This is why it is not hyperbole to say that we are all tax-slaves for the Empire. Via Zero Hedge:
The US government’s debt is getting close to reaching another round number—$18 trillion. It currently stands at more than $17.9 trillion.
But what does that really mean? It’s such an abstract number that it’s hard to imagine it. Can you genuinely understand it beyond just being a ridiculously large number?
Just like humans find it really hard to comprehend the vastness of the universe.We know it’s huge, but what does that mean? It’s so many times greater than anything we know or have experienced.
German astronomer and mathematician Friedrich Bessel managed to successfully measure the distance from Earth to a star other than our sun in the 19th century. But he realized that his measurements meant nothing to people as they were. They were too abstract.
So he came up with the idea of a “light-year” to help people get a better understanding of just how far it really is. And rather than using a measurement of distance, he chose to use one of time.
The idea was that since we—or at least scientists—know what the speed of light is, by representing the distance in terms of how long it would take for light to travel that distance, we might be able to comprehend that distance.
Ultimately using a metric we are familiar with to understand one with which we aren’t.
Why don’t we try to do the same with another thing in the universe that’s incomprehensibly large today—the debt of the US government?
Even more incredible than the debt owed right now is what’s owed down the line from all the promises politicians have been making decade after decade. These unfunded liabilities come to an astonishing $116.2 trillion.
These numbers are so big in fact, I think we might need to follow Bessel’s lead and come up with an entire new measurement to grasp them.
Like light-years, we could try to understand these amounts in terms of how long it would take to pay them off. We can even call them “work-years”.
So let’s see—the Social Security Administration just released data for the average yearly salary in the US in fiscal year that just ended. It stands at $44,888.16.
The current debt level of over $17.9 trillion would thus take more than 398 million years of working at the average wage to pay off.
This means that even if every man, woman and child in the United States would work for one year just to help pay off the debt the government has piled on in their name, it still wouldn’t be enough.
Mind you that this means contributing everything you earn, without taking anything for your basic needs—which equates to slavery.
Now, rather than saying that the national debt is reaching $18 trillion, which means nothing to most people, you could say that the debt would currently take almost 400 million work-years to pay off. Wow.
When accounting for unfunded liabilities, the work-years necessary to pay off the debt amount to astonishing 2.38 BILLION work-years…
And the years of slavery required are only growing.
As an amount alone the debt is meaningless, but in terms of your future enslavement it can be better understood.
To put this in perspective even further—what was the situation like previously?
At the end of the year 2000, the national debt was at $5.7 trillion, while the average yearly income was $32,154. That’s 177 million work-years.
So just from the turn of the century, we’ve seen the time it would take to pay off the national debt more than double. That means that more than twice as many future generations have been indebted to the system in just 14 years.
It sounds terrible, and it is. But remember, your future generations will only be indebted if you let them be.
What the US government does may affect everyone, but it’s up to you whether or not you and your children are directly enslaved and tied to the system.
Break your chains while you can and set yourself and your offspring free.
The agorism and circumvention of state power that is now possible thanks to modern technology, decentralization, the spread of information and, fundamentally, individuals asserting and grabbing their freedom and dignity back from the sociopaths that claim to rule us, is one of my favorite topics of exploration on this site and a huge part of my political philosophy.
I truly believe that these opportunities will allow us to achieve more freedom and spread the ideas of liberty - without gate-keepers or permission. This is why I favor agorism and the decentralization of markets so much; liberty is a mindset, a culture, an oxygen mask. There is no room for politics, elections and reform in seeking to shake off shackles.
Over at Liberty.me, Jeffrey Tucker has a great article on the concepts of counter-economics and freed markets liberating the world and devolving power:
It’s finally happening: the backlash against the most impressive features of digital-age economics. I’ve been waiting for this for years, knowing that we can’t smoothly travel from the old world of command and control to the new world of personal sovereignty without engaging in the intellectual argument.
What’s been missing until recently has been the framework these arguments would take. That’s now becoming clearer. The opponents of markets just can’t reconcile themselves to embracing the very thing they have supposedly advocated for generations: popular empowerment.
The technological upheaval of the last decade has given rise to a wonderful restructuring of some major aspects of economic life. The most impressive fall under the label of the “sharing economy” or the “peer-to-peer (P2P) economy.” They represent an implausible form of egalitarianism, rightly understood: everyone has access to and controls the means of production. It seems like a socialist dream, except that it is being realized through private property, entrepreneurship, and the universalization of the commercial spirit.
The new ventures are characterized by democratic access, so that anyone with an Internet connection can be involved.
The most prominent examples are ride sharing, peer-to-peer lending, privatized urban taxi services, temporary housing solutions, house cleaning services, technical service providers, cryptocurrency, the maker movement of 3-D printing, and so on. They connect producers with consumers directly in a two-way street through clever digital-interface solutions, most of which have been invented by young, non-establishment code slingers who are thinking their way out of the status quo. This whole approach might be considered a very advanced stage of capitalism in which third parties exercise ever-less power over who can and cannot participate.
But this unstoppable, peaceful revolution does not sit well with established, corporatist interests. For centuries, the oligarchs have been able to consolidate power because we had no practical options, no means to undercut their power, no knowledge and information that there are alternatives to living under their thumbs.
We have been told that the only way to create change is to vote (ughhh), run for office, call your Congressman, etc. The leash may be loosened or tightened, but never removed. But the digital, peer-to-peer revolution provides us with the means, strength and community to make this a reality.
It's no wonder that there are so many opposed to this. Tucker continues:
Who could possibly be against such innovations? The answer is rather obvious: entrenched economic interests who stand to lose their old-world, government-regulated, and government-protected monopolies. Municipal taxi services, for example, feel deeply threatened by services such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, which allow anyone to become a transportation service provider. The established monopolies are lobbying governments to crack down and are experiencing some modicum of success.
San Francisco’s district attorney has sent threatening letters to companies that have vastly improved transportation, warning that they must make major changes in their business models. This reaction, he assured the public, is not because he is against innovation and consumer service. Rather, as a public servant, he is charged with making “sure the safety and well-being of consumers are adequately protected” — as if we are supposed to believe that the companies that give people rides are less interested than the government is in consumer safety.
As it turns out, these services are increasing safety. They make it easy for people who are too drunk to drive to click a button on their smartphones and get a ride home safely. Following two years in which DUI arrests increased 10 percent each year, they have fallen by 14 percent this year. The LA Weekly speculates that this drop is because of these ride-sharing services, which are used often late at night in locations with bars and clubs. All my conversations with Uber drivers seem to confirm this hunch. The taxi monopolies might have provided such efficient services, but without competition, the motivation for progress evaporates.
Cronies want the status quo
Similarly, we might expect the hotel industry, which is forced to pay high taxes and to comply with vast regulations, to grumble about room-sharing services such as Airbnb, which bear no such costs. Individuals with an extra room in their house or apartment can charge less, often far less, than established players in the industry.
So too might bankers be annoyed by peer-to-peer lending services. Central banks are agitated by the rise of Bitcoin. This reaction is pure economic interest at work against innovations that threaten their competitive advantage of the status quo.
This response is exactly what we would expect in any period of disruption caused by economic innovation. Cronies don’t like being unseated from their positions of power.
But what about ideological opposition? Here is where matters get strange. The opponents of capitalism have, for more than a century, complained about the power that capital has over labor, all based on the idea that labor is being denied an ownership stake in the enterprise and some direct share in the company’s profits. They have said this is exploitation. They have advocated a system in which the power that belongs to capital is transferred to labor.
Socialists are getting what they wanted
Well, this shift is precisely what seems to be taking place — not through socialist upheaval or policy mandates but through the advancement of markets themselves. Economic productivity and exchange are increasingly happening peer to peer, thanks to technological innovations.
Do we find the opponents of traditional capitalism now celebrating? Far from it. Apparently you can’t make these people happy.
I offer as evidence a viral piece that appeared on the site Jacobinmag.com, the digital version of the magazine Jacobin, which describes itself as “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.” The New York Times has praised this publication as “an improbable hit, buoyed by the radical stirrings of the Occupy movement.”
In short, this publication is something of a harbinger of antimarket opinion. And given its popularity, it seems to speak for a sector of opinion that is intractably opposed to all forms of market action. So what does this publication say about the sharing economy?
“Uber is part of a new wave of corporations that make up what’s called the ‘sharing economy,’” writes Avi Asher-Schapiro in the strangely titled article “Against Sharing.”
“The premise is seductive in its simplicity: people have skills, and customers want services. Silicon Valley plays matchmaker, churning out apps that pair workers with work. Now, anyone can rent out an apartment with AirBnB, become a cabbie through Uber, or clean houses using Homejoy.”
So far, so good. But then the writer dives deep into the ideological thicket: “under the guise of innovation and progress, companies are stripping away worker protections, pushing down wages, and flouting government regulations.”
Hold on there. By “worker protections,” the writer probably means mandates on corporations to provide various benefits to workers, including healthcare. These rules might seem to help workers, but actually they promote dependency and increase corporate power by locking workers into jobs that they fear leaving. Such mandates reduce rather than increase labor mobility.
Pushing down wages
As for pushing down wages, about whose wages are we talking? Such innovations might indeed reduce wages among the established players. This outcome is why labor unions hate them. But the producers under this new technology are new players in the market, and it is rather obvious that their wages are increasing relative to what they would be otherwise, else they would not have signed up to play.
Moreover, there is the inescapable matter of supply and demand. More drivers providing the same service at the same quantity demanded does indeed mean lower fares. The socialist who complains that market competition leads to lower wages for some is vexed when an entrenched elite gets marginally less. But the same socialist is completely indifferent to the grim reality of coerced monopolies: they unjustly force the masses of consumers to pay more. Using the force of government to funnel scarce resources to a politically protected few does not constitute an improvement in the social order.
And as for “flouting government regulations,” to the extent such regulations stop progress, rob consumers, and reduce competition, this would seem to be a good thing. Flouting government is something that socialists once prided themselves in doing and favoring. How far they have fallen since the New Deal, when the left made its peace with the regimented corporate state.
So far, the writer is just engaged in the usual agitprop. But he does introduce one very interesting argument.
With worker ownership comes risk
“At its core,” he writes, “the sharing economy is a scheme to shift risk from companies to workers.”
Here is a remarkable claim. At last, a socialist has found a reason for a corporation to exist: to bear the speculative risk of investing in an uncertain future. Why any corporation would exist at all if it could not also gain some reward and therefore survive economically is the great unanswered question. All businesses form for a reason; it is not to bear all risk and then die.
It’s true that under the sharing economy, workers own the enterprise themselves. Rather than depending on “the man” to decide wages independent of productivity, the workers make money as a direct result of the services they provide.
So yes, of course, with worker ownership comes the bearing of risk. A system in which corporations bear all risk but gain no reward can’t work. Likewise, a system in which workers own the capital and reap all of the gain while bearing no risk is unsustainable. It’s like giving grades to people who aren’t taking the test, or taking the test without the prospect of being graded. The resulting data will mean nothing. It would be total chaos.
What this point speaks to is a fundamental flaw in socialist ideology. For centuries, socialists have spoken about worker ownership and empowerment. But they’ve never dealt with a problem just beneath the surface: Who or what is to bear the risk and reward for dealing with speculation? After all, “every capital investment is speculative,” writes Ludwig von Mises. “Its success cannot be foreseen with absolute assurance.” And so it is with every driver in the sharing economy, every renter in the overnight-stay market, every buyer and holder of Bitcoin, every lender on LendingTree.
Planners can’t allocate risk
Welcome to the real world. It’s a wonderful place to live. How precisely the risk associated with investment is to be allocated in society cannot be foreseen by any planner or pundit. Risk allocation is for the market to discover. With P2P services, which are radically decentralizing the capitalist ethos, we are finding that workers actually want to bear more risk — in the hope of greater gain than wages alone could provide.
Therefore, Asher-Schapiro is more or less correct in his conclusion: “there’s nothing innovative or new about this business model. Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form.” And that is precisely what is so wonderful about it, in contrast to the mercantilist, monopolistic, corporatist, State-managed systems of enterprise that have been common for the last 100 years.
What’s strange is why left idealism does not welcome this development but rather condemns it. I find this mystifying, as bizarre as the opposition of the socialist left to Walmart, which has brought remarkable products to the “workers and peasants” at ridiculously low prices, and to fast food, which has made a glorious diet instantly obtainable through a window at prices that are unthinkably low and falling all the time.
No matter how much capitalism develops in the direction of direct worker control and individual sovereignty, reducing the role of large-scale enterprises and monopolies, the socialists still complain with the old bromides of exploitation while calling for government to crack down. So much for revolution. It’s the digital-age capitalists who have recaptured the revolutionary idealism that socialists long ago set aside.
Free the market, free the world. This is why corporations, governments, banks, generals and every single palm that is greased by the bloody oil of centralized, coercive power are against a free society.
According to Forbes magazine, at least 5,000 Americans contacted healthcare providers fearful they had contracted Ebola after the media reported that someone with Ebola had entered the United States. All 5,000 cases turned out to be false alarms. In fact, despite all the hype about Ebola generated by the media and government officials, as of this writing there has only been one preliminarily identified case of someone contracting Ebola within the United States.
Ebola is a dangerous disease, but it is very difficult to contract. Ebola spreads via direct contact with the virus. This usually occurs though contact with bodily fluids. While the Ebola virus may remain on dry surfaces for several hours, it can be destroyed by common disinfectants. So common-sense precautions should be able to prevent Ebola from spreading.
It is no coincidence that many of those countries suffering from mass Ebola outbreaks have also suffered from the plagues of dictatorship and war. The devastation wrought by years of war has made it impossible for these countries to develop modern healthcare infrastructure. For example, the 14-year civil war in Liberia left that country with almost no trained doctors. Those who could leave the war-torn country were quick to depart. Sadly, American foreign aid props up dictators and encourages militarism in these countries.
President Obama’s response to the Ebola crisis has been to send 3,000 troops to West African countries to help with treatment and containment. Obama did not bother to seek congressional authorization for this overseas military deployment. Nor did he bother to tell the American people how long the mission would last, how much it would cost, or what section of the Constitution authorizes him to send US troops on “humanitarian” missions.
The people of Liberia and other countries would be better off if the US government left them alone. Leave it to private citizens to invest in African business and trade with the African people. Private investment and trade would help these countries develop thriving free-market economies capable of sustaining a modern healthcare infrastructure.
Legitimate concerns about protecting airline passengers from those with Ebola or other infectious diseases can best be addressed by returning responsibility for passenger safety to the airlines. After all, private airlines have a greater incentive than does government to protect their passengers from contagious diseases. They can do so while providing a safe means of travel for those seeking medical treatment in the United States. This would remove the incentive to lie about exposure to the virus among those seeking to come here for treatment.
Ebola patients in the US have received permission from the Food and Drug Administration to use “unapproved” drugs. This is a positive development. But why should those suffering from potentially lethal diseases have to seek special permission from federal bureaucrats to use treatments their physicians think might help? And does anyone doubt that the FDA’s cumbersome approval process has slowed down the development of treatments for Ebola?
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company has successfully contained the spread of Ebola among 80,000 people living in Harbel, the Liberian town housing employees of Firestone's Liberian plant and their families. In March, after the wife of a Firestone employee developed Ebola symptoms, Firestone constructed its own treatment center and implemented a program of quarantine and treatment. Firestone has successfully kept the Ebola virus from spreading among its employees. As of this writing, there are only three Ebola patients at Firestone's treatment facility.
Firestone's success in containing Ebola shows that, far from justifying new state action, the Ebola crises demonstrates that individuals acting in the free market can do a better job of containing Ebola than can governments. The Ebola crisis is also another example of how US foreign aid harms the very people we are claiming to help. Limiting government at home and abroad is the best way to protect health and freedom.
They are all murderers, liars and monsters, and according to the standards of a free society, there has never been a good one.
I have always had a soft spot for a few less-evil emperors (Tyler, Harrison, Van Buren), but as Bill Buppert at ZeroGov points out, even one that many libertarians may support - Grover Cleveland - added mortar to the institutionalization of empire:
I highly recommend you take the time to read Lysander Spooner’s letter to Grover Cleveland.
Alas, further examination reveals him to be a collectivist beast like all the rest. It all begins with the railroads in the 19th century, which were given land grants of nearly ten percent of the total land in the country and the tremendous wealth earned by the railroad companies and their ancillary support elements. Cleveland was concerned about the natural corruption that attended big business married to big government and he managed to get the Supremes to rule 6-3 in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois in 1886 that the states did not dictate nor interpret the Commerce Clause of the wretched Constitution but the Federal government did. In other words, the Fedes were THE final arbiter in all commercial trade.
After the Lincolnian project had sealed the fate of any extra-Constitutional attempt to break free from the continuing tyranny of the Federal government: Cleveland managed to find the one enduring notion that would buttress and nourish the growing regulatory apparatus of the national state; in essence, he authored the most effective nursery for the emerging fourth branch of Federal regulation. This led to the creation of theInterstate Commerce Commission. I had often thought that the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling had accelerated the growth of the regulatory state in the US but the Cleveland-sponsored devices were the true embryonic path that caused the national state to accelerate in control and grasping at power that would eventually do everything but extinguish commercial liberty in the US. Wickard v. Filburn incredibly regulated commerce that never left its source of production, a nefarious and economically illiterate interpretation but to be expected of the “Red Court” duringFDR’s reign. The 1942 was the final nail in the coffin for any free markets in the US.
We need to de-mystify the supposed sanctity of presidents, the Mordor Mansion they occupy, and the unbelievable power that has been vested and centralized into the executive branch. Only followers need leaders, not free people.
The reactions of the police to the Ferguson riots and the Bundy Ranch protests are telling. One involved tear gas, military occupation and police roaming the neighborhood with their fingers on the triggers of their automatic weapons, and the other showed a relatively meek state response.
The silver lining? Guns - carried openly.
I have written before about the pros and cons behind massive open-carrying weapons to deter police abuse and violence. In Dallas, Texas - where it is open season on the black population - blacks protested and marched carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns and AR-15s.
What a beautiful sight! The 2nd Amendment may be the only way to effectively defend all of your rights, deter police action, stand up for your freedom and begin taking back neighborhoods that have now come under military-style occupation by the "local" police departments.
Liberty Set Square makes some great points about the reasons why you should always open-carry at protests (or anywhere else!) and answers possible objections that some may have to the strategy. In summary:
Showing up totally defenseless to a place and time where you know in advanced that there will be armed police ready to mete out violence on you only sends one message: that you are expecting violence, but don't care if it is visited upon you. In other words, it sends the messages that you are completely servile [emphasis added].
Oh, and film everything too. Cameras are a great way to upload and show the world the reality of the iron fist behind state power, capture actual events so police can't lie about them, and watch the watchmen in general.
Guns and cameras: mandatory for any effective activism.
Libertarianism covers a whole broad range of political and philosophical questions, applying the logic of individual liberty and the non-aggression principle in hopes of achieving more freedom, more peace, more justice and more prosperity.
But the most important aspect of libertarianism, especially in an age where the U.S. government wages perpetual war all over the globe, is its firm, unwavering opposition to empire and war. Wars require big governments, bureaucracies, and restrictions on human freedom while sowing chaos and bloodshed overseas.
Like domestic government programs, every intervention requires yet another intervention, ad infinitum.
Wars abroad become wars at home.
Sheldon Richman at the Future of Freedom Foundation sums up this libertarian tradition of opposing state violence root-and-branch perfectly:
With the United States on the verge of another war in the Middle East — or is it merely the continuation of a decades-long war? — we libertarians need to reacquaint ourselves with our intellectual heritage of peace, antimilitarism, and anti-imperialism. This rich heritage is too often overlooked and frequently not appreciated at all. That is tragic. Libertarianism, to say the least, is deeply skeptical of state power. Of course, then, it follows that libertarianism must be skeptical of the state’s power to make war — to kill and destroy in other lands. Along with its domestic police authority, this is the state’s most dangerous power. (In 1901 a libertarian, Frederic Passy, a friend of libertarian economist Gustave de Molinari, shared in the first Nobel Peace Prize.)
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller
Tyrone Johnson at the Daily Anarchist has a great article about the possibility that alternative currencies like Bitcoin provide for cutting off the war machine:
As an anarchist I am against war, and I want nothing to do with it. It takes at least one government, and typically more than one, to have a war. Anarchists have never dropped nuclear bombs on cities, have not decimated populations with artillery strikes, have never committed genocide, and don’t need euphemisms about collateral casualties, because anarchism doesn’t kill civilians in war. But as a humanitarian I want more than to know that my political philosophy isn’t militaristic. I also want to have no part in financing wars. It turns out that it’s rather difficult to avoid military finance. There are so many taxes on so many things that it’s difficult not to participate in some way, at some level, in the system that collects money and makes war possible.
Several hundred years ago, author Etienne de la Boetie wrote about ending tyranny by withdrawing support from the tyrant. You don’t need to place your hands upon him and push him over, according to de la Boetie, you simply stop supporting him. The tyrant doesn’t have enough eyes to spy upon everyone, he needs you and your neighbors to rat each other out. The tyrant doesn’t have enough fists to beat everyone up and keep them in line, he needs police and an army or perhaps some brown shirt thugs to do that sort of work. Most of all, the tyrant needs money to pay for these things.
The more people that reject the fiat dollar of death and destruction, the less resources the US government has to drop explosives, incite coups, start wars, terrorize the world, loot our paychecks and restrict our civil liberties.
This is one of the reasons why I love Bitcoin so much. Not only is it striking at the heart of the US empire's lifeline of endless paper dollars to feed through the meatgrinder war machine, but allows us to have financial independence and freedom as well.
Bitcoin is decentralized and peer-to-peer; the dollar is controlled and manipulated in secrecy by central banks and forced on us by the barrel of a government gun. Bitcoin is not issued by any corporation, government or bank, giving a store of value, public ledger, and medium of exchange for literally anyone. No government papers needed.
Many may quibble with the price fluctuations and the volatility, but in a way that is one of the beauties of Bitcoin. It is a free market in price discovery, and experiment in radical decentralization and the sovereign independence of the individual. Who wouldn't except a few price spikes and dips?
On principle, Bitcoin is an innovation that has the potential to fundamentally transform how we view authority, society, law and contracts. The playing field will be levelled, and the barriers to entry virtually non-existent.
The hierachies of violence and coercion - both private and public - that permeate our society will be undercut and circumvented by the power of people to associate, trade, and contract with each other in a sphere of virtually unrestricted liberty.
The elites, the 1%, the banksters - whatever you want to call the parasitical, political class - live off the rest of us through the statist system of pyramidal violence, centralization, and the coercive restriction of individual liberty and the free market.
Their power is maintained by the taxfarm of fiat dollars; Bitcoin takes this power away and devolves it down to every last man, woman and child where it belongs.
They need us, we don't need them. Like a dog shaking off its fleas, we too can be free.
It can be frustrating as hell seeing the US government - indeed, all governments - plunder wealth, consolidate power, restrict freedom, inflate bubbles, bomb cities and destroy societies. Cataloging these crimes is merely therapy for a troubled soul in hopes there are others out there, like Isaiah's Remnant, that yearn for freedom and dignity in their bones.
Bitcoin (and precious metals too! I love silver rounds and Shire Silver cards) adds flesh to these bones, offering a practical yet revolutionary way of spreading freedom and undercutting the corporatist elite.
It is our antimilitarist heritage, as Sheldon Richman puts it, however, that give Bitcoin and alternative currencies in general its real instrinsic power - both for the libertarian movement and to the general theme of peace and human freedom in general.
While the Pentagon is frantically trying to understand cryptocurrencies and wondering if they can be used and traced by "America's enemies" (oh, you mean like cash?), we can be one step ahead of them. Trade and economic sanctions that almost always sow the seeds of war can be circumvented by Bitcoin, bringing not only economic cooperation but also a humanizing element to those the US war machine would want us to shoot.
We can use Bitcoin to donate to those exposing the Empire's lies. The FBI may have scared off significant Antiwar.com donors, but they take Bitcoin for donations. Their site is truly indispensable. Every time I buy some Bitcoin, I send some their way.
When the corporatist oligarchy like Paypal and Visa cut off Wikileaks under pressure from the US government, Julian Assange admits that Bitcoin helped them stay afloat and continue to blow the whistle on corruption and war crimes. We know so much more about the Empire thanks to Wikileaks, and the mass spread of information and transparency that they (and Bitcoin!) provide are the antithesis of authoritarianism and centralization.
Scott Horton's radio show and Bitcoin not Bombs also come to mind, but there are so many others that are doing the hard work necessary in getting as many eyes, ears and minds as possible open to the alternatives of liberty.
Not only can we support those who are helping undermine the Pentagon's power through direct donations, but by simply using and trading alternative currencies we are taking that much more financial power and consent away from the Empire while building local, sustainable and free markets.
The future truly is here. Marriages now finally have the opportunity to be in the realm where they belong - in the market - instead of regulated and controlled by the state. The blockchain behind the Bitcoin technology is not just a currency and store of value; it is a public ledger that can be used for all types of contracts and associations that free human beings choose to engage in.
Who needs politics? Circumvent the state. Now we have the technology to do so.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller - Tyrone Johnson at the Daily Anarchist has a great article about the possibility that alternative currencies like Bitcoin provide for cutting off the war...
"I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -Dwight D....
"Liberty, finally, is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says, eternally, only that we can." -Karl Hess, "Anarchism Without Hyphens" For the victims of police violence - whether while...
The Washington Times recently ran a great story about black open-carry activists in Dallas, Texas "march[ing] with rifles, shotguns and AR-15s down MLK Boulevard." “We think that all black people have the right to self defense and self determination,” said Huey Freeman, an organizer. “We believe that we can police...