The case has naturally been met with media and public outrage. How could this happen? How could our justice system make such a profound and life shattering mistake? How can we fix this? Some will argue that reform is necessary, while others will argue that some government agents are going to need to lose their jobs. For anarchists, though, only one solution will suffice: Abolition of the police institution and the state at large.

To understand why abolition is the only viable option, it is important to understand the history of the police in the United States. There are two main starting points for the institution. In the north police were primarily used for controlling workers who might otherwise revolt against the political class. In the south they were primarily used for catching escaped slaves. Both of these, coupled with the aggressive criminal monopoly of the state, meant an evolution directly leading to such cases as Browder’s imprisonment and worse. Since such an institution is well beyond any hope of reform, how do we destroy it, and what do we replace it with?

There are a variety of tactics for resisting and replacing the state, but the one I favor most is agorism. One thing I like to ask people when debating the validity of the state and its monopoly on security is this: How do you think the police would behave if we could simply call and cancel our accounts? How inclined would they be to imprison a teenager if they were fully accountable for their actions due to market forces and social pressure? I would wager that they would behave differently. Not because of some magnanimous spirit that didn’t exist before and not just because we could put them out of business, but because we could also go after them as the criminals they are. Those two elements, market forces and social pressure, are largely missing from the current paradigm. Stripped away from the false virtue of statism, they are nothing but people who do their jobs poorly at best, and murderously at worst.

Sadly, there will continue to be more like Browder who watch years of their life tick away as the criminal political class and its soldiers kidnap, torture, imprison and kill innocent people. The way we stop them, the way we fight them, is by taking away the illusion that they are the only option for a secure and free society. They are violent criminals, and they have no place in a free society.

A nonprofit group called the Center for Copyright Information, supported by the MPAA and other groups, is in the early drafting phases of a school curriculum to teach children the supposed value of copyright. Of course, this whole plan is not without critics. Some argue that Hollywood studios and music labels are simply trying to promote their own biased agendas, while others say that such a curriculum would use up valuable classroom time needed to simply cover the basics.

There are two fundamental things for us to look at here, and they are both highly problematic. These are public education and intellectual property.

Public education is an environment wherein children are taught that there is such a thing as objective authority figures. This may not be overt, especially given how many well meaning and sincere public educators are out there, but the fact remains that public schools are among the first places where children start to be molded into compliant, servile people. There is not a whole lot of room for individuality, and even less room for questioning the teacher’s lesson plans. It is the perfect place to instill far-reaching values, such as statism, when children are at their most intellectually vulnerable.

Intellectual property is a ruse the political class uses to control free market — a clever tool to inhibit competition. There is no logical way to own something like an idea, and there is no logical argument against people sharing information, including media of all kinds. By enforcing claims on “intellectual property,” the political class inhibits competition, innovation and creativity.

But they would have us believe otherwise. They argue that IP protects creativity, that it protects competition, and that it protects the market. But if this is truly the case, then why would so many be fighting to undermine it? They also argue that sharing their supposed intellectual property is hurting the industry and costing people jobs. This of course flies in the face of the billions of dollars the movie industry, the music industry, and the game industry rake in every year. But they would still seek to get these regressive values into the minds of schoolchildren.

The fact of the matter is that sharing information, including media, is a massive check against the mandated market control of these big media groups. In many ways it has actually served to help them due to more people having access. It has also pushed them to innovate and make their products worth more to the general consumer. In other words, real market forces have created arguably better products. For years IP has stifled innovation, and it has been through revolutionary market forces that we have seen some exciting changes in the media industry. One such example is the Steam video game client that, while still a player in IP, has been making more and more quality games available for dirt cheap. In many cases, some will stop pirating because the games they might be interested in are available for so little money.

In short, not only is IP a regressive, anti-freedom framework, but the notion that they are so desperate that they would seek to get into the minds of children means that they are scared. Not to mention that their efforts will most likely meet with derision from the older siblings of these kids and create even more media sharing than before, thereby furthering their own demise.

Simply put: They are losing. Let’s keep it that way.

Será porém cabível argumentar que a Walmart é resultado de mecanismos de livre mercado? Não.

Três importantes fatores a considerar quanto à argumentação acerca de se a Walmart, ou aliás qualquer empresa, é resultado do livre mercado são leis de desapropriação, subsídios do governo e controles de salários, de todos os quais a Walmart tem tirado proveito para obter lucro. Em 2005 o Supremo Tribunal sentenciou que terra privada poderia ser confiscada, se necessário pela força, e usada para construção privada ou pública. Tal construção inclui a ereção de instalações da Walmart. Numa palavra, propriedade privada é roubada pelo estado e, para todos os efeitos que importam, cedida a interesses corporativos. Tudo isso é, naturalmente, falsamente apresentado como “desenvolvimento econônico.”

Propriedade confiscada é, porém, apenas a cobertura do bolo. Relatório de 2004 mostrou que a Walmart houvera recebido mais de $1 bilião de dólares de subsídios do governo “em forma de terra grátis ou de preço reduzido, fundos para treinamento no emprego, abatimentos de impostos sobre vendas, créditos tributários e auxílio para infraestrutura, inclusive investimento em estradas.”

Finalmente, há um motivo pelo qual a Walmart, no passado, apoiou salários mínimos mais altos. Naturalmente, ela alega ter feito isso para ajudar trabalhadores de renda mais baixa (tais como aqueles que trabalham na Walmart). Há porém importante aspecto dos controles estatalmente tornados obrigatórios no concernente a salários a ser tido em consideração: Eles ajudam a eliminar competição. Firmas menores têm maior dificuldade para pagar salários obrigatoriamente mais altos que não reflitam a economia real, e grandes empresas como a Walmart provavelmente sabem muito bem disso. Elas podem arcar com os aumentos de salários, mas em muitos casos suas competidoras não podem fazê-lo.

Voltando à apresentação de Hendrickson, um dos argumentos que ele apresenta para apoiar a Walmart é o de que os consumidores têm votado com seus dólares escolhendo a Walmart de  preferência a empresas menores. Em certo sentido, isso é verdade. O aspecto, porém, que ele deixa de considerar é por que a Walmart consegue oferecer tais preços baixos. Terra confiscada, enormes subsídios e controles de salário. Nenhum desses soa para mim como mecanismo de livre mercado.

Se fosse para colocar a Walmart num contexto de mercado verdadeiramente livre, no qual arcasse com todas as suas despesas gerais, tivesse de adquirir propriedades de maneira justa e não tivesse controle de valores de salários, a pergunta não seria se ela poderia ou não prosperar, e sim antes de tudo se sequer existiria.

Artigo original afixado por Travis Eby em 7 de novembro de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

But is it fair to argue that Walmart is a result of free market mechanisms? No.

Three important factors to look at when arguing about whether Walmart, or any business for that matter, is a result of the free market are eminent domain laws, government subsidies and wage controls, all of which Walmart has exploited for profit. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that private land could be taken, by force if necessary, and used for private and public economic development. Such development includes the building of Walmart locations. Put simply, private property is stolen by the state and for all intents and purposes handed over to corporate interests. All of this is framed, of course, as “economic development.”

Stolen property is just the icing on the cake, however. A 2004 report showed that Walmart had received over $1 billion in government subsidies “in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads.”

Finally, there is a reason why Walmart has supported higher minimum wages in the past. Naturally, they claim their reasons are because it helps lower income workers (such as the ones who work at Walmart). But there is a very important aspect of state-mandated wage controls to consider: They help eliminate competition. Smaller firms have a harder time paying enforced higher wages that don’t reflect the real economy and big companies such as Walmart are likely very aware of this fact. They can afford the wage hikes, but in many cases their competition can’t.

To return to Hendrickson’s presentation, one of the arguments he makes in support of Walmart is that consumers have voted with their dollars by choosing Walmart over smaller businesses. In a sense, this is true. But the point he is missing is why exactly Walmart has such low prices. Stolen land, massive subsidies and wage controls. None of these sound like free market mechanisms to me.

If we were to place Walmart in a truly free market context, in which they paid all of their own overhead, had to acquire property justly and had no control over wage prices, the question isn’t whether or not they could prosper, but whether they would even exist in the first place.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, O Que, Na Walmart, Tem Qualquer Coisa A Ver Com Livres Mercados?

Anarchist, of course, note the state’s claim to a monopoly on violence, and observe that TSA agents are known for things such as racial profiling, sexual assault and other forms of aggression. Their very jobs are facilitated through state aggression. It should come as no surprise, then, that someone reacted with retaliatory violence toward the TSA, as Paul Anthony Ciancia apparently did.

But why is it still wrong?

The violence of the state creates ripple effects across our communities at large. From public schools to the war on drugs, we are surrounded by statism. Its violence pervades our social arrangements. I would argue that at the core of violence in our communities is allegiance to the state. That allegiance creates a culture in which it is considered acceptable, nay virtuous, to aggress against others in order to meet our social and economic ends.  At least, as long it is the political class doing the aggressing. Yet, when people fight back, they are abhorred. This is not to say that what Ciancia was moral or virtuous; it’s just that statism creates a strong layer of cognitive dissonance. The fact that Ciancia committed an act of violence against the state is not, broadly speaking, wrong. But he failed to take into account that the state, being pervasive, can technically make just about anyone, from a teacher to a fireman, one’s enemy. He joined the state in its game of violence, and not only did he lose, but more than likely the TSA will become more violent and aggressive.

Paul Anthony Ciancia has made things worse.

Note that this is not an argument against violence, per se, but rather to the fundamental flaw of violent revolution: The state is simply better at violence.

What could people like Paul Anthony Ciancia do instead of playing the state’s game? I am no techie, but one idea I have is developing open source, black market methods of air travel. If drug dealers can do it, why can’t other people? Perhaps there are people out there smarter than I who could develop cloaking devices for larger planes. The point is, there are plenty of things the state is bad at, and dealing with decentralized workarounds to its systems is one of the areas where it is the weakest.

Put simply, capitalize on something the political class doesn’t understand: Peace.

To start, the reason I advocate the NAP and self-ownership is because they are concrete expressions of conducting our exchanges peacefully and living as autonomous beings. How so? The NAP serves as an accessible starting point for how we should conduct ourselves in civilized society. While it is inherently peaceful, it is far from being a pacifist framework. Simply put, all individuals should be able to live as they choose as long as they don’t inhibit someone else’s ability to do the same. In like manner, self-ownership means being in control of what we put in our own bodies, as well as where we choose to move them. In many cases the idea of movement, exchange and behaving peacefully are expressed in ways that are too abstract for me. I am not saying they are invalid, but simply that they are not concrete enough for me. Examples include solidarity instead of the NAP and “you are your body” as opposed to self-ownership.

Despite the fact that I advocate non-aggression and self-ownership, I take a variety of strong leftist positions such as being pro-union, pro-worker, anti-war and anti-crony capitalism among other things. This makes for some fiery debates and facepalm frustration from some of my more mainstream libertarian friends. The essential claim that has incited the most facepalm moments is the claim that some socialist ideas might not be as incompatible with libertarianism as we initially think; perhaps my mistake is not elucidating enough on what I mean.

It is not that I want both sides of the discourse to like me, but rather because I see the NAP and self-ownership as supporting the above values. By allowing these two fundamental libertarian principles to play out, things such as the freedom to form collectives, cooperatives and unions become not only more likely but also much easier.

When people have total liberty, which is what, in my opinion, the NAP and self-ownership defends, they have unprecedented opportunities to form arrangements reflecting their values and goals. This could include forming a union to make sure that wage negotiations with a business owner(s) goes smooth and equitably. In this way, unions become a market response to workers becoming disenfranchised or being paid less than what they are worth. Sure, one can argue that these workers have chosen voluntarily what job they will take, but in an aggressively manipulated market environment wherein the political class can easily monopolize and cartelize, alternatives can be harder to come by – barriers to market entrance also become more intensified. Then again, if markets were freed then things such as unions may not be in demand.

In short, one need not become a fist shaking anarcho-socialist to allow for traditionally left-wing values to work their way into your libertarian perspective. The total liberty that comes from the NAP and self-ownership can lay the groundwork for a strong productive class and the elimination of a political class. A sea of collectives, cooperatives, mutual aid networks and good old fashioned private enterprises are all possible under these simple, yet concrete, principles.

It would appear that, in fact, the government has done nothing close to shutting down.

Despite the majority of Americans polled opposing the shut down and the bad press that comes with that, the people who should be affected, the political class, have not even been touched. Who, then, is being impacted by this political theater? The productive class.

Now, some will argue that public workers are not part of the productive class, and are parasites just like congress. But is that really fair? Sure, some or all of them may be foolish for believing that their job is funded through anything but theft. Some may also know that they are parasites, and don’t care. At the same time, we anarchists should be careful about judging other people from our lofty position as non-public workers and realize that for many people, no matter how duped they have been, regard their job at a public museum or a park as just that – their job. For them this “shutdown” is an example of how much the State does not care about them, and here lies our opportunity for discourse on the political class’s war on the productive class.

Our main job now is to keep those workers from going back to the State sector.

It is not unreasonable to say that in a free society we would see wilderness parks with caretakers, workers at centers for disease control and space exploration organizations. In other words, government technically provides services that the public might demand anyway in a free society; it is just that they do it via authoritarianism and coercive monopoly.

Anarchists do not support the State, its existence, or its theft, and we certainly do not support its violent co-opting of services that could otherwise be provided peacefully (and arguably much better) in a free society. Furthermore, even if only a few members of the “non-essential” government workforce are actually productive members of society, it is a shame to see their work stifled from full expression because of State monopoly. In some ways, it would be better to just pay them to stay home, or work peacefully on whatever they choose. More importantly, anarchists seek a smooth and peaceful transition into a stateless society, not through the further suffering of working people and families.

In all of this, though, is the opportunity for anarchists to show how such services would be better safeguarded in a free society. Building the new within the shell of the old becomes much easier when the crumbling system is shedding good, hardworking people that want to make a difference. While tyrants are often raised in the ashes of the old State, so too can a free society emerge readied with mutual aid services, security organizations, large, digitally linked networks of decentralized communities and so on. This illusionary “shutdown” has created a pathway for people to look for something different. Something sustainable. Something new. It is our job to show them the possibilities.

As the investigation into how Snowden’s acts of rebellion were carried out, the NSA has reportedly uncovered that he accessed the documents via an internal website of the agency itself. The documents were posted to the internal website, and Snowden was able to access them easily with his security clearance. Under the radar of his supervisor he easily made digital copies of what he found.

Since the NSA data was leaked by Snowden the agency has apparently taken steps to limit employee options for storing data in an effort to avoid future leaks. The question, of course, is whether or not such efforts will truly have an effect. If they do stop leakers, will they serve to inhibit the overall communication process between what is already a mess of bureaucratic agencies? In other words, are their systems permanently disrupted no matter what they do?

Perhaps it goes even deeper, into something that has become pervasive. Kevin Carson’s Two, Three, Many Snowdens! has us look at an ever growing class of workers that are rebellious, anti-authoritarian hackers, and who happen to be getting jobs in government security.

Of course, this action has been met with ire from environmentalists who believe that there is not more happiness to be derived from housing than there is from protected wilderness. There is also concern that developing protected areas would justify more development under the guise of sustainable construction. England has over 5,000 square miles of national parks whose protection is funded, of course, by taxpayers, but managed by State functionaries who can dish the land out to the biggest, fattest, most well connected of the political class. If this is truly for the people, then it would seem that the people should decide, not the political class.

Many libertarians might argue that Boles is exactly right, though, and that homes for people are more important than green space in national parks. Another consideration, however, is the issue of property as manifested in the context of State control. In other words, much of the problem above has nothing to do with housing, per se, but rather with monopoly land ownership and the predictable distortions that ripple out from such “ownership.”

Libertarians can sometimes be a bit soft on ecological concerns, but this does not have to be the case. Grant Mincy’s Libertarianism: An Ecological Consideration lays out ways in which libertarians can, and should, engage with sound ecology.

For example, George Bush Sr.’s decision to invade Kuwait spawned what would eventually become an extended and global battle with al-Qaida, and from a foreign policy point of view, a limited attack against Syria would largely be symbolic of endorsing Obama’s “red line.” This can cause one or both of the following: Entrenchment in yet another foreign conflict or the ongoing assertion of United States supremacy.

A left-libertarian approach to the above comes in the form of Grant Mincy’s piece “TOL Response: 5 Foreign Policy Problems Libertarians Need to Address.” Since so much of what mainstream media pundits talk about, when it comes to foreign policy, is about what the best reaction to aggression or war ought to be, it is arguably more critical to get to the root of the issue. We need to start thinking less about reaction, and more about long term solutions to making civil war and Empire obsolete.