing but with vacant, lifeless eyes…. I [did not] lose my faith. As before, I believed because I wanted to believe.”

You will note here on this page that delineates anthropogenic killing globally that it wasn’t simply the bad communists (although they get the gold medal in sheer numbers) but the UK was responsible for 4 million Indian dead in Bengal during Churchill’s little known escapades raping India during WWII in 1943 (a passing mention of the possible 20 million dead during the Indian famines of 1876-78 and 1899-1900)  or the 1.5 million dead during the Irish potato famine[s] in the 19th century.

The Black War (1828-32) in Australia against the aboriginals is especially terrifying because they almost managed to exterminate every man, woman and child.

I mention these western holocausts to illustrate that history’s traditional mass murderers, the Communists and Socialists, aren’t the only authors of such barbaric behavior.  Mind you, plenty of this behavior took place outside of acknowledged warfare such as Stalin and Mao’s efforts to kill the non-compliant and disobedient.

In the end, ALL governments seek to maim and kill the non-compliant because obedience is the signal contribution of ANY citizen in a tax jurisdiction yesterday, today and tomorrow.

In America, absent the overwhelming presence of armed bureaucrats, how many of even the most brain-dead subjects in America would comply with a fraction of thousands of intrusive and destructive laws on the books?

Your collaboration with a system that practices such barbaric behavior on a mass and industrial basis is the key to government’s legitimacy and its very ability to have fractional elements of tens of thousands of “law enforcers” cow millions of shambling sheep to be disposed of as the government wishes; especially the recalcitrant and rebellious black sheep who no longer desire the fetters and are increasingly losing their fear of the noose.  Why do you think that “officer safety” happens to prize the value of the cop’s life higher than any mere citizen or subject?  One recalls that scene in Braveheart where the King’s aristocrat declares that an assault on the King’s men is an assault on the King himself.  How romantic.  As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:   “Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”  Initiated violence is the government’s bread and butter and any active defense against its depredations is always received by the rulers rather dimly.

The only reason you are not yet dead is because the government has not found a sufficient reason or lacks the wherewithal to kill you. Yet.

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

— Vladimir Lenin


Publisher’s NoteThis is my son’s first post.  He is currently waiting to start his MS program in Mechanical Engineering this fall in our beloved Idaho.  I am proud to say that it was my son that ushered me down the path from minarchism to anarchism.  I know that fathers are known to exaggerate but Kyle is an intellectual force of nature and I prize his insights and out-of-the-box thinking.  I look forward to many more contributions in the future. -BB

This is an address to the libertarian-anarchist movement.  If you remain unconvinced of the merits of a stateless society, if you insist that even some problems can only be solved with violence, please move along, continue your daily routine. This is not for you.

Part I: To Achieve Freedom, We Must Build It

For as long as I have been a libertarian, the movement has exhibited a common theme.  We spend an enormous amount of energy attempting to convince people of the merits of a free society.  We argue, plead, and beg people, like a cheap whore on a Las Vegas street corner, to understand that freedom is the only ethical and effective solution to our problems.  It is – without a doubt. The godfathers of our ideology have indisputably won the argument for freedom.  Spooner, Bastiat, Mises, Rothbard, [David & Patri] Friedman, I salute you.

But the problem is, this is all we do.  We work tirelessly to convert people to the cause.  Let me be very clear: we are failing by an enormous margin.  Sheep are walking off the public school assembly line at a much faster rate than we are converting.  Yet just like philosophers, we stand idly by pleading our neighbors to accept our beliefs.  What do libertarians think will happen if we are able to convert a majority of the world population?  Will a free society suddenly appear as the state collapses around it?  If Ron Paul is elected president, will the majority of the population suddenly accept freedom as it is thrust upon them?

The majority of our movement has become so obsessed with why we should be free, we have completely ignored how we will become free.  If we want freedom, we must stop trying to explain it, and we must start showing the world what it is.  And in order to show what freedom is, we must build free institutions.  The state uses violence and force to claim the sole right to provide services that might otherwise be provided voluntarily.  The state has many guns, and there is great risk to compete with them, but nonetheless we still have the ability.  And we can find ways to do so in a way that minimizes the risk to our life and maximizes our ability to create freedom.  The state will not collapse until people can physically see better solutions.

Further reading:

Part II: Reputation, or How We Can Provide Consequences for Bad Behavior When The State Won’t

Here’s where the ambiguity ends, and I provide you with an example of what building a free institution means.

For the average a-political citizen, the government’s job is to provide consequences for bad behavior.  If you murder someone, the justice system’s job is to put you in jail.  But as we know so very well, the united states justice system is inherently corrupt and will never objectively provide consequences for unethical or immoral behavior, especially against its own.  But the average citizen has not seen alternative solutions to providing consequences for bad behavior, and so when he perceives failure in the justice system, his only recourse – so far as he see it – is to protest.  Perhaps if he is motivated enough he will becomes politically involved and attempt to reform the system.  History has proved this never works.

Now.  Take a breath, close your eyes and imagine this scenario.  A member of the SWAT team responsible for the murder of Jose Guerena walks up to the door of his local grocery store in Tucson.  There on the glass is his picture, and underneath reads, “your business is not welcome here.”

In a stateless society, reputation will be king.  When Joe Citizen makes a purchase from Ebay, does he expect a three letter government agency to protect him against fraud?  Of course not!  Ebay built a system of reputation and feedback.  The consequences of fraud are of course that everyone knows, and very few people will want to purchase from you in the future.  In this situation, profit is an incentive not to commit fraud.  We are not philosophizing about freedom here – we are simply observing what is.  And no one had to walk around and convince half the population that it would be safe to buy from random strangers on the internet.  It was built, it was seen, and lots of people took a rational risk to participate.

The lesson to be learned from Ebay is that reputation can be used to provide consequences for bad behavior.  And we can do it today, instead of wandering around waiting for the state to collapse.  We can scroll through the archives of Radley Balko’s blog, and find the name of every cop who has beaten, tazed, and murdered an innocent, and we can use local resources to find their addresses, phone numbers, and emails.  And then we can build a network of libertarian business owners, and convince them to stop doing business with evil people.

The founder and CEO of PayPal, Peter Thiel, is such a dedicated libertarian he donated half a million to the Seasteading project.  What if we could convince him to blacklist these people?  If Visa/Mastercard can deny service to WikiLeaks, why can’t PayPal deny service to thieves and murderers? What would happen if upon cursory inspection of some one’s Ebay profile you wished to purchase from, you noticed a comment identifying them as a police officer involved in the beating of an innocent child?  Would you purchase from someone like that?  Of course simply denying business to murderers isn’t the worst of consequences, but it is a start.

If you find yourself saying, “It will never work … “, “The state will simply fight back”, or “it’s too risky,” then I implore you, stop reading.  Go back to your TV and remain a complacent libertarian.  Keep trying to convince your friends that freedom is the way while the state rapes and pillages your neighbors without consequence.  Keep begging the mafia to change their ways.

I have only provided you with an example of how we can work to achieve freedom.  Maybe I am completely wrong.  But this much is clear to me:  We must stop working to convince people of freedom, and we must start talking about how we can build it, how we can achieve it.  We will not wake up one day and be free.  We will not find freedom, it will not appear in the ashes of a fallen state.  We must physically show people peaceful alternatives.  It is the only way we will achieve freedom.

Copyright © 2011 by

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

-Gerald Ford

There seems to be a growing number of individuals, and groups of individuals in this Country who think healthcare is a “human right”. Maybe I am a little perplexed on just what exactly a “human right” is, but I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t take two humans to produce one human’s “human right”. I am always left scratching my head as to how this “human right” would work without enslaving a human to produce this “human right” for another human. Hmmmm….

Maybe the humans that are demanding such a right be afforded to them are under the impression “their” healthcare is just “out there”. Maybe these humans just think when they come bursting through the hospital doors that whole teams of medical professionals are anxiously awaiting their arrival, free of charge, of course. Or, if not free of charge, it’ll be paid for somehow. How? Well, the Government will pay for me, damn it! It’s my human right! The medical professionals will get paid what the Government deems appropriate for services rendered, besides those rich doctors (who have spent most of their lives educating themselves) charge too much anyway. It’s time the Government stepped in and took charge of this situation; it’s gotten rather out of hand. Sadly, most of the inflated prices we see doctors charging are caused by the Government.

I want to make sure everyone understands what they are demanding when they demand such “human rights” as healthcare. Those who demand this be a right necessarily demands that another human is to be their slave. Sure, it might not be the kind of slavery we all learned about in school, chattel slavery, but it is slavery nonetheless. It is only different in degree. Those who advocate this human right believe the Government should have the power to say “you will treat this human, and this is what you will receive for compensation.” Of course, this program would be backed up by the gun, as all other Government programs are. Any doctors who are dissenters would quickly find themselves either fined, jailed or killed. All in the name of someone else’s healthcare. If this be the case, why wouldn’t the patient carry his own pistol into the doctor’s office and demand services at the barrel of his gun? Oh, that’s right, because THAT would be illegal, but there are ways to remedy this moral dilemma. Vote for it.

Advocates of the single-payer healthcare system always make me laugh. When individuals and politicians say, “I am a proponent of the single-payer healthcare system”, what they are really saying is this, “I think everyone needs to pay for what I think is a good idea”. I have challenged many advocates of this single-payer idea as to how it would be enforced.  This always seems to trouble them for some reason. I reckon they are under the impression it is just such a good idea that everyone would just ante up, and not think twice about it. This theory is all well and good, but the application could become a bit messy. Big Government folks have a hard time seeing the gun in the room, but it’s there. Even when it’s pointed out, most still won’t abandon the idea. Which then we would have to change the above quote to say, “I think everyone needs to pay for what I think is a good idea, and so does my buddy Big Government, he has big guns just in case you don’t agree with us.”

The American People are now on the edge of their seats anxiously awaiting the verdicts of nine lawyers with black dresses on whether this healthcare bill is Constitutional, whether the American People can be forced under the threat of law to purchase a product. Frankly, I don’t care what the Superior or the Inferior Courts have to say about it, because I don’t care about the Constitution. I see the Constitution as a blueprint for a perpetual slave machine, so it would only be fitting if the lawyers with moo-moos on figured out a way to place more shackles on us. We can expect no moral judgments to be handed down from these clowns, because they have sworn oaths to an immoral document. Any shred of reason and justice that makes its way out of the American Judicial System is purely accidental. Instead of questioning the Constitutionality of the healthcare bill, why don’t we question the morality of it? Can a man really be forced to buy something he does not want? I need food and water before I need healthcare, how long before Congress forces me to buy these things? And what shall be the punishment for not buying the things needed to support my own life? Death? In the end, if the healthcare bill is made law, and you do not comply, ultimately you will be killed. Sure, you will be fined, maybe thrown in a cage, but if resistance is continued your non-compliance will be met with lethal force. Murdered for not buying healthcare. Welcome to the world where up is down.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
-William Pitt the Younger


“More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars – yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt

Poor RedDR, he could not even follow his own advice.  Politics and politicians are awful.  It comes down to nothing more elegant than one group of humans having violent control of another.  They are nothing more than harvesters.  Contrary to the tens of thousands of tomes devoted to everything from statecraft to diplomacy to election theory to praise singing for the Constitution; when stripped of the patriotic gore and bunting, politics is the institution of threats of or actual violence to force people’s obedience.  It is nothing nobler than that.

Intellectuals often describe the taxonomy of these relationships as a Left to Right spectrum.  Like the word ‘unconstitutional,’ that spectrum has no descriptive quality whatsoever.  What is the difference between a neo-conservative and a National Socialist?  How is the “conservative” George W. Bush different from the “Marxoid” Obama? Some have characterized Obama’s performance in office as Bush’s third term!  They all have one goal in mind:  the consolidation of coercive power to compel people to obey or face fines, jail, maiming or killing.  There is nothing elegant or even civilized about government, it is quite simply an implementation of the idea that might makes right.

A far better descriptor of the competing world views is collectivist versus individualist and the prefix of non-interventionist and interventionist.  In this world, I would be a non-interventionist individualist.  The lion’s share of all political creeds tends to be interventionist collectivists from the traditional Left to Right.  Excepting the blink of Harding and Coolidge in the 20th century, the American Presidency has been the Western bully pulpit for steadily increasing collectivization of human life.

There are several defining characteristics of the interventionist collectivist creed that they share in common, be they Marxists, national socialists or neo-conservatives.  The locus of responsibility and accountability for the individual shifts from the person to the hive;  this is a complete surrender of self-ownership and autonomy, with an assumption that this surrender serves the common good.  Violence becomes not only acceptable but the single greatest force for civilizing the residents of the given tax jurisdiction more quaintly referred to as a nation-state.  Defensive violence is characterized as barbaric, and initiated aggression through force and fraud is championed by the government and its politicians and their collaborators.  Official fraud, you say?  If I have to explain that, you are too far gone:  move along, citizen, nothing to see here.  Additionally, we are always told that Maslow’s hierarchy must be served and those who cannot provide for themselves must be provisioned from the stolen assets of those who can.  No muss, no fuss.

The wretched David Horowitz started an interesting project in 1987 called the “Second Thoughts Conference” which turned out both articles and CSPAN broadcasts that were amazing testaments to folks who traveled from Communism to what is generally acknowledged as the Right. This was when some of the New Left had gotten older but when stalwarts of Communism could still support the Stalinistas in Nicaragua with a straight face.  What was fascinating to watch was that the fluid movement philosophically from Left to Right was rather easy with sober reflection, but a movement in the opposite direction was far more difficult, at least if one prized intellectual honesty and a clear historical eye to what Communism had wrought in the 20th century.

In order to embrace and advocate collectivism, you must:

  • Dispense with intellectual honesty because the historical record militates heavily against you otherwise,
  • Possess a blind moral compass to initiated aggression,
  • Dismiss individual accountability and responsibility for action,
  • Refuse to acknowledge self-ownership and surrender yours to others, and
  • Dismiss self-determination as an outrageous bourgeois pretension.

Politicians, with rare exceptions, are moral monsters.  The history of warfare is chockfull of the likes of Winston Churchill,who is held up as an icon of Western civilization despite the fact that he advocated and acted on the mass bombing of civilians, the ravaging of India during WWII, Operation Keelhaul and many other atrocities.  This worthy achieved all this in the space of five years and then proceeded to set the brick and mortar for British socialism after the war.  Yet he is regarded as a great man and a beacon of freedom.  A statesman is merely a politician who keeps his gun well hidden and does not discuss it in mixed company.

Even more revealing about the true nature of this great politician:

“It is impossible to continue to argue, for example, that Franklin Roosevelt was merely naïve about the true nature of Stalinism during the Yalta Conference of February 1945, whereas Churchill was much more nuanced and doubtful. In fact Burgis records Churchill telling the first War Cabinet after his return from the Crimea that, ‘Stalin I’m sure means well to the world and Poland. Stalin has offered the Polish people a free and more broadly based government to bring about an election; I cannot conceive any government has the right to be treated like that. Stalin about Poland said, ‘Russia has committed many sins about Poland – pacts and partitions – it is not the intention of the Soviet Government to do such things but to make amends.’ Stalin had a very good feeling with the two Western democracies and wants to work quite easily with us. My hopes lie in a single man, he will not embark on bad adventures. Re: Greece – Stalin was jocular.’ Words that would have embarrassed Churchill deeply by the time of the Berlin airlift three years later were to stay hidden for six decades.”

In the end, politics is about the savaging of human beings through violence, misdirection and the glorification of the physical boundaries of tax jurisdictions.  Nothing less and nothing more.  It is about the wholesale forced appropriation of wealth, time and resources from vast swaths of humanity through either chicanery or implied and explicit use of violence.  It is involuntary surrender to thuggery on a mass scale.

The reason the truly honest man cannot arrive at libertarianism and ultimately the vision of a stateless society and turn back is that he knows there is no path to virtue by reversing course and steaming toward collectivism.  The virtuous man would surely lose his way if he were to do so.


“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own.”
– Albert J. Nock

Copyright © 2011 by






Publisher’s Note:  I am a college graduate but I think the present course of higher education and the hundred years leading up to it has done nothing more than be a mass processing plant to produce specious justifications for government supremacism and churn out legions of shambling and unreflective automatons programmed for submission and obedience to government coercion.  Most folks in college today should not be there and only two colleges in America are not extensions of the Federal government:  Hillsdale (although the vicious brew of neoconservatism and military jingoism has blinded its adherents to freedom) and Grove City College.  Neither accepts any Federal aid.  All the rest are satellite campuses of Mordor on the Potomac.  The Ludwig von Mises Institute has been the closest thing to a liberty campus out there but no formal nor accredited curricula exists.  Now ISU is attempting to establish a virtual and real campus to plant the seedbed of liberty and build a sophisticated intellectual framework to ensure freedom is not extinguished in the 21st century despite the best efforts of the “best and the brightest”.  A difficult task indeed. -BB

Individual Sovereign University is not part of any one movement, or any one group of people. It is the ultimate open-source educational tool where you determine what you want to learn or teach and we will find you teachers, students, and as needed, sponsors. We see to pioneer networking being used not only as a social tool, an activist’s tool, but also as a way to connect learners with those that have knowledge they are seeking. Where appropriate, we also connect teachers and students with sources of funding, including businesses that want trained individuals for future jobs. We also engage our scholars in original research which we publish.

What are the goals of the Individual Sovereign University, and why is a “university” the correct structure for achieving them?

1. The primary goal is to show people how to teach and how to learn without intrusion from any organization, or group of people. All peoples from the youngest to the more aged adult learners and teachers can create the opportunity to use our de-centralized and global platform to share their knowledge. Through the great many mean that the technology available today allows.
2. A secondary goal is to provide authors with opportunities to give away their written works while continuing to be paid for, e.g., teaching classes. We know that the structure of the publishing industry is changing, and that the cost of reproduction has fallen to essentially zero. Authors are beginning to wonder if they can personally survive the transition from the old style of publishing to the new. By providing a publishing service, Individual Sovereign University expects to show new business models to authors, and thus to the industry.
3. For approximately the last 2,400 years, give or take a few hundred years (because we simply don’t know our ancient history that well), people have proposed to withdraw from the state. Laozi was among the very first to make this proposal. Étienne de La Boétie made this same proposal in 1563 when his discourses on voluntary servitude were published. Murray Rothbard, Samuel Edward Konkin III, and Lew Rockwell have made this proposal. One is left to wonder, what sort of structures exist that can last for thousands of years.
We find that corporations last decades, sometimes, before shifting to new ownership and totally new plans. We find that partnerships rarely survive the death of even one partner. We find that governments are even more fickle, changing within only a few years. Two human-founded structures last longer: universities and religions. The oldest surviving university on Earth is probably the University of Bologna, founded circa A.D. 980. The oldest surviving religion is probably Taoism. But none of us have the combination of arrogance and self-righteousness that seems appropriate to founding a religion.
Given the history that places of education have lasted even longer than corporations and the birth and death of states and governments, a virtual place of learning, that is open to all, seems to be the best route.
We encourage spontaneous organization, and order. If you have a need, speak up! We will find you a teacher. If you have knowledge that would benefit another, speak up! We will find you a student.

Business opportunity

There is an enormous business opportunity in providing educational services. However, this market is currently distorted by guaranteed student loans which, combined with extremely high cost and almost exclusively state-oriented universities, prevents the finding of market-clearing prices for particular types of training and education. Education is a key element in the growth and development of every individual, so making it available without tying the individual to debt peonage, would be an important accomplishment.
Peter Thiel has proposed that higher education is in a “bubble” because it is widely perceived to have very high value, it is extremely costly, and it is being financed by debt. Indeed, we see in Sallie Mae the same sort of bizarre national program, as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to organize these student loans. It would not surprise me to see collateralized debt obligations, with the student as human collateral (or chattel), and the bundling of student loans into slavery-backed securities. The derivative potentials are monstrous.
Unfortunately, as we have seen in articles written time and time again, a great majority of college graduates are in a career field that has NOTHING to do with their major. There is no reason in this age of technology that we currently live in, that many trades, IT, networking, and many other related types of courses could not be taught, virtually. Look at the virtual “degreed” programs offered by state-approved schools. It has been shown, that everything “they” do the private sector can do better. Let’s do better!
Decentralization can be tricky in that one often wants to find everything in one place. But we believe that is possible without creating a huge centralized bureaucracy with bureau-rats and bursars and registrars and other parasites latched onto the process. Ideally, as few people as possible other than the student and the teacher would be involved in purveying education. Where we have to create a third party involvement, we are failing in our goal of decentralized education.
And, remember, our very first goal, above, is: education beyond the state. Teaching without being state employees. Learning without being state conscripts.

Research Opportunity

We don’t know how to live free all over the world. We know it can be done, because we’ve been doing it in small groups. We know it ought to be possible to live in free countries, on free continents, on a free planet, in a free Solar system, and throughout a free galaxy. And we know that we don’t. So we see an enormous opportunity for the university not only to teach but also to conduct original research and publish the results. We want people to think more and more about how to live free, without coercion, beyond the state.

Industry analysis

The industry for education is highly fragmented. Although many elite institutions are ostensibly private, nearly all universities in the United States derive substantial benefit from government funding of research, government guarantees of student loans, and various types of government grants, scholarships, and other funding. These distortions of the market for education are compounded throughout the arts, letters, and sciences by other government intrusions. The generation of knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge have come to be dominated by government action.

Nor is the market at all remarkably free of government collusion and interference in any other country that we’ve found. It seems that wherever the groves of Academe are found, they are infested with parasitical government functionaries.

We are choosing not to go there. Not be attached to an approval process, but to allow our students, teachers, parents and their children to decide the market. What do you want to learn? How can we aid you in attaining that knowledge?

The old adage, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil” rings true here. All that need be done on your part is asking for what you want. We will find it.

Market analysis

The market for education is typically divided into three major categories. Those persons 18 and under are typically relegated to K-12 or “kindergarten through 12th grade.” A very few persons 18 and under sometimes are able to take accelerated course work in order to qualify for college-equivalent courses, or take actual college courses. The home schooling market typically focuses on educating children through high school equivalence.

A second major category covers students 18-26 who are typically engaged in undergraduate and graduate university studies. This age group also frequently looks to community colleges and vocational or technical schools for training. A four-year undergraduate program followed by a two-year master’s program followed by a four- to six-year doctorate is a typical course of study, with some students getting off the treadmill sooner, and others, notably medical doctors, studying longer.

A third major age category covers “continuing education” which is a term for professionals who are expected to keep up with current techniques and practices, such as in law, medicine, and engineering. It is a term that has been applied to all other adult education whether there is any continuity involved, or not.

Although the market for education is both highly fragmented, with a great many providers, and largely stratified by age, the Individual Sovereign University is not attempting to focus our course offerings on any of these major categories. Instead, we are focusing our efforts on offering any courses that teachers wish to teach. We are open to providing a forum for students to request classes that they wish to take. Our objective is to facilitate any sort of education, without regard to the age of the student.

We have opened our minds to the prospect of many multi-use real estate projects on every continent. These will be used not only for campuses but also travel and leisure of our clients and customers. Learning is not something that happens only in childhood, but all lifelong.

Part of the process in locating the areas that suit our needs best, will be in planning and executing exotic, culturally educational and respectful vacations for our clientele. These vacations will be planned, and networks expanded by our advisors within the university that hold many years of experience, in vacation planning. In planning these travel extravaganzas we will expand our reach through our new business contacts in all regions, and offer our clients the experience of a lifetime. Through cultural and exotic experiences, we seek to not only offer trips of a lifetime, but learning experiences that could be gained no other way. This does not exclude space travel.

The future of freedom:

The future of freedom rests in people making decisions for them. In learning just what you want to learn and not being forced into spending your time (which we each have a very limited amount of) on classes and subjects that do not relate to you and your goals. Taking the reins of each of our individual educations and acting on such, is empowering. It seems almost to be too much at times, as we are used to being handed a curriculum and being told “here, take these classes, spend this much time, this much money, and we give you a piece of magic paper”. Let the power structure go. Take control of your destiny and take choices for yourself.

In our online forum, letters of recommendation, certificates of achievement etc. will be available. It comes back around to, “Ask for what you need or want. Speak Up!”
The sky is truly not the limit. What do you want to learn? To teach? How do you learn best? From what kinds of people do you learn best? One on one? A group? How can you pay for your classes? Do you need a scholarship? Alternative forms of payment?
We seek to fulfill your answers to these questions as best as we can. We seek to not lay out a grid and tell you what to do, but to allow you to follow your own path in learning.
When we are learning what we want, it sticks. Let your learning stick, let it be of value to you. Determine what you need or want and Ask For it! Freedom in education is available. Spread the word!

Things you can do today to make a difference:

1. Visit and register—for free. Look at the classes on offer. Check with one of our team about upgrading your account (for free) so you can blog—we had a problem with some spam blogging.
2. Consider taking a class or offering a class. Set your own prices. If you don’t see what you want, ask around in the forums. If you can’t afford what you see, ask one of our team members. We’re here to solve problems.
3. On the home page we have links for donating through PayPal, through credit cards using Google Checkout, and a text block that should let you donate to us using bitCoin. We also accept cheques, money orders, cash, gold and silver coins, DelValley silver, Shire silver, Pecunix, c-gold, Loom gold, gold Globals, and other alternatives. If you would like us to support some local or national currency, please let us know. We have a very widespread network.
4. We have books and merchandise for sale. We’d love to link to your site, your books, your good and services. We are working on an online library of learning and teaching resources, not only for adults, but also for people of all ages.

The future you create may be your own.

Shaun Lee, poet, agorist, and entrepreneur has agreed to promote Individual Sovereign University in the freedom community through her extensive contacts. She is assisting in securing a positive image for the university, our faculty, and our products in the agorist, freedom-oriented, and anti-war communities, among many others. Shaun Lee brings a wealth of contacts and networking skills through her many years in organizing and leading different parts of the freedom community.

Jim Davidson is an author, entrepreneur, and anti-war activist. Contact him at or Come visit IndSovU teams at gatherings in June 2011 in New Hampshire, September 2011 in Montana, December 2011 in Florida, and March 2012 in Austin, Texas.

“It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.” ~ Frederic Bastiat

I had business to attend to all week in Richmond, VA. I live west of Fredericksburg, just past the Wilderness Battlefield. Ironically, I live off of the Constitution Highway. Those who read my work might find that a bit funny. I take mostly back roads that wind me through the Old Dominion, until I eventually get dumped out on to I95. Any Virginian knows in the morning, I95 is jammed packed from DC to Richmond, there is just no way around it.

While sitting in traffic just outside of the old Confederate Capitol I saw something very disturbing. A Virginia State trooper had backed his vehicle out of the way of an on-ramp where commuters were trying to merge onto the busy Interstate. The going was slow on the merge, and cars were at a complete stand still. There, this Trooper was standing at the end of the on-ramp checking license plate registration, Virginia State safety inspection, and personal property tax stickers. The congestion on I95 was quite heavy this particular morning so I had the opportunity to witness this fascist spectacle for probably five minutes.

Virginia State requires that the safety inspection sticker, and the county tax sticker be installed in the lower middle section of the windshield, and the vehicle registration stickers are attached to the license plates. As vehicles were trying to merge, this Trooper would inspect the license plate and then snap his head up to look at the windshield. The whole situation was surreal; he seemed to be more machine than man. His movements seemed robotic, the movement of his head seemed almost hydraulic; up, down, up, down; compliant, non-compliant. I think that is probably what he was “thinking”. The only thing missing here was robo-cop. His face was emotionless; when a vehicle approached that was not in compliance, he would snap his arm out to his side and point the vehicle over. His motions were crisp, almost like they were programmed into him.

There were a thousand thoughts going through my head at this point. The first, what an incredible racket! This law enforcement officer who collects his check from the State was forcefully extracting money for his employer all morning long. Faceless Bureaucrats scribble some kind of fund raising scheme down on paper, and *poof* it’s law. From here the armed minions of the State take over and hit the streets on a mission to find as many subjects “breaking the law” as they possibly can. Somehow these men think that when they put on their uniforms, and get behind their badges, they are relieved of their moral obligations to their fellow men. Those of us who actually exercise some kind of reasoned thought on a daily basis know better. For the brief time I was stuck there he had successfully gotten two subjects to pull over, perhaps interrupting otherwise productive people, who actually might be on the way to produce some good or service. My second thought; is this what this man dreamed his job would be when he was a little boy? Is it really the dream of those who wish to keep the peace to make sure their fellow men have the correct stickers on their cars!? Should we rename the innocent children’s game of cops and robbers to compliance officers and subjects? My third thought was, why in the hell do we have a human doing this? I mean, can we at least bring the tyranny into the 21st century? Couldn’t a robot, or some kind of scanning camera do this job? Lets make George Orwell proud, and just get on with it, at least this officer could join the ranks with the rest of the citizen subjects. These highway men know where their bread is buttered. Bring the spoils back to the King, and he’ll cut you out some, right peace officers? I wonder if this man ever sat down and thought critically about what he was actually doing. If he did, and he was a man of honor, he would not return to work the next day. Or at least refuse to be a thief and go investigate a crime with a real victim.

About two years ago I was on the way to work in the morning, and I got pulled over about a half mile from my shop. The officer stopped me for not having a valid county sticker on my vehicle. This means that I was late in paying the perpetual tax on my vehicle, so my tax sticker was not up to date. Needless to say, I was shocked when he told me why he pulled me over, I thought I had been speeding or in violation of some other arbitrary vehicle infraction. Nope, I got pulled over for not paying my property tax. I had to bite my tongue most of the time while I was on the side of the road, but I did ask him one question. I said, “so, you pulled me over for not paying my taxes?” He said, “No, I pulled you over for an invalid county sticker.” The only way to receive a valid county sticker is to pay the property tax on my vehicle. This man was either too stupid to put it together, or he was ashamed to admit it to himself, let alone say it aloud.

He then gave me a ticket and told me that the judge would dismiss it if I showed proof that I paid my property tax on the court date. This man was trying to charge me a fine on unpaid taxes. Are any of you still buying this land of the free crap? These situations make me wonder how these men live with themselves. I am an auto mechanic, as most of you know some folks think we are dishonest. When I catch a mechanic trying to sell work a customer does not need, they are gone. We will not have it where I work. It is up to the honest mechanics to try and salvage the profession, and police the ranks. To the law enforcement that read this; do any of you stop to think about what you are doing? Do any of you realize you are taking hard working peoples money at the barrel of a gun? AND, do you realize the other profession that does this? I don’t think I need to say it.

Law Enforcement, you are the tip of the spear. Your spear could go either way at this juncture in history. You could choose what other “law enforcement” have chosen to do throughout history, defy, and then defile your own people. Or you can turn that spear around and once again take up your moral obligations to your fellow men, and truly be the protectors of peace. The choice is yours and yours only. Not your superior officers, not your partners, not your buddies, yours. Whatever decision is made as we stand on the abyss of total moral, and societal collapse, you will own it. Whether you like the decision that was made or not, it will be yours. You cannot hide from your own conscious. If you find it necessary to think twice about whether something is right or wrong, it might be necessary to think twice about kicking that door in.

“When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.” ~ C.P. Snow 

“Fortunately,” he said, “that’s hardly a representative sample of American Law Enforcement, thank God.”

“How many bad apples does it take to spoil a bunch?” I asked.

From there, the conversation turned to the philosophical; absent our present justice and law enforcement system, how would we guarantee our safety from the evils of the world? This was as non-productive as may be imagined, and because my friend is a reasonable man, we agreed once again to disagree.

So I ask you, dear reader. How many bad apples does it take to spoil a bunch? How much infringement upon our rights, how much overstepping constitutional authority, how much outright brutality are we willing to tolerate from our designated protectors before it’s just not worth it any more?

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, firearms were confiscated by the New Orleans Police Department. This was an isolated incident, and the New Orleans PD does not represent American Law Enforcement in general. Most city police are dedicated and noble and would fight to protect the rights and lives of citizens.

During the Virginia Tech massacre, the equipped and trained officers did not enter Norris Hall until Cho had killed himself, frustrated by a barricade that students erected to keep him at bay. Officer safety is paramount, and it would have been dangerous for any one officer to enter the building in the presence of an active shooter without backup.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, tasked with preventing federal offenses related to firearms, encouraged firearms to be illegally sold and distributed to known criminals, resulting in the death of at least one Border Patrol agent and countless other human beings. But the present ATF is not representative of federal Law Enforcement agencies in general, and these abuses will die with that bureau.

In 1993, the FBI and the BATFE laid siege to and massacred a group of Seventh-Day Adventist heretics, for the crime of legally purchasing a variety of scary firearms. That was a different era, and the siege was the fault of Janet Reno, who is no longer Attorney General.

On May 5, 2011, officers from at least four Pima County police agencies unceremoniously executed Marine Corps veteran Jose Guerena, who has been found guilty of no crime, and whose work hours must have been well known to the police after their extensive investigation. But most of the United States is protected by better men than Pima County, whose officers may have done the right thing anyway, depending on the outcome of ongoing investigations.

Every day, more stories like this play out, all across the country. Men and women sworn to serve and protect the citizens of this nation instead trample their inalienable rights and flaunt their authority at gunpoint, frequently protected by the Blue Code of Silence, the existence of which cannot be denied. Still, these are isolated incidents, and do not represent the bulk of police in this country. The cops I shoot with are good people and we have pleasant conversation, you understand. It is unfortunate that a few bad examples give the rest a bad name.

What I do not see is this: noble men, worthy of their charge, refusing to break the oaths they swore to defend those who can’t defend themselves. What I do not see is a single example of a police department defying any order on moral, constitutional or legal grounds. I do not see a single example of cops behaving in a fashion befitting the honor they claim, honor I wish they would earn. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps someone can show me an overwhelming number of  counter-examples, and I will rejoice to see it. Until then I must view the police and all their activities with skepticism, and judge the merit of individual officers on a case-by-case basis.