Is Social Media Engineered Distraction?

Humans are social beings by nature and by evolution. As an individual, humans are not particularly well suited to survive. We don’t have sharp claws, massive amounts of strength, and we aren’t particularly fast. What we have is a cognitive frontal lobe that allows us to problem solve and create abstractions to better understand our environment. This alone, though, does not give us any advantage over a predator unless we can plan in advance a way to defeat the predator. What do we have then?

Humans are excellent at cooperating with each other. Together we can build traps and walls to keep out predators, cultivate land for a consistent food supply, and build houses and structures to protect us from nature. Effectively, we built civilization out of cooperating with each other. This cooperation requires us to be informed about the other members of our community as well as our own standing within that community. We have to know who is reliable and who is going to not shirk their responsibilities. We must also know how others perceive us; are we liked, do others find us dependable and trustworthy or are they going to kick us out of the group? Out of the necessity to be informed about the other members of the group and our standing within it, we have developed a hypersensitivity to social life.

In today’s world, we have the internet and social media; effectively social life on steroids. Not only can we keep up on the lives of everyone we went to high school with but on the lives of celebrities, politicians, and complete strangers. We are socially so well connected that our capacity to process and function in life is inundated at times. How much of your life have you wasted scrolling through your Facebook or Twitter feed? While it can provide necessary distraction from time to time, largely it distracts us from more productive activities. We could be improving our relationships with our friends, family, or significant other; we could be improving our knowledge base; we could be discovering virtue within our own lives and impacting the world. Instead, we are all consumed with what Suzie did on her last vacation, or if Terry from high school is doing as well as we are in social standing. The negative impacts of this on our life are evident, but I want to know if this detriment is intentional.

What if Facebook was designed to distract us from a failing economy, worsening race relations, international conflict, a European migrant crisis, potential currency collapse, chronic unemployment, and an international cabal of governments and corporations intent on constructing a supranational governmental body that supersedes national sovereignty and therefore individual sovereignty? I don’t think the original intent of any social media platform was to do just this. I think they were designed as a way to improve communication and provide a form of entertainment for internet users. I do, however, believe that the various platforms have been coopted for just the purpose of distraction and obfuscation of the truth.

When you see Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube actively policing posts or content providers for reasons that are clearly intended to silence their voices, and Google limits search results, the question of motives comes into play. When you have the owners of Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Apple all encouraging and supporting the United Nations, a supranational governmental body not beholden to any sovereign people, taking over the internet, you must ask why. Are these people technocrats that honestly believe they can use technology to reshape the thinking of humans? Do they believe they can control you if they limit the information to which you are exposed?

Yes they do. These people are no different from any other authoritarian in the past that has believed humans are flawed and must be reshaped into something better. Socialists, Communists, and Marxists all believed this. Proponents of the public education system believe this as indoctrination is the sole purpose of public education. If the government can control the information you are taught for twelve years, they can control how you approach any topic or idea for the rest of your life. Unfortunately for them, the human spirit desires to be free. Fortunately for humanity, those of us that desire freedom above all else are endeavoring to use every means necessary to fight back.

Social media is useful at distracting and controlling the sheeple, but it is also incredibly useful in waking them up. The phenomena of “Red Pilling” is something that was made famous in the movie The Matrix, and it has been overwhelmingly adopted across the internet thanks to freedom fighters and their use of social media platforms. People are waking up every day thanks to the internet and the moral virtue of individual freedom. Freedom is good and it is the best virtue to fight for. That is why it will win. The entirety of the world’s armies cannot adequately oppose men with morality on their side. Moral conviction is the strongest motivator within human action, so I ask you to take up the cause of freedom with me. Let us stand together as we wage the war for freedom all across the internet. No longer shall we let Suzie’s vacation pictures or Terry’s new car distract us. Let us be the content providers for how the future should be. Let us fill everyone else’s feeds the ideas of freedom, liberty, and anarchy. Let us espouse moral virtue as our guiding light so that others may find it and join us on this journey.  Together, we will achieve anarchy, we will achieve freedom!

Why We Want to Universalize Principles

Often at work I get flack for how hard I work and how dedicated I am to performing tasks to the best of my ability. I work in food service, so what I do is not changing the world, however, I still take the work seriously and I apply myself. There are two reasons for this. One, I believe everything we do is training for everything else we do in life, so if I do not apply myself for eight hours a day five days a week, I will be conditioned to not applying myself and I will do that in other parts of my life. The second reason is that I believe in universalizing principles. The principle in question here is applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a good thing. If this is to be a principle, it must be universalized and applied to all people, which includes me. If I want other people to work hard, I must work hard myself.

Have you ever seen a coworker intentionally be lazy or disregard a task they should complete with the direct intention of leaving it for someone else? Have you then heard that same coworker bemoan the fact that no one else in the place works very hard? I see it every day, and I wonder, “How can you expect other people to meet standards you yourself are not willing to?” Of course, I complain when other people do not apply themselves, but I am justified in doing so.

I am justified in my complaints about the poor work ethic of my coworkers because I have a strong work ethic. I apply myself to the best of my abilities, so when other people do not do the same, they are not meeting the principle of applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a good thing. If my coworkers believed in the principle, applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a bad thing, then they are not justified in their complaints about other people not working very hard. As we would expect by now, universalization of principles has much greater implications.

Universalizing principles is fundamental for living in a civilized society. We know that theft is morally wrong. That is the one of our basic moral principles, and it is something that even the thief agrees is a valid principle. If theft was a good thing, the thief would have no incentive to steal because what he stole would be stolen from him immediately. However, if private property is recognized, then the thief is secure in knowing that no one else is going to steal what he wants to take from others, and no one will steal from him after he has stolen. Universalizing the non-aggression principle, the initiation of force is morally wrong, allows us to interact peacefully with others within our society as well as hold others to account when it is violated.

If murder was morally wrong only for those who believed it was wrong, all someone would have to do to get away with murder was to not believe it was wrong. Certainly, this belief would leave the murderer open to be murdered without any repercussions, so it would make sense that universalizing the principle that murder is a good thing would be something this person would disagree with. We find this across all violators of moral principles; the violators want the laws to apply to everyone but themselves so they can take advantage of all of those that hold themselves to the standards. Necessarily, this problem necessitates a legal system that adjudicates disputes, prosecutes offenders, and establishes some modicum of justice. What constitutes such a system and whether or not what we have is a moral system is outside the scope of this article.

Even criminals know that they are breaking the principle of universalization for moral standards. This is evidence not only of universalization itself, but it is evidence of the fact that agreeing upon moral standards is something we have already done. The necessity for a complex legislative system is an unnecessary one. Everyone knows that you should not hurt people or take their stuff and you should keep your word. So all we really need is a service provider that will defend us from those that want to hurt us or take our stuff, and another one that arbitrates the disputes that arise from someone trying to hurt us, take our stuff, or break their word. These are systems that can be voluntarily chosen in the free market.

Your car insurance has universal standards that must be met, and there are dozens of providers that will meet those standards in various different packages for various different prices. And, if you get into a collision with someone that has a different car insurance provider, your insurer is still able to resolve the dispute very peacefully. There is no need to worry that your arbitration company will not get along with another company. The principles that they apply to every one of their customers also apply to them.

The universalization of principles places the principles as the ideal standard above the influence of man or his legislative laws. Similar to the way religion places God above man, objective moral standards are above the influence of man, which allows for their universalization. Objective moral principles are as justifiable through reason as gravity is through observation, which clearly applies universally to everyone. Principles, like gravity, hold the world together, and like gravity, they establish a universal framework that facilitates human flourishing.

What I Would Like to Know

We know that religions evolved all across the world in different cultures as a way to describe the things that could not be easily understood and as a way to codify morality among the people. We know that the races are biologically different. We also know that religions evolved to some extent along racial lines. We know that IQ has a biological component, although we do not fully understand what it is. What I want to know is to what degree genetics influences our cultures and our religions. Is religion an outward projection of our values based upon evolutionary pressures, is it an internal understanding of who we are as a race of people, is it some combination, or is it something else entirely?

We know that cultures are defined entirely by the people that inhabit them. Europe and the United States are very different from China and Japan, and different still from sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Christianity is different from Buddhism, which is different from Hinduism, which is different still from Islam. Christianity permeated Europe and subsequently the world from the proliferation of Western civilization across the globe, but when you look at pre-Christian religions in Europe, you find a different representation of the White man. Without getting into those specifics too much, I want to know to what degree are the Gods of these religions representations of the ideals of the specific races that created them. I also want to know to what degree the values of each of these religions reflect the innate or biological characteristics of the races that value them.

A recurring theme in all religions seems to be an idea of transcendence. Some religions describe it as the soul, and others describe it as a state of nothingness. While there are many different descriptions of this idea, its consistency across the races is indicative of our underlying unifying traits as humans. I want to know if there are biological underpinnings of this idea as they are so prevalent across the different races.

The last thing I want to know is the impact of IQ on religion and culture. We know there is a biological component to IQ, and given that the races have very distinct cultures and race is an effect of biology, to what extent does intellectual capacity impact the complexity, adherence to, and enforcement of religion. Take for instance that in Christian nations in the West there is large tolerance for other religions and even atheism, while in Muslim countries in the Middle East non-believers are put to death. How does intellectual capacity affect this, as well as if there is a biological component is something I find profoundly intriguing. We know the average IQ in the West is 100, while it is 85 in the Middle East. This clearly indicates that the intellectual capacity of citizens in the West on average is greater than it is in among the citizens of the Middle East. Is this entirely biological, cultural, religious, a combination, or something else entirely?

These are challenging and controversial questions, and I feel comfortable asking them because of the degree of freedom I have where I live. I know that if I am ever going to find the answers to these questions, I will have the easiest time in a society in which challenging ideas are not shunned or people that have them are not black listed. That is a society in which individual freedom and pursuit of the truth are the greatest ideals. That society is a state of anarchy. It is my hope in answering these questions I can understand what will be the most likely vehicles for bringing about a state of anarchy. Perhaps it is that anarchists are simply a different subspecies of people. It feels like it at times. Regardless, it is my hope that all of humanity can unite behind the ideal of human flourishing!

Better Lucky Than Good?

I first heard the expression, “better lucky than good” while golfing with my dad. I was so bad, and still am, that when I would hit a remarkably good shot, one of us would remark, “Better lucky than good!” For a long time I thought this was a good saying until someone else explained to me that luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. That changed my outlook entirely. People that are successful are not lucky; they are well prepared and they sought out opportunities to succeed. If luck did exist, it would indicate that there are supernatural forces at work influencing our lives. In truth, anyone that is lucky has simply taken advantage of an opportunity that was presented to them.

Have you ever seen a guy with a beautiful woman on his arm? Did you remark to yourself about how lucky he was for being able to keep such company? What about someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; do you think they were lucky? I would argue that none of these people are lucky. No one is lucky. All people that are successful in whatever regard, are so because they prepared and seized an opportunity when it arose. They were also not simply sitting idly by waiting for an opportunity; they were actively out searching for opportunities. How many girls do you think the aforementioned guy dated before found the beauty on his arm? Do you think he didn’t spend any time accumulating resources to intrigue such a woman? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t stumble into their success. They worked every day on it, and little by little they achieved greatness.

Successful people work harder, train longer, dream bigger, seek more opportunities, and sleep better because they know that as long as they keep working, their preparation will find the right opportunity. This is why I write every day. Writing helps me coalesce my thoughts, plus it is training for improved communication. As someone that loves communicating and teaching complex and challenging ideas, it is important that I am skilled at communicating in any medium available. I am confident that my writing will improve as I continue to prepare myself for the opportunity that I know is approaching. If more people shared this outlook, instead of believing that life is just going to happen, we would have a happier and more successful population. You are responsible for your life, your preparation, and how you respond to the opportunities you face. I hope you are prepared for the greatest opportunity of your life because it is not going to wait for you to be ready.

The Precarious Proposition of Procedures

Procedures, we deal with them on a daily basis. Anything from a four-way stop to ordering food at a restaurant to opening or closing a business for the day, procedures are designed to help individuals streamline their actions. When you know how someone else is going to act, it makes your decision making process easier and more streamlined. This is the purpose of having a procedure. It allows for you to anticipate the actions of other people without knowing them personally as well as transfer information without having to do it directly. Procedures can also stifle creativity and innovation. As with all things, there are pros and cons, so let’s have a look at the pros and cons of procedures.

First up, we will talk about the benefits of having a procedure or a standard operating procedure. I use traffic examples often as I will assume most people have driven a car in America, plus I have spent a great deal of time driving. If you approach a four way stop at the same time as three other cars all coming from the other three directions, how do you know who goes first? Procedure would indicate that the first person to arrive crosses the intersection first. If you all arrive at the exact same time, you then proceed in a clockwise direction around the intersection until all vehicles have cleared. This allows you the opportunity to get through the intersection quickly without any confusion. Likewise, traffic lights provide a valuable procedure; stop on red, go on green, and caution on yellow as vehicles in the intersection clear. If people thought the proper procedure was to go on red, while others only went on yellow, everyone that went on green would be in a world of hurt. Procedures clearly enhance our driving practice.

Likewise, if you work in a business that has multiple shifts, you undoubtedly have a procedure for the beginning and end of your shift so you are able to take over from the previous person easily and leave the station primed for the next person. The same is true for accounting and book keeping practices. Ledgers are kept consistent within the business and they meet a uniform standard so others outside of the business can understand the accounting process of the business in order to evaluate the assets of the company. If we really think about it, procedures surround us in every facet of our lives. Most are good, but what happens when procedures are bad?

The ill effects of bad procedures are pretty straight forward; anything from a loss of efficiency to a disservice of justice can result. Perpetuation of poor government programs, such as welfare that creates a permanent under-class, or excise taxes on cigarettes and booze that hurt most the poor, are a direct result of poor procedures. Taxation in all of its forms are procedures, and the entire United States Code is a system of procedures and how to implement them. By delegating powers to government agencies, Congress institutionalizes the procedures that make the laws that affect all of our lives without any legislative oversight whatsoever. As bad as these are, the worst part about procedures is not their direct effect on us.

It is the indirect impact of discouraging critical thinking that makes procedures so incipient in their degradation of our society. When you no longer have to think about whether or not what you are doing is right, you stop doing it. You rely on the procedure to tell you what to do, and you rely on the judgement of the procedure creator to determine if the procedure is in fact just. This separation of judgement from action that results from following procedures degrades our personal capacity to evaluate our own actions and the actions of others. You cannot hold the cashier responsible for not being able to credit your debit card instead of give you cash back; that’s the procedure. You cannot hold the cop responsible for giving you a ticket for following too closely, even though you didn’t cause an accident; that’s the procedure. You cannot hold the concentration camp guard responsible for beating the inmates; that is what the procedure dictates when the inmates demand freedom. This may be a slippery slope argument, but the point is valid. If we lose the capacity to evaluate our actions in the here and now, that degradation will perpetuate and permeate into larger and more significant facets of our lives.

Additionally, when we rely on procedures, we lose the capacity to adapt quickly to changing environments. If the procedure is to write up a report and send it to Stan in HR, have him review it, and then forward it to accounting, it makes it really difficult to get our addressed changed in the system. However, if the system is open source, and we can change our address on our own when it’s needed, the system constantly evolves and grows as we change and grow. This system of constant evolution and adaptation to the ever changing needs of humanity can only come from a state of total freedom, from a state of anarchy.

In order for us to flourish as individuals, we must live in a civilization that has the capacity to adapt to our ever changing needs and desires. A civilization is a group of people that have chosen to live together freely and only voluntary exchanges are permitted, but a civilization is not an abstract concept. A civilization is the people that comprise it. Those people will necessarily be able to adopt the procedures that work and adapt to situations in which the procedures do not apply. Those people will be capable of critically thinking and acting upon their own sound judgement. Those are the kinds of people I want to be around because that is the kind of person I am. I buck the trend of blind conformity to the norm as often as I believe it is necessary and just, and I do it because it is the right thing to do. I want to demonstrate a better way to live, and most importantly, I want individuals to think critically for themselves. Will you join me in my pursuit for anarchy so together we can all flourish?

Curiosity to Explain the World?

Are you curious? Curiosity is defined as the desire to learn or know about anything. It is also described as inquisitiveness. Do you have an interest in learning about anything? If someone presents an idea to you, do you wish to learn more? If you meet someone new, do you like learning about them? More importantly, do you have people in your life that are curious about you and are you curious about the people in your life? Curiosity is a lifelong pursuit, and it is a great virtue to seek in your friends and significant other.

You are going to grow and change, and so are the people in your life. If you want to have long lasting meaningful relationships with them, you are going to want to be curious about them, and vice versa. Let’s focus just on your significant other. If you think you know who they are without continuing to learn and understand them, then you are going to lose sight of who they become. Likewise, if your partner is not inquiring about you, your thoughts and feelings, your preferences and why you have them, then your relationship is not going to work out.

Curiosity is more than simply asking, “How are you doing today?” or “How are you feeling.” It is asking, “When you learned how to play guitar, what was the hardest chord for you to learn and why?” And then it is asking, perhaps at another time, “What is your favorite chord to play, why, and how has that changed as you have improved in skill?” These seem like college essay questions, and they are composed as such here for the sake of brevity. The idea is that the questions will be broken into parts as you have a dialogue with your partner or prospective partner.

The goal should not be simply to learn the answers to the questions, but to understand your partner’s preferences and how they arrived there. If you are having a conversation about a challenge your partner overcame, you learn not just about their struggles but how they deal with them. If you are discussing a time in which your partner was extremely happy, you learn about what makes them happy as well as why it does. If you discuss causes or pursuits that are important to your partner, you learn about what matters, why it matters, and you start to understand their values. From this, you can start to understand their virtues as you spend time with them and experience the choices they make and actions they take. This is what leads to a meaningful connection and relationship.

It is possible that you will learn things about your prospective partner that are a turn off to you, but that is OK. You are not obligated to marry, or even like the person once you start to understand who they are. Curiosity can save you from making big mistakes in the dating world as well as help you find deep, meaningful connection. If the person you are dating is not consistent with their answers and actions, curiosity will help you figure this out really quickly. Likewise, if the person is very consistent, and perhaps more insightful than you would have imagined, curiosity will bring this to light. Additionally, if your prospective partner lacks any curiosity about you, it is at the least an issue that needs addressed and at most, a reason to end the dating.

Curiosity will also help you navigate the rest of the world around you. We live in a big, complex place, and the more you think you know, the less you will learn. Curiosity will help you understand the systems that are in place and if they are the best possible solution to the problems we face. It will help you assert yourself and find success on your own terms. You will notice curiosity as a recurring theme in my writing as my inquisitiveness helps me understand the topics about which I write, and hopefully it will help you understand them as well. Curiosity will also help you understand anarchy, so I hope you pursue curiosity as a meaningful virtue. Then, together, we can help humanity flourish!

Freedom Isn’t Free

There are a number of misconceptions about anarchy, one of which is the idea that there are not consequences for your actions. This is false. Believing that government is the only arbiter of justice is an insult to the concept of justice. We have established that ethics can be derived rationally, so we can then rationally determine what constitutes a violation of those ethics and what might constitute a just resolution to the violation. As individuals capable of rational thought, we do not need one organization with a monopoly on force to tell us how to live or arbitrate disputes.

In our modern society, we are so conditioned to believe that the reasons people do not commit crime is because of the police that we lose our understanding of morality or our natural internalization of it. If police presence was really the reason for low crime, then in areas with the most police there would be the least crime. In fact the opposite is true. In white suburbia, there are maybe three cops that patrol localities of 30,000 plus people, and there is virtually no crime. There may be occasional property crime, but certainly no murders. However, if you look at inner city Chicago, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cops, and crime is rampant. Police presence is a symptom of criminality, not its remedy. So why then are the peaceful places peaceful and the violent places violent?

The answer lies within the people that live in the respective areas. The individuals that live in the suburbs are more capable and thus more apt to internalize morality. Earning money requires deferral of gratification, whereas stealing it results in immediate gratification. Earning money guarantees a steadier stream of consistent and potentially increasing income, whereas theft guarantees nothing. Earning money requires cooperation and respect of your fellow individuals, whereas theft requires only that your fellow individuals do not know you are the thief. If you have the capacity to rationally understand this, then you are far more likely to live in the suburbs, or a community of respectively low criminality.

In order for anarchy to succeed we need to live in a world where a plurality of people understand the aforementioned concepts and are willing to respect them. Thankfully, we do live in such a world. The majority of people, at least in America, do not commit crimes because they know they are wrong. Despite what your initial thoughts might be about your fellow citizens, if you put them to task, they will not steal from you, murder you, or rape you. In fact, they will most likely be as opposed to those ideas as you are. This is a good thing. It means we do not need to convince people of morality; we simply need them to recognize that most other people agree with and share their outlook on the topic. Recognizing this, all of the systems necessary to arbitrate disputes will arise organically. We have the power to thrive in a state of anarchy, all we need to do is have the courage to recognize it. Only then can we flourish!

Why Anarchy Gets a Bad Rep

What if I told you the Constitution is a non-binding document that has done nothing to stop the growth and power of the government? What if I told you police are not required to defend your life or property? What if I told you that taxation is theft, war is murder, and mainstream media is propaganda, all legally authorized by the government? What if I told you the word government means “mind control?” What if everything you have been taught to believe is a lie? What if it is not just a lie, but an intricate system of obfuscation designed to completely control you and extort from you your productivity? What if you are nothing but a free range slave within the confines of your tax farm, with nothing more than the opportunity to vote for a different face to your tax farmer every few years?

What if patriotism is an intentional form of deception designed to gin up support for a system that seeks only to control you and dominate the world? What if “fighting for your freedom” actually means oppressing and killing innocent people in foreign countries? What if soldiers aren’t heroes? What if cops aren’t there to serve and protect, but to brutalize and exploit? What if they are the enforcement arm of a system of complete tyranny over the individual? What if the system is so terrible, and yet good at obfuscation that the officers enforcing the laws honestly believe they are doing good and you respect them for it? What if politicians running for office actually have good intentions when they start out, but it is the nature of the system to corrupt anyone that touches it? What if power is more addictive than crack cocaine, and once you have had a small taste of it, you want only more?

What if everything I just said is absolutely true and you refuse to believe it? What if you are so conditioned to believe you are free that when actual freedom is presented to you, you reject it because you think it is evil? What if you have the capacity to be responsible for your own choices and control over your own property? What if you are better than anyone else at allocating your time and money? What if you are capable of resolving disputes without violence? What if you can see a violent coercive monopoly on the use of force for what it is; an elaborate extortion, racketeering, and murder organization that you have been conditioned to not only accept, but worship?

What if there was a better way and you knew what it was? Would you not seek it out and want to share it with as many people as possible? Would you not see the beauty possible when individuals are allowed to determine for themselves how best to live their lives? Would you believe me if I told you this system is anarchy? Would you believe me if I told you a world of exclusively voluntary interactions would allow humanity to truly flourish? Would you help me spread this message so one day our children can inhabit such a glorious world? Will you join me in my love affair with human flourishing?

National Defense in a State of Anarchy

The title of this article may seem a little strange, for how can an anarchist society have a nation? Is this not counter intuitive? I do not think it is. In order for there to exist a state of anarchy, you would have to have enough anarchists living within a geographical area to constitute an autonomous society. They would necessarily be conscious enough of the boundaries of other nation states to know where to go and not to go. Of course, if the anarchists inhabited an island or an entire continent all to themselves, boundaries would not matter. Let’s assume, for the sake of this argument, that there is a clearly defined anarchist nation. There is no central authority within those geographic borders, so how would the members of this civilization defend themselves from an aggressive foreign power hell bent on dominating them?

The first answer I will give you is, I do not know for sure. I can venture several guesses, which is what I will do here, but I know for certain that the creativity of free individuals is far greater than my own imagination. This is why anarchy is so necessary. No one person or group of people has all of the answers. To assume so is to limit your potential for success and possibly doom you to perpetual cyclical failure as we have seen throughout history with the rise and fall of empires. So, where to begin?

Let’s start on an individual level. Within an anarchist society, the individuals will know that self-defense is their own responsibility, so they will either be competent in it on their own, or they will hire reputable third party providers of self-defense. There will also be insurance companies that will undoubtedly have an incentive to protect the property they are insuring, and subsequently would spend a portion of their capital on a defensive system. I can also think that the incentive to simply assassinate the leader of the aggressing nation would be high, so a bounty would be placed upon his or her head from within the anarchist society. Finally, the logistics of taking over an anarchistic society are insane as there is not one capitol to take over. The army cannot just march into Moscow and take over the whole country. The foreign invaders would have to completely pervade the entire country. This gets to the crux of the argument; economics.

Wars are waged by governments with a monopoly on the money supply. Monopoly control of money, and a fiat currency system, are necessary because aggression is extremely expensive. In man power alone, an invading force needs three soldiers for every one defending soldier. If there is a technological disparity, as there would be in this situation with the anarchists having the clear edge (I am confident in this argument because we have seen the prosperity in America, and it is only mostly free. Individuals completely free will accomplish unimaginable feats!), the costs rise even more for the invaders.

Governments, when going to war, always print more paper money and issue bonds, i.e. go into enormous debt to pay for the campaign. They thrive at the expense of their citizens and the unborn citizens yet to come. The anarchist society on the other hand will necessarily have a sound currency, based upon precious metals, digital currency, and/or something else yet to be imagined. This guarantees advantage over all other currencies in the world, and thus affords the anarchist state the ability to buy off any army. If you are a soldier being paid one million dollars to fight in the army invading my country, but you are fighting for a country whose money is worth little more than a Zimbabwean dollar, how quickly am I going to sway you into fighting for me if I pay you in gold? This is also why placing a bounty on the heads of the invading army’s country would be so high. If you were granted asylum within a completely free country, plus a million ounces of gold to kill the president of your country, would you not give it a shot?

Answering the question of how an anarchist society would defend itself is quite easy when you apply some critical thinking and imagination to it. Unfortunately, all those advocating for government rule were most likely not reasoned with as children, and were most likely spanked. They turned out alright though… But I digress. Violent, coercive aggression is a product of government. If people want to be free, they will throw off their shackles of government once they see how awesome the anarchist society is. Even if a maniacal warlord comes to power in some third world nation, they pose no threat to the anarchist nation. No government would as no government could undertake the cost of that war.

As will quickly become a recurring theme, anarchy will always win out in the end because it is based upon a rational, objective morality. Government, violence, coercion, aggression, and fiat money will be relegated to the dust bin of history, and humanity will discover, finally, what it truly means to flourish!

Anarchy Is Everywhere

I write about a variety of topics, and I have not yet touched on all of them. I do this because I have a wide variety of interests and because there are so many interesting things in the world I wish to learn. I seek a somewhat high degree of competency in those things as well because I believe that is the only way to truly understand and appreciate them. I write about all of these things in the guise of anarchy because anarchy is everywhere.

Anarchy is defined as the absence of coercive control. In your life, almost every decision you make is made in a state of anarchy. From your choice in breakfast food to the house you live in to the car you drive to the place where you work, and to the person you love, these choices are all made in a state of anarchy. No one is threatening violence against you if you choose to eat cereal over a bagel for breakfast tomorrow. Likewise, no one is going to hang you if you marry the love of your life, even if your family disapproves. Now, you may say that all of these choices are freedoms, and if we are truly free, we have the freedom to make those choices. With that I would agree.

It is only within a state of anarchy that we are truly as free as possible to live our lives as we see fit. Think about all of the myriad of choices you are going to make today, tomorrow, Friday, next week, next month, next year, and ask yourself, am I making this choice free from violent coercion? If so, then you are making that choice in a state of anarchy. Through anarchy we achieve freedom, and through freedom we flourish. I hope you join me in my quest for anarchy so that all of humanity may flourish.