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.
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?
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
"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.

Publisher's Note: I want something a bit more definitive than independence.  I grew up associating the 4th of July with freedom and liberty and then I grew up.  Not only was this the day in 1863 when the Confederacy lost both Gettysburg and Vicksburg and therefore the war but it is now associated with the celebration more so of the wretched and liberty-wrecking Constitution than the brilliant Declaration of Independence.  The DI was drafted a full generation before the political coup known as the Constitution cemented and wedded all our fates to big government.  The Fourth is certainly a day to celebrate the DI but the flag waving and celebration of patriotic gore both here and abroad is, in truth, a macabre glorification and salute to the Gulag State.  America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave, it is instead the land of the caged and home of the collaborator.  Most Americans not only are scared witless of liberty and freedom but endlessly cheer-lead the depredations of the state on their neighbors through taxation, regulation and the maintenance of a ferocious police state. Michael Collins had it right. Truth be told, the Fourth of July has become the twisted celebration of the inmates lauding the accomplishments of their jailers.  Please enjoy the Declaration of Separation. Please be sure to look at the great cornucopia of terrific 4th of July ramblings from my brothers at Western Rifle Shooters Association. An excerpt:
On the Fourth, we celebrate open rebellion, high treason, and disobedience.We celebrate men who killed their countrymen for their principles. Men who risked being demonized and executed by their government, for their principles. Don’t you ever, ever forget that. Ever. It’s not about apple pie, baseball, fireworks, and the Declaration of Independence. Expensive, horrible, priceless freedom. Arctic Patriot
--BB [Editor's Note [The Voluntaryist]: The following anonymous piece was received via email on April 7, 2009. It was distributed to our voluntaryist email group, since I am in accord with its sentiments. Its opening claim of a "right to exist" ought more properly be framed as a statement: We exist; we exist at our own expense; and expect no one to support us; and we will defend our existence if it is coercively threatened. I would have liked to have seen it mention that 1) taxes are theft, and that taxes are collected under threat of force; and 2) that although certain goods and services are necessary for our survival, it is not necessary that they be provided by coercive, political governments. Please see that this Declaration gets as wide a distribution as possible.] To The Governments & People of Earth: We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone. All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world's systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity. We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this - it was forced upon us. To The Governments of Earth: You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent. This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. - From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do. You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.
Just one exercise in packing your suitcase when the water is up to your chest, but I’m certain our readers can come up with dozens more. There are two schools of thought I generally agree solves this dead argument. For the sake of this exercise I will label the first, the Minarchist approach to Zionism, and the second, the Anarchist approach to Zionism. Both will be attacked because they lack the neo-conservative philosophy of "might makes right".  Ironically, neo-conservative ideals imitate National Socialism, despite their quoting of Genesis:12 at you when they hear you criticize Zionism. I'll address the Minarchist approach, which is purely libertarian in nature, first. The US foreign policy was intended by Jefferson to be "humble" and was one of non-interventionism but don't confuse it with isolationism, most neo-conservatives make that false claim towards Ron Paul and they are often philosophically the most ignorant of Jefferson’s approach to foreign policy in the first place since they reside ideologically much closer to Alexander Hamilton (spit) and the Federalists. A non-interventionist approach would dissolve the US of all foreign entanglements including Treaties, which would include the creation of Israel. If Jefferson were even capable of living in these days and spent a glistening day studying how we bastardized his experiment, he would take the US to task on this very issue. The fact is, the US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess by Anti-Federalist standards, but possibly on-par with a Federalist’s vision. Following this Minarchist approach, the US would have to un-do the lingering mistakes throughout history and make apology where needed. When you realize you made a decision, whether it was based on bad information, you still make amends. This isn't about appearing weak; as a man, you know that when you are wrong, you want to take responsibility for it. The argument posed that the US would somehow appear weak for assuming that responsibility is a unique Federalist slant, anyway. Our country is faced with a great many mistakes so that process would need to begin yesterday. In the conclusion of the Minarchist/libertarian approach, the answer is to un-do anything that was a mistake including entangling alliances and a meddling foreign policy, chiefly, that is the entire Middle East, but certainly not limited to the it. If this was the best that could happen, I would be pleased, but you know there is no way in hell neo-conservatives would allow the mere contemplation. Even the liberals famously imitating International Socialists would see their special interest clients breaking down their doors. This is what I will call this the moderate or middle of the road approach. It has a logical reason and is based on the principles of non-interventionism as defined by Jefferson himself. It would shrink government in very large proportions which is exactly why it will NEVER happen. the middle of the road approach... it has a logical reason and basis based on non-interventionism as defined by Jefferson himself, it would shrink government in very large proportions which is exactly why it will NEVER happen.
  Chris was kind enough to answer some questions from the ZeroGov staff about himself, his books and his prognostications for the future.  Enjoy.  I highly recommend them.  Chris' responses are in italics. You can buy it here. Be sure to look for the second volume if you are interested. -BB
  • What motivated you to write Operation SERF?
I started writing the first book purely for fun during some of my limited free time on weekends one winter.  It was an exercise in creativity which was encouraged by author/blogger Charles Hugh Smith.  The entire book was originally posted as free weekly installments on his oftwominds.com website.  The idea grew larger than I had initially imagined and the web series became the first book of a trilogy.  My time spent boots on the ground in Iraq and my studies of the collapse of Yugoslavia gave me both the concrete hands-on experience and academic knowledge needed to breathe life into a fictional scenario.  But aside from the creativity associated from doing art for the sake of it, part of my motivation was to warn my fellow Americans about a devastating course should we chose such a path in the future.
  • How close are we to a collapse similar to the book’s portrayal of the slow and grinding fall into the abyss?
Right now we as a nation could go either way.  Keep in mind that I'm thinking about a time-line over the next 10 years.  I'm focused on economics today because that is the main crossroad we're at in 2011.  The question we're faced with now is can we create enough jobs for not only the adults who are currently out of work, but all the new graduates who will be seeking work each year from here on out.  The question tomorrow at the next critical junction will be do we have the natural resources and fuel supply to meet the demands of a growing population.  No matter how I project various scenarios out in my own mind, my intuition tells me we will be forced to change our way of life.  I'd like to think we're capable of decentralizing governance and production to meet regional needs in a sustainable way, but I doubt the people currently in power are capable of relinquishing their grips on the reins.  I see no evidence yet that the flawed personalities of our so-called leaders who've brought us to the brink of collapse will be miraculously healed in time to avert a hard landing.  Therefore as it stands now, their proposed solutions will either still fail or only bring greater strife.
  • Since writing the book, have real time events around the globe caused you to think that it may happen just as you extrapolated?
The word “austerity” had not yet entered the common American vocabulary when I began writing the book in late 2008, but in 2011 we're beginning to understand how it will affect local, state and federal budgets.  It will take a few more years before we see how this plays out on the street in concrete terms.  More people will become unemployed and even if they're able to find work later, it won't be for the same pay they had in the past.  Their standard of living will fall.  When there's no money to fix the infrastructure and the concrete literally begins crumbling under our collective feet, only then will the people who've had continuous employment all along realize that our slow downhill trend had been afoot the entire time.