Monday, November 10, 2014

Voting as a Ritualistic Practice

Imagine if we lived in a society where human sacrifice was the norm. No, I don't mean sending young men and women into foreign wars piling up the civilian body count only to return in body bags or with severe mental trauma. I know, that's a stretch. I mean imagine if we lived in a society of ritual sacrifice. Let's say we performed this ritual at a  repetitive set time, a set place, in a set fashion,  and all for a specific reason or outcome we hope to happen. In the case of the Aztecs human sacrifice was performed every morning, on some alter, always the same way, and all for a better tomorrow. I know some people reading this might immediately scoff at comparing voting in a democratic society to ancient ritualistic human sacrifice as distasteful and delusional ranting but I challenge you to look at the substructure of causal thinking in both instances. Voting always occurs at a set time, usually every few years, usually in a voting booth or with absentee ballots, always choosing between two handpicked candidates from each dominant party and all in the hopes that this one will effect the future in some desirable way.
Ok, what I usually hear next is that by that logic I guess we can call any repeatable event a ritual such as waking up , getting ready, and going to work, etc. However, the difference between repeatable actions that yield the desired result and ritualistic actions that hope to  yield a desired result differ greatly. Perhaps a helpful way to visualize this is to consider irrational concepts such rain dancing. Some cultures still perform rain dances in hopes of bringing about a much needed resource such as water. When closely examined their goal is not all that irrational. It's reasonable to conclude that one needs water in order to survive and for their children to survive. Water in many places that practice ritualistic rain dancing is a necessity such as in sub-Saharan Africa. The rain dancers certainly realize this which is why they are doing what they know best to bring about rain. However, it is rather clear that the means they use to create rain is irrational. So what does this have to do with voting as a ritual? Well, its that irrational element that allows me to claim it as ritualistic.
Unlike getting ready for work every morning using practices I know will yield the same desired result every time , that is , showing up at work looking half decent at least, Voting doesn't seem to follow the formula of being a rational method of bringing about desired outcomes.
To closer examine let's look at the reason most people vote in the first place. I have rarely met anyone who votes for everything to stay exactly the same as it is now. I know my personal experience is not real evidence but I think it could be relevant food for thought. I would venture to say many others have had similar experiences. Probably the best tangible evidence are the exuberant bills of campaign financing every election cycle. Millions upon millions are spent on trying to persuade people to vote for one of two candidates ( or an incumbent) already handpicked by their respective parties. This unpopular cherry picking of candidates is a topic for another blog, though. In my experience it seems to be the case that most people vote because they desire some kind of change from the status quo. On top of that they like to feel as if they are impacting the desired change. Yet, every several years voters return to the booths because some part of the desired outcome of the last time didn't happen or why would they insist on effecting the process? Sort of like why break something if it already works? Sometimes some people do get their desired outcome though typically its those with more money and influence rather than the nine to five working individual. It's often the case that Politician Danny Democrat promises X and Politician Ricky Republican promises Y and let's say Danny wins and some people actually get X or people that wanted Y are forced to take X anyways. Or , as often is the case , they get very little or none of X or Y and wait for the next Politician D or R to remake that promise. It seems that no matter how many times voting occurs and no matter who wins D or R, people seem to always seem to be unsatisfied with the outcome and repeat the same ritual in hopes of creating some better outcome. Doesn't that fit the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Sure the outcome may be D or R but has anything really changed for the better? If so then why all the millions of campaign financing? Why the rallying on both sides for 'getting the voters out there' as to effect some desired and different outcome? And why is this the message all the time? When is the last time you heard a voting ad stating ' We aren't going to do anything different , everything will be exactly the same, everything is fine'? Who would vote for that since voting is always expecting some desired change.
For the record, I'm not trying to put down people who vote. I actually understand why people do it. Their goals make perfect sense to me but the means they use to achieve those ends seem ritualistic and irrational to me. Much like I can't fault sub Saharan African cultures for desiring rain as a survival resource but I do not put much stock into rain dancing. Sure the rains occasionally come not long after a dance is performed but could we really claim the dance is the reason? So the next question I get is what is the alternative? If I don't vote how do I change things? Well, if one accepts that the low and middle income bracket of society , which is almost everybody, effects politics very minimally, then voting is a useless ritual. Change is organic and starts one's immediate surroundings. I know I don't have enough personal influence to effect political change ( I have neither money nor recognition) but I can effect my personal relationships. I can still chose, for the most part, who I associate with freely. Talk to people about political philosophy and question every premise. Don't worry about which politician will or will not deliver on their promise because you can't control that. I don't think an intelligent person is one who has just encyclopedic knowledge facts. I think an intelligent person is one who always asks questions out of a genuine desire to understand things. This is also a topic for another blog. This blog turned out longer than I expected. I hope to remain writing on a regular basis. Thanks to you if you made it this far.

-Zeko TNWM ( formally TAM)    

Monday, April 20, 2009

Walter Block and Private Roads.

Upon recently reading Walter Block's defense of private roads and subsequent criticism of public ( by 'public' I mean to say state-owned) roads there appeared certain claims in his blog that I either disagreed with or had a hard time understanding.

Block begins by asserting that all roads , everywhere, should be privatized, no exceptions. He then suggests if you do not seriously consider this position of all-out privatization then your very life can be in danger. He points out that over 40,000 people annually lose their lives on American highways. He means to quite directly assert that it is the government ownership and maintenance of these roads that are the 'ultimate cause' of these deaths.

However, it is quite unclear by what he means by 'privatization.' Privatization today usually involves some piece of land sold by government to a favored corporation at non-market based prices. It is a switch of dictatorship.

He blames poor stewardship pointing to bungling bureaucracy as the culprit. The State is not subject to the profit/loss system and price mechanism of the free market and, therefore, does not brunt the true costs shoddy roads and the consequences that can result from them. Block seems to imply that there is serious lack of efficiency in state roads and this can be considered the main cause of the 40,000 + deaths.

Here is my problem with this, and its two pronged. When there are a myriad of factors that lead to accidents on the road , why would bureaucratic management standout as the 'ultimate cause?' Also, why do we care about how the state handles the roads issue?

The problem of government roads being the ultimate cause isn't really substantiated by any evidence ( at least that I have seen). It is a claim without substance. Factors such as alcohol play a huge role in judgment impairment on any road ( government or private) and will increase the probability of an accident. As far as intoxication goes, I guess one reasonable advantage a private road might have over a government one is that it can be restricted to drivers not under the influence. But then again government can and do set up check points and that still isn't full proof and I expect that you can't ever fully avoid at least the occasional mishap.

If a somewhat intoxicated man walked into Wal-Mart and used the restroom facility which posted that the custodian has just finished mopping the floors , and the the intoxicated customer slips and breaks their neck, would Block blame Wal-Mart or the man?

In terms of keeping up the roads , I would say the government does a fairly good job. I am not kidding either. The roads in my community and the major highways near me look in excellent condition, especially when compared to roads I have seen in other countries. I have been many places within the U.S. and rarely do I see a road ( yes, government run) that looks very horrible. The biggest problem I see , in terms of efficiency , is the amount of time it takes workers to repair or change a road, particularly a highway. Block is correct in suggesting that central planners have a much harder time calculating than free market entrepreneurs, but roads are not that much of a problem for a central planning body. Roads are low entropy and compared to something like a stock market and are not that hard to manage. Hell , even the bureaucrats can do a decent job , right?

But just because I said the State does , at least , an O.K. job of road maintenance, does that mean I actually endorse state-ownership of roads? Well no, I don't. I don't believe it is justified. The efficiency issues , I believe, can be handled by a free market to be comparatively as well or better than state maintenance. Block seems to focus the problem on efficiency when it seems to me to be beside the point. Does this mean if the State can actually be shown to be fairly efficient at handling the roads , would he would be in favor of state ownership? The problem with state-ownership is much more fundamental and problematic than matters of efficiency and bureaucratic management. It is the the forced externalization of costs which can penalize non-compliance with prison time.

I don't believe that collective management of roads should always be frowned upon either. From example of the State, we already see that most roads can be collectively managed reasonably well. Unfortunately since the State monopolizes most roads, its just about impossible to determine the true costs of roads. I believe when a free market competes in the road business we will be able to know these costs. I still think that collective management could be better in some situations. Why can't a local community decide to collectively maintain their thoroughfares? I find it problematic when someone proposes non-pluralistic measures. Claiming , as an imperative , life or death , that all roads must be privatized is a stretch and frankly, vulgar. Its pretty much like if a socialist claims that all means of production , everywhere , must be collectivized , no objections, that would seem vulgar.

Honestly, in a hypothetical free society , I see a likely combination of commonly owned roads and private roads. Thank you Mr.Block for your insight. And while I do support free markets I don't demand that all things must be privatized as a matter of life and death. Communities , which are established voluntarily , may be able to decide how they want to manage their own resources and whether they want to share collective responsibility or not.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009


Often an issue of contention with libertarianism is the issue of equality. A false dichotomy that is often represented is either one chooses liberty ( libertarianism) or equality ( egalitarianism) as if the two are incompatible. It is often propagated that equality is a limitation on liberty. I seek to challenge this view. I seek to show that equality is at the very heart of libertarian philosophy and I owe much thanks to the tedious work Dr. Roderick Long has dedicated to this subject.

Egalitarianism vs Libertarianism?

In the modern day political spectrum, libertarianism is often associate with the 'Right' while egalitarianism remains on the 'Left.' Egalitarian ideals such as equality are often championed by the modern Left while it seems that Libertarianism on the 'Right' rejects egalitarian ideas , especially equality. Even anarchist and libertarian Murray Rothbard considered egalitarianism a 'revolt against nature.'

Interestingly and ironically, Rothbard in his attack of egalitarianism was also promoting the defense of an egalitarian ideal : equality. What Rothbard was comparing 'equality' to , as promoted by statist and socialist advocates of it , was his own brand of equality as defined by Locke and the classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson.

Before I jump into this I think it is important to define what is meant by equality here.

What kind of equality am I talking about?

Equality is really meaningless unless it specifically is related to something. Equality in what sense then? I am talking about equality of authority which is the line that Rothbard took to defend and other classical liberals ( libertarians) also promoted. There many kinds of 'equality' that are promoted such as socioeconomic equality and equality of liberty.

Equality of Authority and Libertarianism

In libertarian philosophy, though it is not always explicity or expressly mentioned , equality of authority is often implied. This also overlaps into specifically anarchist philosophy from which all unjust authority should be abolished. Some libertarians like to stress the 'equality of liberty' as a primary without specific acknowledgement to equality of authority. This is sort of putting the horse before the cart in libertarian terms. Libertarianism seeks to maximize (negative) liberty but it is impossible to do this without equality of authority.

Even when some of the classical promoters of liberty spoke of it, they often implied that equality of authority is paramount and primary in order to have a maximization of (negative) liberty. It is true that , in practice , Locke bargained for a sacrifice of equality in order to hand more authority over to the people in charge of the legal system to safeguard remaining liberty. Libertarians of the anarchist persuasion would obviously disagree with this conclusion of Locke's.

Equality vs Equality

There are different kinds of equality that are promoted today. One of the main issues of equality, particularly from the modern Left , is the subject of 'socioeconomic equality.' It is the proposition that all people should have an equal opportunity to acquire wealth or have an equal distribution of wealth or sometimes both. I see nothing inherently wrong with this idea , but rather with the method proposed on how to achieve this ideal. It is often proposed that in order to compensate for economic disparity , more/less authority for certain individuals is required. For example, if a person or group of people have less wealth than another person or group of people , then the less wealthy should be able to demand , with force if necessary, that the more wealthy be made to give up some of their wealth. In this instance it is giving more authority to the less wealthy and less authority to the more wealthy. However this violates equality of authority. In other words , it is necessary to create inequality to achieve equality. Such a notion seems absurd.
If the principle is that wealth should not hinder equality between people or create disparities of authority, then neither the rich man or the poorer man can use their socioeconomic position to demand more authority over the other creating inequality.

Justified authority.

If a person believes in the virtue in the equality of authority , it doesn't mean that all authoritarian relationships are inherently unjust. It really matters on how the authoritarian relationship was brought about. Certain relationships entail justified authority such as a baseball team with a coach, an engineer dictating to builders how specifically a building should be constructed. Parents may have just authority over children if the parents authority or 'force' is used in the interests of the child and not necessarily their own interests. Except for the parent-child relationship and very few exceptions , just authoritarian relationships should come about through voluntary consent by all people within the relationship itself. If you join a baseball team, you acknowledge that the coach is incharge of making plays and placing you in a particular role on the team. If you are a construction worker , you understand and agree to listen to the foreman's instructions and follow the engineer's diagrams.
Technically a parent-child authoritarian relationship is not mutually consented upon but it doesn't necessarily make it unjust. Because young children lack the ability to reason and access all the potential danger around them, a parent can justly 'coerce' a child to refrain from dangerous activity. The point being that the parent is acting in the best interest of the child and not just herself. An example would be pulling back a child from crossing a busy intersection in which the child stands a high probability of being hit and probably killed by a speeding bus or car.
Adults can , in certain situations , also use 'force' against eachother if , and only if , it is in the interest of the adult that is being 'coerced.' I would feel it is justifed if I pulled someone back with force if they were about to fall in a ditch. I am not using force against them for my own selfish ends but rather in the interest of their own ends i.e. their likely preference not to fall into the ditch and hurt themselves.

Taking back egalitarianism for libertarianism FTW.

Since the long relationship with conservativism for American libertarianism and the gradual disassociation from the Left and the remaining Left ideal of egalitarianism, it is time libertarianism once again 'takes back' egalitarianism as primary goal. Particularly equality. It is hard to imagine that any maximization of liberty can exist without equality in authority. When there is an inequality of unjust authority , that inevidably means that someone is being subjegated to someone else and thus a certain 'equality of liberty' can never be achieved. If libertarians truly endorse ideas of liberty I think they should recognize that equality is a necessary prerequisite. Equality is the logical premise of libertarianism.

Inalienable Rights

Inalienable Rights

During the course of my discussions with other libertarians and non-libertarians the question of inalienable rights typically comes up. Often these rights are discussed without any clear understanding of what they actually are. I felt it prudent to address this issue in this post for the sake of clarity and , of course , feedback. Let me first start off by defining what is meant by a 'right' itself and what an 'inalienable right' means.

What is a 'right' and what is an 'inalienable right?'

I understand a right to imply a certain kind of duty. It depends if one is talking about negative or positive rights. In the negative sense, we would say that one has a right not to be coerced which implies a duty upon others to refrain from unjust coercion of others. If there is a chosen positive obligation or construction of positive rights via contract or some other means of voluntary consent, then a person's right to X implies the duty upon another to provide X. When one mentions there are 'rights,' she implies that people ought to respect these rights. I say 'ought to' because a right involves an ethical implication. If we say people have a right to liberty then it is important to distinguish what is actually meant by that especially in the libertarian sense. There are several ways to look at this and I can think of two that are very relevant. One way is that the right to liberty is ours , meaning it comes from the rights-bearer. This would mean that the right to liberty is our duty in the positive sense. One can make the argument that we only have liberty if we exercise our right to it. I find problems with this view as it logically concludes that one may give up this right , since it belongs to them, and something like 'voluntary slavery' can be justified. It also implies that one looses their liberty as soon as they quit their duties to exercise their liberty. For example, one could claim ethical justification for coercing someone else not willing to exercise their right to liberty.

There is , however, another way to view the right to liberty , and that is in the negative sense. The 'rights bearer' becomes an 'agent' and his duty becomes to
not coerce others rather than to just exercise his own liberty. Thus the ethical proposition becomes people should not deny liberty to others and others should not deny liberty to him. It sort of morphs into a duty to respect the liberty of others rather than a duty to exercise your own liberty. I think this is consistent and can even be applied universally in a general sense. It also makes the right of liberty inalienable.

By an inalienable right I mean a right which cannot be divested by someone even in contract. In order to non-fraudulently divest a right one has to hold that right to be
alienable. An ownership right over an object can be alienated by transferring that right to another either by trade or gift which can be specified in contract or verbal agreement. I don't hold liberty to be a 'commodity' that can be owned like a chair or other possession object. Furthermore, look at the right of liberty from the negative sense ( i.e. one's duty to respect others' right of liberty or more specifically , right not to be coerced) liberty is not something that can be legitimately divested by the individual since it is not something that is held by the individual but rather a right respected by society to which the individual is part of.

What do I mean by liberty?

The standard libertarian meaning of the word . The right not to be unjustly coerced and the one's own duty not to unjustly coerce others. I shall now discuss what rights and inalienable rights mean to humans and what their function is.

The function of rights and inalienable rights.

Before I continue I would like to mention what rights are not. Rights , as a physical entity or object in material reality, do not exist. This is yet another reason why certain rights are inalienable since they cannot be traded like objects are. Since rights do not exist as a material force to protect us from theft , murder , rape, etc it is inaccurate to promote rights as an actual deterrent to these acts of aggression. Its not as if I have a force field called 'rights' to protect me from a bullet. Rights are duties we ought to carry out. By implying the ought , they are ethical in nature. One may have a job , career , or some employment somewhere, it does not mean that that person physically goes to work and does his work. A job does not mean work , it means a duty or obligation to work somewhere. It means if you have a job ( i.e. an employment contract somewhere) you ought to go to work at that job on the condition that you are compensated for whatever you agreed to.

However, it is not always true that one ought to do something simply because they made a prior commitment to it. In my views , ethics are not only
instrumental in the sense that they only apply to means, but they are also intrinsic as they apply to ends as well.

One can think of a situation in the early 1940's during WW2 in which a German Nazi concentration camp guard has agreed to his 'job' or duty in maintaining the slaughterhouse of people. It would be unethical , in my opinion, to say that the guard ought to go to 'work' because he made a commitment to imprison and kill innocent people. The
end is unethical and violates the inalienable right of liberty of others , or rather , he is disregarding his duty not to unjustly coerce others.

Inalienable Rights and Slavery:

Arguing from the standpoint of liberty is not a right to be traded like a commodity then any sort of 'voluntary' slave contract would be fraudulent since the person 'desiring to be a voluntary slave' is not putting up something that legitimately belongs to only him (i.e. liberty). He cannot alienate liberty from himself like his Ipod since it is not his duty to uphold his liberty but rather to respect the liberty of others.

'Voluntary Slavery' is also a contradiction in terms from my point of view. Slavery implies a unilateral non-voluntary relationship in which coercion , or the threat of coercion and not voluntarism, is the the nature of the relationship. When he agrees to a contract of 'voluntary slavery,' presumably for compensation , then he is agreeing to basically rent out his labor (product) for an amount of time ( be it an hour , day, year , ten years , life). He is actually alienating the product of his labor since he cannot alienate his human energy or his person.

Conceivably , two people can make a contract in which one agrees to 'obey everything you tell me for a year in exchange for $2000.' However, the 'service' specified in the contract is not enforceable. Lets say the 'master' orders the 'slave' to lick his feet. Lets say the 'slave' has a change of heart and no longer wants to abide by the terms of the contract. If the 'master' seeks to coerce the service out of the 'slave,' then he must use unjust force to do so since he cannot physiologically will the 'slave' to do it. As soon as the 'slave' does not want to sustain the contract anymore, it is no longer applicable because the contract specified 'voluntary slavery' yet when the 'slave' does not want to sustain the contract anymore it becomes involuntary at that point effectively null n' voiding the contract. All the 'master' can seek as restitution is his money back plus damages ( interest) as to not be stolen from but not involuntary service. In the entire 'transaction' the 'slave's' right of liberty or , rather , right from unjust coercion, was inalienable.


I do this topic way too little justice. This is by no means a sufficient explanation of rights and inalienable rights. However , I think it does illuminate ways on how we maybe ought to view the concept of inalienability and rights from the perspective of being 'agents' and not necessarily 'right bearers.' The duties entailed by a right of liberty should not hinge on our ability to perpetually exercise these rights but rather should be to not unjustly coerce others and violate their liberty. Its not a matter of having liberty , its a matter of respecting liberty.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Anarchist Man : An Introduction.

So I've finally decided to make my own blog. Oh, hello, I am Zeko a.k.a. 'The Anarchist Man' but surely not the only anarchist on the planet. After literally months, nay, years of scrolling through blogs and websites dedicated to libertarian ideas of freedom I've decided to make my little humble abode in the miraculous world of cyberspace.

So why the title? Why 'The Anarchist Man?' Well, not that it sounds cool or anything but it is actually reflective of my own political philosophy. I guess this begs the question ' What do you mean by anarchism?' Some of you are probably thinking; "Are you insane?" "Do you advocate some kind of pure chaos where people murder other people without laws to restrain them?"
Well, most assuredly, I do not think of anarchism in those terms. Anarchism, far from being a Hobbesian Jungle portrayed in popular myth, is a rather sophisticated political philosophy on how society should function.

Anarchism, in my conception , is rather logically concluded from ideas of liberty and freedom. Anarchism , being Greek derived , quite literally means 'without ruler.' If there are people that claim to be advocates of freedom and liberty , is it not logical that they would oppose people ruling other people? That is an interesting question is it not? Existentially speaking, are we all not just 'people,' or rather, individual persons that form a conceptual aggregate of 'people?' Why should someone rule over me in the absolute sense? If he is my absolute ruler, does it not mean that there is no possibility of me ruling over him? Not that I want to rule over him but rather I question why , if we are both physiologically, identical human beings, does he get to claim the moral right to be my ruler but I may not be his? Is there something objective about us , meaning , is there something that exists in the real world about us that allows one of us to claim moral permissibility to rule one and other? As far as I can tell , no. We are equal in the sense that we are biological human beings with the same capacity or potential to reason.

I acknowledge a certain sense of inherent inequality between human beings but I hold that these inequalities hold no moral properties , or rather , should not hold any moral properties. It could be very well the case that someone is born with a better singing voice than I. It could also be the case that this person uses their natural talent to earn an income while I lack the talent to do so. However, this , in no way can mean that this person holds some moral superiority over me by virtue of their larynx putting out sound waves different than mine. I don't think many people would contest this point or even claim that the singer is somehow immoral because he or she has a natural advantage over others that lack a good singing voice. These kinds of inequalities are natural just as a tall man is more likely to succeed at basketball than a very short one.

However, there is a bigger question as regards equality and it is a moral question. It centers around institutions of social power, disparities in wealth , psychology, and as an extension of psychology, concepts people hold about their society.

Let us examine the first:

Institutions of Social Power:

These are most frequently what we conceive of as states and governments. They can also be churches, clubs, gangs, clans , families and other social organizations that have significant influence on society. By far, the most powerful of these , in terms of the ability to force and coerce masses of people, are states and governments. Some of these other social organizations become more powerful than others depending on the context. I shall discuss these , each in detail, in following posts.

Disparity of Wealth or Economic Disparities :

In any given society , not everyone is rich , or rather , wields a tremendous amount of economic power relative to others. By far, of any economic system to date , capitalism has churned out the most wealth. It has also created some of the richest, most powerful, people in human history. Undeniably, wealth distribution in a given society helps shape cultural differences between people we would typically call 'classes' but also these classes can be antagonistic to each other sort of perpetuating a general insecurity in that society. I will dedicate a lot of posts to the economic factors that cause disparities between people and help to shape prevailing concepts.

As a subset of economic factors effecting societies, there is technology. There is a process economist Joseph Schumpeter described called 'creative destruction.' New technology helps shape people's relationships to objects and themselves in a significant way.

Psychology and Concepts :

Undoubtedly, at least for me, this has got to be the most important factor in shaping the differences between people. Psychology is a study of the human mind on the individual level though the social sciences seek to create a more general picture of social psychology , or rather , what are people thinking when they interact with each other and why? Since psychology involves the human mind , and concepts about reality are formed in our minds , this is directly related to how people perceive the world and their relationships with other people. Psychology and Concepts also are our basis for ethics and moral judgment. I will discuss these topics in following posts in more detail.

Needless to say, I have exhausted quite a bit of time thinking over these issues of human relationships and through my own reasoning , be it right or wrong, have come to the logical conclusion of Anarchism as best conducive to ideas of freedom and liberty.

I have changed my mind about things over the course of my journey in philosophy. I can say that I was once a staunch conservative that upheld moderately Christian values and I was patriotic about my country. I had some sympathy to Socialist ideas of redistribution and collectivism. As I 'progressed,' or rather , I like to think of it as progressing , I came to the philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarianism, the idea that you should have the freedom from coercion and coercive relationships while keeping your hands to yourself basically. As a logical extension of libertarianism , I came to identify as an anarchist. True, at one time , in certain parts of the world , libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and its not hard to see why.

I have a conception of a free society involving voluntary choices , free markets , non-coercive social bodies of collective decision making, and a sort of polycentric , stateless order. This is not to say I don't expect problems and disputes to arise , its almost guaranteed that they will since humans will seemingly always find something to dispute about , but I believe a society can solve these problems without the necessity of institutionalized monopolistic violence such which embodies the State.

There is a long list of those who have influenced my thinking. Far too many to name briefly. But just to name a few: Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker , Josiah Warren, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Roderick Long , Kevin Carson , and many others.

I hope you will find value in this blog.