An interview with Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, the founder of Bitnation (via the Peaceful Anarchism blog).
An interview with Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, the founder of Bitnation (via the Peaceful Anarchism blog).
In a free society, why shouldn't we able to choose the type of constitution or governing association that best fits our needs and desires? Polycentric legal systems are a great, decentralized way to provide justice and law and order than the pyramidal, top-down gun barrel of the nation-state:
One of the biggest challenges to the complete decoupling of the provision of law from the state, with a free market of security and adjudication, is the possibility that these entities would collude against their customers.
Economically, it is noted that consumers would lose some money while the collusion in the supply of goods and services is in effect, since the amount of supplied goods should drop and their price should consequently rise under a cartel. Perhaps that is not a problem, given that in a free market such arrangements would be unstable. Moreover, companies should not have the power over the rights of the parties, but only over the prices and services supplied.
However, that is not true for the non-state supply of law. The collusion among agencies of law could lead to a change in the very structure of individual rights, its effects being more permanent, even after the dissolution of the cartel. The manipulation of the judicial system can generate severe losses for specific victims.
Some argue that a constitutional state could be a solution for that, acting as an anti-trust supervisor. That is the conclusion reached by Robin Hanson (who supports the complete “privatization” of the provision of law) and Gillian K. Hadfield (who supports the “privatization” of commercial law only).
Even though these authors do not go into great detail on how this anti-trust supervision would work, it seems that — beyond the conventional prohibition of anti-competitive practices and the nullification (or outright ban) of cartelization contracts — there would have to exist some sort of constitutional mandate that would specify the limits of what agencies should be able to supply (for instance, it could ban preventive detentions without due process) and forbidding secret arrangements that could lead to the harmful modification of the rights structure of the clients. Thus, constitutional restrictions would protect people’s rights against manipulations of colluding agencies.
That would be a minarchist conclusion. But what about anarchism? How could market anarchism overcome that obstacle?
First, we need to understand what a constitutional restriction means. Under constitutional democracies, these norms intend to prevent that legislative, judicial, or even executive acts have certain contents or that they should be put in effect without the fulfillment of certain procedures. For example, in Brazil, a law that establishes death penalty would be unconstitutional and thus invalid. So constitutional restrictions establish something that would not be accepted as a rule even if it were approved by the instances make the legislation.
In private law, what would be analogous to political constitutions? Associations statutes would. Just like constitutions create the legal order under the state, association statutes govern associations. Just like constitutions set up restrictions over state decisions, statutes restrict what boards of directors and assemblies can do. In the specific case of condominiums in Brazil, the law establishes that owners have to elaborate a condominium convention (a statute) and approve an internal regimen for the building or the building complex.
Market anarchism allows for organizations like these. Even though the better known polycentric legal models are those detailed by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, where the provision of law is negotiated directly by individuals, Michael Huemer’s model in The Problem of Political Authority predicts that the collective acquisition of legal services through associations or condominiums would be the norm. These associations would contract with security agencies and would be able to stipulate a legal code that arbitrators would apply in the transactions made under their jurisdiction.
This collective purchase by means of associations or condominiums opens up the possibility that in each association’s convention or statute there could minimal rules to be followed when acquiring those services. In other words, it could specify that the association would not hire agencies that did not follow certain standards (for example, the aforementioned ban on preventive detentions without due process) and that had the authorization to make arrangements with other agencies.
This dynamic is interesting because it incites agencies to codify rules that limit or ban secret arrangements. The tendency of the explicit adoption of constitutions in associations would probably influence the adoption of constitutions by law agencies themselves.
It should be noted that legal security is higher when we contract an agency by means of a local association or a condominium: the person would be able to invoke the voidness of an arbitration decision or a procedure in the case it did not match the statute or convention in their association, since contractual clauses between the association and the agency would be invalid and “unconstitutional.”
Obviously, it would not be role of local associations to supervise the general competitiveness of the system, but their distributed statutes would collectively prevent abuses and collusions from happening through a bottom-up rather than top-down system.
Thus, the market anarchist order might not lead to a world without constitutions, but with a great diversity of constitutions — the advantage that the “constitutional choice environment,” as Patri Friedman puts it, would be competitive, decentralized, and open one. In this scenario, the choice for an association guarantees individual freedom and the collective contracting of one or more agencies makes the transactions within the market for law safer.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has just announced he will be taking $20 million from that giant trough of tax dollars to fund another pro-environment scam.
Check out this press release I just got from the USDA …
“USDA has been a leader in supporting market-based solutions to improve water quality and reduce carbon pollution,” Secretary Vilsack said. “With this opportunity, we are supporting the next generation of projects that will help mature these markets and bring them to scale to benefit both producers and the environment.”
For 2015, approximately half of the $20 million is available for environmental markets and conservation finance projects that engage agricultural producers.
Oh, how exciting. The government is going to protect us from climate change by paying farmers to do things that are frowned upon by the industrial agriculture industry, which is funded by the government.
The Good, Fatty Bites
To make a long story short, the government will continue to plow billions of dollars into agricultural subsidies that favor giant industrial agriculture operations that poison our water, pollute our air and squeeze every last nutrient out of our soil. But, because the carbon credit scam is the new black for 2015, ‘ol Tommy V. is going to scrape up another $20 million to “help the environment.”
If these guys really gave two shits about the environment, they would call for the immediate end of these giant welfare checks for their corporate whores that service them regularly in the halls of congress.
The best way to combat soil, water and air pollution is to stop subsidizing it!
The only problem with that is if the folks in Washington did such a thing, they’d lose those fat campaign contributions. And we can’t have that, can we?
So, just to ensure that folks still believe the government is actually necessary to protect the environment and combat the threat of climate change, the USDA throws environmentalists a bone. But beware, my tree-hugging friend. The marrow of these bones has been sucked dry, while all the good, fatty bites are being inhaled by the USDA’s corporate masters.
Rest assured, there are fewer enemies of the environment than the government. And this latest hustle by the USDA is just one more example.
Jim Bovard wants to know:
How many college students would happily permit the government to copy all their e-mail and computer hard drives in return for unlimited free music downloads? How many Wal-Mart gift certificates would it require for a typical citizen to forfeit all his Fourth Amendment rights, entitling government agents to search his car, house, and himself whenever they chose without a warrant? How many McDonald’s gift certificates would it take to sway a person to pledge never to publicly criticize the president? How many senior citizens would agree to support the ruling party in perpetuity in return for a 20 percent boost in their Social Security benefits? How many Americans would agree to cease reading newspapers (and their pesky editorials) in return for free cable television?
Does anyone doubt that a vast majority of Americans - who proudly wave the flag, beat their chests, and recite their government school slogans - would gladly say yes to any and all of these questions?
This is why political democracy with a large, centralized state is so dangerous. Politicians act like Santa Claus, and voters choose which suit will arrange the forced transfer of wealth from somebody else to them.
Freedom, true liberty, has no place in this equation.
By Danilo at the Peaceful Anarchism blog:
Statists and the control freaks really are insane when they attempt to impose their narrow-minded ideas of how people should live their lives and run their businesses. Lead your own damn lives and run your own damn businesses! Instead of worrying what other people are doing, you should be worried why you are worried about what other people are doing! The world is full of mini-control freaks that are out on an agenda of dominating their neighbor via the guns of “government”! If you would seek to subjugate your neighbor by means of “government” at least have cojones to hold the gun yourself to your neighbor’s head and demand he/she bow to your whims! If you cannot do this then I must say you are ranked amongst the lowest scum for advocating more institutionalized violence against your brethren.
I consider drug dealers and prostitutes with much higher regard than political whores and sociopathic parasites. The former deals honestly with only that which they can offer, to feed themselves and their families. They attempt to satisfy consumer demand by offering products and services that people willingly pay for, at significant peril to them. The latter deal in stolen loot and give it to their special interest group friends and those with political pull. There is no natural consumer demand for what they offer since if the market actually wanted “government” services the people would not need to be forced to fund their deficit spending and pork barrel projects. It is the difference between a baker and the mafia. One enriches his surrounding neighborhood by providing value and the other impoverishes his surrounding neighborhood by introducing coercion and violence to an otherwise peaceful neighborhood.
To vote or petition Congress to pass another law, regulation, or tax is to say, “I know what society needs to achieve an Economic Utopia and I’m willing to use violence to get us there!” It is noble to desire a better world for our children but it is vile and reprehensible to use the guns of “government” to force others to bend to your will. Ignorance of economics and human action is not a transgression; but acting recklessly whilst in that state of ignorance is wretched. The future is both unknown and unknowable. Never forget that a ballot is a bullet. Let him who has led a life free of error cast the first ballot!
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Friedrich August von Hayek
I honestly could not believe it when I first read it, but apparently the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders now classifies non-conformity and the questioning of authority - two features that should be the hallmark of a free society, celebrated and clutched - as a mental illness.
"Oppositional Defiant Disorder," or ODD.
Doesn't that just give you chills? It's so Orwellian, even for a political defined by its butchering of language and use of propaganda.
If you read the article I linked to earlier about ODD, the author also goes into great detail about the use of labeling insane or mentally ill those that held dissident beliefs in the Soviet Union and other (slightly more) authoritarian countries.
This is in fact a very common theme throughout history and is also used as a very effective way to define a narrow goalpost of allowable and acceptable opinion. In America, you are not thrown in jail (yet) for opposing the state root-and-branch, but are simply dismissed as "kooky" and not even worth refuting since it falls out of this narrow spectrum.
But there are outlets now. While there are a growing number of stories of people being arrested for something they said on a social networking site, it's nearly impossible to damn up the river of free speech that we have now.
So make your ODD loud, and shout it from the rooftops. It's always harder to hit a moving target, and even more difficult to hit millions moving in different, spontaneous directions - united only by the principles of maximizing individual liberty as an end in and of itself and tolerance for how we choose to exercise it.
You can’t throw a rock these days without hitting someone who’s talking about entrepreneurship and why we need to encourage more of it. In the public and private sectors — especially in higher education — innovation, enterprise, and entrepreneurship are buzzwords like never before.
A big beneficiary of this trend is the field of social enterprise. Unlike ordinary businesses, the conventional explanation goes, social enterprises use their commercial activities to promote a broader aim of human well-being rather than simple profit maximization. An example is Jamie Oliver using the restaurant business to provide culinary training to disadvantaged youth or sell food that encourages healthier living, even if doing so hurts the bottom line. Because of these kinds of expansive goals, social enterprises tend to be looked on favorably by business students, governments, and the media.
But while social enterprises certainly do create value, emphasizing “social” goals over profits can be misleading because it implies that traditional profit-seeking entrepreneurship fails to produce wide-ranging benefits for large numbers of people. Thinking of social enterprise as distinct from conventional business helps obscure the vital truth that profit seeking is not only compatible with increases in human welfare, it is probably the most powerful force for producing them ever devised.
In fact, that’s the beauty of free-market enterprise: it’s social whether it pursues an explicit social agenda or not. Critics of government intervention often point out that good intentions don’t equate to good policies. Likewise, the absence of good intentions doesn’t equate to bad policy, and lacking a specific social goal doesn’t make entrepreneurs antisocial. Think of Adam Smith’s observation about the butcher, brewer, and baker, which reveals that commerce is social because it’s mutually beneficial, not because entrepreneurs necessarily have a larger agenda.
When a company like Uber charges a price for its services, it’s being social in the sense that it’s creating value for consumers, not just for itself. And the market is simply an elaborate network of voluntary exchanges in which buyers and sellers constantly make each other better off — which is why they do business to start with.
Free enterprise is therefore social enterprise, but the reverse is true as well: enterprise is social if and to the extent that it’s free. We are truly social when we choose our relationships and refrain from choosing our neighbors’. In a free market, the term “social enterprise” is redundant because it’s in the marketplace that human beings express some of their most fundamental social instincts. Buying and selling teach us about peaceful interaction for mutual gain — and reveal to us just how profoundly our well-being depends on our commitment to benefiting others.
However, if we choose coercion over peaceful cooperation, we abandon hope of a working social order. Any social enterprise worthy of the name is therefore hostile to economic intervention, because every intervention is a step away from social cohesion and toward conflict.
Unsurprisingly, the corporate state is the primary cause of antisocial tendencies in real-world enterprises. Take, for example, intellectual-property law. What could be more antisocial than prohibiting people from sharing ideas and using them to improve the welfare of others? Yet many who promote enterprise take it for granted that “protecting” ideas is an essential part of entrepreneurship.
This attitude hints at a broader institutional problem: the sort of enterprise supported by public rhetoric is rarely the kind of healthy economic activity that would be produced in a free economy. Instead, public support for enterprise tends to mean support for a few privileged ventures at the expense of others. Sadly, it’s common for governments the world over to emphasize the need for more entrepreneurship while simultaneously promoting policies that distort, penalize, or even outlaw it. That’s why it’s more important than ever to be wary of the different meanings attached to words like “social” and “enterprise” and how these useful terms come to be associated with harmful economic ideas.
If economics tells us anything, it’s that we can’t effectively promote enterprise without first abandoning the networks of privilege and regulation that undermine entrepreneurship and divert human talent into destructive practices. A vital step toward that goal is seriously considering the rhetoric we use to describe the market. Language radically alters perceptions of commerce and can make the difference between thinking of enterprise as zero-sum profit seeking or as the key to the countless benefits of peaceful exchange.
Journalist Nick Turse has been documenting the quiet, covert but increasingly harder to hide US military footprint in Africa at TomDispatch.com for years now. After the debacle of an expensive, bloody war involving the invasion of hundreds of thousands of troops, Obama and the Pentagon have shifted to a lighter, thinner model of empire, using drones, JSOC death squads, and coups to enfore hegemony and dominance.
Now with US Special Forces in 150 countries, this is truly the Golden Age of Black Ops.
Libertarians defend a free society and a voluntary order not because we hate welfare, defense, law, courts, old people and all of the other fallacies hurdled at us, but because we think that the functions of civilization and charity are far too important to be administered by a monopolistic institution that threatens people with death if they do not comply.
Howard Baetjer Jr. has a great article on the specific issue of "regulation," and why opposing government regulation of economic and social affairs is not a rejection of rules and order, but an affirmation of them:
A big economic problem the world faces is semantic. That is, “regulation” has come to mean “government regulation.” We don’t seem to be aware of the alternative: regulation by market forces. That’s a problem because it leads us to accept so much government meddling that we would be better off without.
We want the aims of regulation — regularity and predictability in markets, decent quality and reasonable prices for the goods and services we buy — and thinking that government regulation is the only way to get those, we accept a vast array of unnecessary, wrongheaded, and usually counterproductive mandates and restrictions.
But government regulation is not the only kind of regulation.
To regulate is to make regular and orderly, to hold to a standard, to control according to rule, as a thermostat regulates the temperature in a building. Market forces do this continually as competing businesses offer what they hope will be a good value, then customers choose among the various offerings, then the competing businesses react to customers’ choices. That process is the market’s regulator.
Markets regulate prices
To take an example of market regulation so ubiquitous that many people are as unaware of it as a fish is unaware of the water it swims in, market forces regulate prices. In healthy industries, market forces are the only regulator of prices (and it’s common in economics textbooks to find that the moment governments start to restrict prices, the result is surpluses or shortages). The terms of exchange offered by some sellers restrict the terms of exchange other sellers can offer in any realistic hope that they’ll be accepted.
If the Giant supermarket near my home is charging $2.00 a pound for red peppers, the more upscale Eddie’s Market will not be able to charge a whole lot more than that and still sell many peppers. Neither will other grocery stores or the farm stands that open nearby in the summer. All will charge nearly the same price. There is strong regularity to the prices of red peppers at any place and time. This regulation is accomplished by each seller’s reaction to the actions of his customers and competitors.
Markets regulate quality
The same goes for quality. My wife won’t buy peppers that aren’t fresh and firm as long as she thinks she can get better peppers at some other store. The grocers might wish they could sell last week’s peppers that are getting soft on the shelf, but customers like my wife, along with the self-interested actions ofother stores, won’t let them. Their customers’ choices and competitors’ actions restrict (that is, regulate) even the quality of produce they can offer for sale — let alone actually sell — because customers like my wife spurn stores whose produce is shabbier than that offered nearby. Stores in competitive markets cannot afford to put off customers like my wife, so they maintain decent quality, even if they would prefer not to. In this manner, market forces regulate quality.
Government regulation hampers market regulation
Regulation by market forces weakens as a market becomes less free. Imagine a grocery store with a legal monopoly on red peppers. Such a store, lacking competition, could charge a wide range of prices, offer a wide range of quality, and still be able to sell. Legally, its customers would have nowhere else to turn.
The same would apply if there were competing grocery stores, but restrictions on importing peppers: the pressure on domestic producers to maintain quality and hold down price would be reduced. That is to say, quality and price would be less tightly regulated.
Freedom of exchange makes regulation by market forces tight. Where competing grocery stores are free to sell red peppers, and red pepper customers are free to take their business elsewhere or go without, prices and product quality are tightly regulated. This beneficial regulation by market forces weakens as markets become less free.
So we have a paradox: the less a market is regulated — no, that’s not the right word; the less a market isrestricted — by government, the more it is regulated by market forces. Conversely, the more government restriction, the less regulation by market forces. There is a direct trade-off between the two.
We never face a choice between regulation and no regulation. We face a choice between kinds of regulation: regulation by legislatures and bureaucracies, or regulation by market forces — regulation by restriction of choice, or regulation by the exercise of choice.
There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. If a market is free, it is closely regulated by the free choices of market participants. The actions of each constrain and influence the actions of others in ways that make actions regular — more or less predictable, falling within understandable bounds.
Government regulation is not the only kind of regulation; market forces also regulate. Recognizing this, communicating it to others, and getting the awareness into public discourse are key steps toward greater economic liberty.
The benefit of this semantic change — opening up the meaning of “regulation” to include regulation by market forces — is to raise the question, which works better? Regulation by market forces works better, but that’s another argument. The first step is to recognize that market forces regulate, too.
The protests in Paris aside, do we really defend free speech in the West? The French government just arrested 54 people for violating laws against free speech, and all over the Western world individuals are crippled and hampered by the I'm-offended-by-everything-crowd, walking on eggshells careful not to hurt somebody's precious feelings.
The West, once dominated by a laissez-faire liberal spirit, has for sometime been committing political and societal suicide. Collectivism, atheism, socialism, murdering millions overseas, cowardice and multiple world wars like a circular fire squad leave us in trying times to defend liberty.
All we have to do is look around:
Liberty is not a doctrine, but rather a praxis innate to human thought and action — the underlying principle being that one should always challenge authority and dismantle unjustifiable concentrations of power. The result is a more libertarian relationship between people and their institutions. Anarchism is thus a human phenomenon.
When feminist movements organize for women’s agency over their own bodies and life without fear of violence, we see anarchism.
We see anarchism in Mexico as the population seeks liberation from violent drug cartels, complacent government and oppressive state policies.
We see anarchism in prisons as inmates band together in these dehumanizing institutions to demand living conditions free of violence and sexual battery.
We see anarchism in war-torn regions of the world where individuals risk their lives to save innocent victims of the drone strikes and barrel bombs of oppressive regimes.
We see anarchism in towns and neighborhoods challenging the monopoly of violence held by the police.
We see anarchism in movements that seek the protection of wilderness areas and native lands from the clutches of extractive industries and the iron fist of capital.
We find anarchism in the new technology and falling communications costs that allow all of us to craft markets and labor together free of regulatory restriction.
We see anarchism in our everyday social interactions — telling our family and friends we love them and being kind to strangers.
These are but a few examples. Anarchism is everywhere.
Politics is violence: a real civics lesson in three words. It is why the starting point of any philosophy attempting to analyze and diagnosis deeply flawed human beings should be an anarchist perspective. Violence is only justified in self-defense against those who have aggressed against non-violent, peaceful human activity.
And that's it. This can't be stressed enough. Costumes, songs, words, laws, decrees and elections do not change this basic philosophical principle.
Max Weber at The Freeman uses this fundamental nature of state power - insitutionalized, initiated violence - to show why we should reject all forms of political organization:
"Every state is founded on force," said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of "state" would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as "anarchy," in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state — nobody says that — but force is a means specific to the state.
Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions — beginning with the Sippe [clan, kindred, extended family] — have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
Note that "territory" is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the "right" to use violence.
Politics as power
Hence, "politics" for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
This corresponds essentially to ordinary usage. When a question is said to be a "political" question, when a cabinet minister or an official is said to be a "political" official, or when a decision is said to be "politically" determined, what is always meant is that interests in the distribution, maintenance, or transfer of power are decisive for answering the questions and determining the decision or the official's sphere of activity. He who is active in politics strives for power either as a means in serving other aims, ideal or egoistic, or as "power for power's sake," that is, in order to enjoy the prestige-feeling that power gives.
Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be.
Today we do not take a stand on this question. I state only the purely conceptual aspect for our consideration: the modern state is a compulsory association, which organizes domination. It has been successful in seeking to monopolize the legitimate use of physical force as a means of domination within a territory.
To this end the state has combined the material means of organization in the hands of its leaders, and it has expropriated all autonomous functionaries of estates who formerly controlled these means in their own right. The state has taken their positions and now stands in the top place.
During this process of political expropriation, which has occurred with varying success in all countries on earth, "professional politicians" in another sense have emerged. They arose first in the service of a prince. They have been men who, unlike the charismatic leader, have not wished to be lords themselves, but who have entered the service of political lords. In the struggle of expropriation, they placed themselves at the princes’ disposal and by managing the princes’ politics they earned, on the one hand, a living and, on the other hand, an ideal content of life.
Again it is only in the Occident that we find this kind of professional politician in the service of powers other than the princes. In the past, they have been the most important power instrument of the prince and his instrument of political expropriation.
Politics as violence
The decisive means for politics is violence.
Whoever wants to engage in politics at all, and especially in politics as a vocation, has to realize these ethical paradoxes. He must know that he is responsible for what may become of himself under the impact of these paradoxes. I repeat, he lets himself in for the diabolic forces lurking in all violence. The greatvirtuosi of acosmic love of humanity and goodness, whether stemming from Nazareth or Assisi or from Indian royal castles, have not operated with the political means of violence. Their kingdom was "not of this world" and yet they worked and still work in this world. The figures of Platon Karataev and the saints of Dostoyevski still remain their most adequate reconstructions. He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence.
The genius or demon of politics lives in an inner tension with the god of love, as well as with the Christian God as expressed by the church. This tension can at any time lead to an irreconcilable conflict. Men knew this even in the times of church rule. Time and again the papal interdict was placed upon Florence and at the time it meant a far more robust power for men and their salvation of soul than (to speak with Fichte) the "cool approbation" of the Kantian ethical judgment. The burghers, however, fought the church-state. And it is with reference to such situations that Machiavelli in a beautiful passage, if I am not mistaken, of the History of Florence, has one of his heroes praise those citizens who deemed the greatness of their native city higher than the salvation of their souls. If one says "the future of socialism" or "international peace," instead of native city or "fatherland" (which at present may be a dubious value to some), then you face the problem as it stands now. Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the "salvation of the soul."
So two NYPD officers were shot at point-blank range inside their car by someone claiming to be avenging the death of Mike Brown. This is obviously a tragedy and completely unjustified. Violence is only justified in self-defense, and the only way that this killing would be justified is if these...
"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...