A Corte de Recursos do Distrito de Columbia dos Estados Unidos decidiu que a FCC não tem autoridade para requerer que os provedores de banda larga deem igual tratamento a todo o tráfego que passe por suas redes. Essa foi uma grande vitória para o grupo Comcast, a maior empresa internet a cabo do país, que contestava o direito da FCC de impor essa ‘neutralidade’ obrigatória sobre os provedores.

Os defensores da neutralidade da rede, incluindo o diretor da FCC, alegaram que a política é necessária para evitar que os provedores de acesso favoreçam ou discriminem alguns sites ou serviços online, como programas para ligações por celular via internet ou softwares que rodem dentro do próprio navegador. Eles firmam que há precedentes: regras de não-discriminação tradicionalmente são aplicadas a redes de ‘transporte comum’ que servem ao público, como estradas, rodovias, fiações elétricas e linhas telefônicas.

Porém, os provedores de banda larga como a Comcast, a AT&T e a Verizon argumentam que, depois de gastar bilhões de dólares em suas redes, elas devem poder ofertar serviços diferenciados e gerenciar seus sistemas para que evitar que certos aplicativos sobrecarreguem o sistema.

Exatamente. As redes pertencem às empresas e não ao governo. E, adivinhe só? Em um livre mercado, se uma empresa decidir impor as restrições mencionadas acima, sua concorrente vai ofertar serviços irrestritos a preços razoáveis condizentes com a realidade do mercado livre. De fato, os preços cairiam ainda mais na ausência da moeda inflacionária estatal, dos impostos, das regulamentações, da burocracia e de todas as outras medidas arrogantes e inúteis que são impostas sobre todas as empresas pela força do estado, que inflam artificialmente os custos de operação. É realmente necessária uma decisão do governo para que isso ocorra?

Além do mais, alguém realmente acha que a motivação do governo ao utilizar o FCC neste caso como seu braço executivo contra os provedores de internet (ISPs) é pura e nobre e que seu desejo é apenas promover o bem dos consumidores? Vamos dar uma olhada mais a fundo no artigo da Associated Press:

A decisão unânime de terça feira pelo painel de três juízes foi um revés para a FCC porque questiona a autoridade da agência para regulamentar a banda larga. Isso pode causar outros problemas além do impedimento da adoção de regulamentações referentes à neutralidade da rede. Também há implicações sérias para o ambicioso programa de expansão da banda larga lançado pela FCC no mês passado. A FCC precisa da autoridade para regulamentar a banda larga para que ela possa levar adiante as recomendações principais do plano. Entre outros pontos, a FCC pretende expandir a banda larga usando recursos fundo federal de subsídio às linhas telefônicas em comunidades pobres e rurais.

Não diga! Parece se tratar de mais um programa assistencialista que os social-democratas não queriam que fosse abandonado. Perceba também como o governo – neste caso a FCC – novamente “precisa da autoridade para regulamentar” para salvar o mundo dos gananciosos porcos capitalistas. Afinal, são as “grandes corporações” que desejam nos explorar com suas estratégias severas de censura ao livre discurso na internet. No meu caso, uma empresa que deseje prestar serviços para mim voluntariamente através da concorrência por melhores serviços a preços baixos sempre será melhor que uma instituição que deseja limitar as escolhas e monopolizar o mercado literalmente através das armas – para impor censura, derrubar toda a rede ou fazer o que quiser sem ter que dar quaisquer explicações, fazendo tudo isso com dinheiro roubado.

No final das contas, tudo se resume ao princípio simples em que se fundamenta o anarquismo de livre mercado: ou você acredita que a base de todos os relacionamentos humanos é e deve ser a violência, ou não. A escolha é sua (ao menos esta). Você deve decidir.

Texto originalmente publicado em 9 de abril de 2010.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

En primer lugar tenemos a Kathy y George Norris, una pareja de ancianos de Spring, Texas, que sufrieron el asalto de su casa por parte de un equipo SWAT del Servicio de Peces y Vida Salvaje de los Estados Unidos. Estos matones del gobierno destrozaron carpetas, rebuscaron entre sus papeles y en general revolvieron su casa. ¿Por qué? Cuando la señora Norris contactó con el tribunal para preguntar eso, se le dijo que “No necesita saberlo. No puede saberlo”. Resultaba que el señor Norris tenía un pequeño negocio casero de importación y venta de orquídeas. Orquídeas . Por lo visto, el señor Norris y sus proveedores extranjeros no prepararon determinados papeles requeridos por un oscuro tratado internacional que regulaba esa actividad. Norris terminó acusado y condenado a dos años de prisión por instancias federales. En su sentencia, el monstruo de toga negra que hacía de juez dijo que “A veces la vida nos sirve estos tragos”. Ya sabe de qué está hecho el licor.

Éste es el nivel de empatía que demuestran estos autómatas sin cerebro. Por otro lado, querría saber qué fue de los proveedores, holandeses o de por ahí, del señor Norris con su gobierno europeo supuestamente más “restrictivo”: dudo que les pasara nada.

En verdad, el mismo Walsh escribió “Si el señor Norris hubiera sido un terrorista libio, a lo mejor algún alto cargo europeo hubiera intercedido a su favor para su liberación por motivos de salud.” El señor Norris padecía diabetes, problemas cardíacos, artritis y Parkinson. Pero no se preocupe: “Su gobierno no sólo es necesario, sino que está ahí para cuidar de usted. Con ese tipo de cuidados, no quiero imaginar lo que serían los malos tratos.

En el segundo caso, Krister Evertson ha sido acusado dos veces por el Estado por tratar de desarrollar células de combustible de energías limpias. La primera vez le cogieron por no poner una pegatina requerida por el gobierno en la que envió ciertos objetos completamente inocuos. En aquella ocasión, afortunadamente el jurado tuvo la brillantez de absolver a Evertson. Sin embargo, los federales siguieron detrás de él y le acabaron deteniendo de nuevo por “abandonar” parte de sus materiales… mientras se estaba defendiendo durante el primer juicio. En esta ocasión no hubo tutía y los chicos del Gobierno se golpearon el pecho con orgullo: Evertson acabó, como el señor Norris, en una celda federal durante dos años.

Éstas no son anomalías o rarezas como los Ovnis o el Yeti o el monstruo del Lago Ness, señores: esto es lo habitual con el gobierno. Esto es lo normal, la rutina, y sólo porque no le haya pasado a usted (todavía) no significa que no esté pasándole a alguien ahora, en algún lugar de este país. Por supuesto, el giro del Washington Times, con todo respeto hacia el señor Walsh, es que las leyes deben ser reifnadas, se debe modificar la ley por el Congreso, y demás, mientras los burócratas que cometieron estas inexcusables acciones no reciben ningún tipo de reprimenda ni castigo. Después de todo, sólo “hacían su trabajo”, como los de Nurenberg.

Efectivamente, no hay diferencias entre las acciones de los nazis, los comunistas, o el gobierno estadounidense. Ni siquiera es un asunto de grado: esa brecha se está cerrando. Todos los gobiernos de todo el mundo en todo momento de la historia son en esencia lo mismo. Miles de años de experiencia avalan la idea de que no pueden ser “reformados”. Su naturaleza básica lo impide: por ello deben ser abolidos por completo. La supervivencia y el progreso de los seres humanos libres depende de ello.

Artículo original publicado por Alex Knight III el 26 de octubre de 2009.

Traducido del inglés por Joaquín Padilla Rivero.

Nadie tiene el “derecho”, en circunstancias normales, de usar o amenazar con el uso de la violencia a alguien para controlar su vida o su propiedad. De hecho, cada uno de nosotros tiene la obligación moral de no entrometernos con el resto de seres humanos de esa forma. Sin embargo, en el mágico mundo del Estado y sus policías, inspectores de Hacienda y politicuchos, esa intromisión no sólo resulta aceptable, sino imprescindible para la convivencia. Tal es la naturaleza intrínseca del gobierno.

Así, al votar en las elecciones, un votante manifiesta su conformidad con este comportamiento inmoral e indefendible intelectualmente, siquiera por interposición. No, señor o señora votante, no es usted quien apunta al contribuyente con una pistola, ni quien lanza al fumeta a la celda, ni quien encarcela al poseedor de un arma totalmente pacífico. Puede que ni siquiera sean los políticos que usted votó. Sin embargo, al votar y consolidar la continuación del gobierno con ese gesto, usted está contratando mercenari@s para que realicen esas tareas por usted. Está aprobando la violencia y el latrocinio que son inherentes al Estado.

La buena noticia es que la mayoría de la gente no vota, ora porque no quieren, ora porque no satisfacen los criterios del gobierno para hacerlo. Eso implica que sólo habría que llevar este mensaje a una minoría de individuos. Sin embargo, sería interesante llevar estas ideas a quienes no votan, puesto que aunque ya están haciendo bien al abstenerse, suelen mostrar los mismos puntos de vista sobre política que aquellos que votan. Es bueno tratar de cambiar eso. Eso sí, si consideramos las razones por las que la gente no va a votar (“No hay nadie de mi agrado”; “No me interesa la política”; “El sistema está amañado”; “Estoy ocupado, tengo facturas que pagar”) es evidente que 1) existe una desconfianza y un desprecio del gobierno y que 2) la vida, el trabajo, la familia y el tiempo libre del no votante son más importantes para él que los enredos de los burócratas y políticos. Eso es sano.

Decir que usted tiene un “derecho” al voto confiere poder al gobierno, no a usted ni a nadie más. Es como decir que usted tiene el derecho de contratar asesinos y ladrones para obtener lo que usted quiere a costa de alguien, lo cual no se puede justificar jamás. Cada uno de nosotros tiene la obligación de no matar, no robar, y de tratar a los demás como iguales de forma abierta, honesta y pacífica. Incluso al registrarse para votar usted ya contraviene esos principios esenciales de una sociedad libre y próspera. Si ya está registrado, debería pensar no sólo en dejar de votar, sino en eliminar su nombre de los registros de voto [en EE.UU uno ha de registrarse en el censo electoral, al contrario que en España donde todo ciudadano mayor de 18 años ya está registrado]. No es difícil, conozco gente que lo ha hecho sin problema… Pero no es ahí a donde quiero llegar.

Usted tiene una obligación moral de no votar. Cumpla con ella.

Artículo original publicado por Alex R. Knight III el 9 de septiembre de 2009.

Traducido del inglés por Joaquín Padilla Rivero.

This lame response is in no way limited to Nazis. In fact, it’s a typical bureaucratic excuse from every government agent on earth when the inevitable abuses and horrors of such backward institutions are exposed. It’s as if the simple invocation of “I have my orders” somehow magically absolves any bureaucrat who acts on such edicts from any and all forms of independent moral judgment. The bureaucrat, earning his or her tax-funded paycheck, is permitted — nay, expected — to behave like a wind-up toy, a pre-programmed robot incapable of any deviation from his or her master’s directions. And at the end of the day, when natural rights are violated, when real human beings end up deprived of their property and/or hurled into cages, when live people end up dead — every bureaucrat pleads “helpless automaton.”

Tyrants throughout history have used such twisted logic to rationalize their actions. At Hitler’s trial following the 1925 Beerhall Putsch, he stated openly to the German court, “What judgment this court will render, we already know. But in the eyes of history, I have already been acquitted.” Fidel Castro, on trial in Cuba for the 1956 attack on the Moncada Army Barracks issued his now famous speech, “History Will Absolve Me.” And in a less grandiose yet equally heinous fashion, all across the modern American landscape, every single day, police use such ill-crafted reasoning to justify shooting a “suspect.” Soldiers use it in order to clear themselves of any transgression after killing civilians either as “collateral damage,” or, in some cases, deliberately.

That human beings will actually kill in the name of defending the entirely false and fictitious precepts upon which governments rest is a grim and frightening indication of how deep into the psyche repeated conditioning and propaganda can reach.

It is precisely the undoing of this horrible phenomenon that anarchism seeks to achieve.

Whether Mr. Kunz is found guilty in a government court or not misses the point entirely; indeed, merely serves to perpetuate the “good government” versus “bad government” myth. We must reject holding human beings to different and separate moral standards than based on whether or not they are in government employ. All of us have a natural obligation to respect the lives and property of others — and a natural right to expect the same from all others. Anything less is not liberty. And government, by its very nature, will always fall woefully short of that ideal.

The portion of government dealing with “national security” matters now involves more than 1,200 separate agencies working in collusion with 1,900 private companies at roughly 10,000 different physical locations. 854,000 people now have top-level government security clearance to pursue “counterterrorism intelligence.” These individuals produce 50,000 separate reports per annum. To quote Brooks: “A flow of paper so great that many are completely ignored.”

Obamacare created 183 brand new government agencies, commissions, panels, and bureaus. Examples? The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program. The Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. The Cures Acceleration Network Review Board. The Independent Medicare Advisory Council. And so on. New teams of “experts” were placed within the Office of Personnel Management to regulate insurance companies in health care transactions, and to survey statistics to determine, allegedly, which medical treatments and practices “work best and most efficiently.” Visions of Nazism, anyone? And, the FBI and BATFE, under Obamacare, can troll anyone’s medical records to bar firearms ownership. On top of all of this, 2011 will see all-time record tax hikes to pay for all of this wonderful and oh-so-necessary intrusiveness.

The recent financial reform law was 2,319 pages of bureaucratic banter — seven times longer than the last five banking laws combined. It also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council — a body of, again, “experts” directed to write rules and regulations in 243 separate areas. To briefly, if incredibly, quote Brooks again: “Government experts were told to take a complex, decentralized system — in this case the financial markets — and impose, rules, rationality, and order.”

I see. Just like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao wanted “rules, rationality, and order.”

I submit to you in an appeal to reason that no society, however big, or populated, or industrialized, or militarily supreme can long survive under the strangling dead weight of such monstrous interventionism and top-heavy centralism. The ultimate premise of Brooks’s article is that history will look back on the period we are living through at present in very different ways, depending upon the outcome. In one case, Brooks says, we’ll have all witnessed “powerful evidence” that central regulations that can “organize” society and commerce.

Where was Brooks when the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc fell?

Alternatively, he adds: “If the reforms fail … then the popular backlash will be ferocious. Large sectors of the population will feel as if they were subjected to a doomed experiment they did not consent to.” He goes on to add that these people will feel as if society “has been hijacked by a self-serving professional class mostly interested in providing for themselves.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling that way already, and have been for a long time. I never consented to any of this — in particular because I refuse for that very reason to vote. History has already shown us, time and again, that centralized government planning only leads to destitution and despotism. That America, under a political government, is rapidly escalating into a full-blown police state is more than evident. No amount of voting, or “reform,” or seeking political solutions of any kind is going to end this spiraling whirlwind of bureaucratic madness. It’s time get sane. It’s time to simplify. It’s time to reject government altogether, and dump it into the garbage can of history.

It is perhaps no one’s place to pass judgement on those latter two questions. My guess is that it’s up to survivors of such horrible events to determine for themselves how best to celebrate their deliverance, or to try and forget it as each prefers. I prefer, rather, to focus on the “one of history’s greatest tragedies” statement. It’s a phrase that seems to imply that, in the case of Nazi Germany, government got a little too out of hand, but that, with proper limitations – and perhaps a slightly different philosophy underpinning it — other governments might be all right, or even desireable. It a phrase that seems unable or even unwilling to acknowledge that governments — regardless of the nomenclature used in each individual case to justify their existences — remain at root fundamentally the same. To wit, that each presumes to dominate the lives and properties of the populations ostensibly subject to their rule without obtaining the express consent to do so from each and every member of that populace. The rest is just a matter of degree. Yes, there is a difference between the level of individual liberty present in America 2010 and Germany 1942. Yet, the fundamental manner in which both governments operate and operated respectively remains essentially the same: Plunder at the barrel of a gun, and imprisonment or death for all those who do not obey its edicts. No government ever really deviates from this basic aggressive and wholly arrogant policy.

No doubt, Mr. Kohn’s dancing is at least in part on the grave of Nazi Germany, and those who fueled its sadistic machinery in the first place: the camp guards and kommandant, the SS, the Wermacht; Himmler, Goering, and Hitler himself. But this is merely like pruning branches on a dark and malignant tree, instead of cutting at its roots. It was and is, in truth, not simply the Nazi German version of government that allowed such atrocity to take place, but the very concept of government itself. Never mind that the conditions imposed upon Germans by the victorious governments of the First World War led indirectly to the Nazis’ rise — look at the idea of government itself, what it does in practice rather than myth and hollow theory, and it becomes readily apparent at once that this is the real problem. It becomes apparent that Nazi Germany was really nothing more nor less than a logical extension of all government, all politics, and where it invariably leads.

Dance, Mr. Kohn, by all means. But let us soon join you in dancing not just on the grave of Nazism, but also on that of the most hideous, destructive, and intrusive abomination ever spawned by man: All governments, everywhere.

Just to cite a few examples, the lowest taxpaying wage earners will pay five percent more than they do now. Those inheriting estates worth over one million dollars will pay a crushing 55% tax. Capital gains taxes will go up another five percent, and dividends taxation will more than double from 15% to almost a whopping 40%. Any and all charitable contributions from IRAs will be banned outright.

How did any of this usury get started? The typical statist answer, of course, is to blame Obama and the leftist Democrats for heavy government spending and jamming socialism down everyone’s throat — as if Republicans had nothing to do with any of these tax hikes. And for that matter, then, where have Republicans ever made a serious effort to rescind and repeal these taxes and abolish the IRS? A few, like Ron Paul, have introduced bills to do just that, but those that even made it out of some preposterous conference committee only received a laughable handful of votes.

The real reason this institutionalized slavery exists is fundamentally inherent to the nature of governments themselves. All of them. Democracies, dictatorships, republics, you name it. In order to exist in the first place, governments must steal the earnings of others by force (or by the very real threat of it) in order to finance all the police, guards, soldiers and other agents of the State who work for it. It must also, in addition to providing loot and weapons to its employees in order to insure loyalty, convince them — at least to a certain degree — that what they are doing and defending is both noble and necessary. That without such enforcers as themselves, the world as they know it will descend into butchery, rioting, bloodshed, and chaos. As if governments themselves are not both directly and indirectly responsible for inciting such behaviors on a far greater and more destructive scale than any other groups of individuals.

Markets, which are voluntary and peaceful mechanisms, produce prosperity and hence, peace. Governments only plunder and destroy. They produce precisely nothing — except tyranny and misery. They exist, contrary to popular mythology, only to consolidate their power and continue to exploit and enslave the non-political class. That is their only true purpose.

As 2011 approaches, might it not be wise to consider that the impending further plunder and extortion that will begin in January is both wholly unnecessary, and in fact, nothing short of evil? It cannot be “reformed” by any voting, or calling for the politicians and bureaucrats to change. It can only be ended outright. And that happens when no one, out of a sense of personal honor and decency, wants to work for government anymore. I never have, have never wanted to, and never will. Before governments steal any more of your life, property, and liberty, won’t you join me?

To begin, Mr. Fearful of Retaliation from Those Bad Anti-Government Types characterizes as “flawed logic” the rationale by the five affirming judges that a militia is a group of common people banding together for purposes of mutual defense. What else is it or can it be? A government entity? Get real.

Further, he wants readers to quail at the hobgoblin of gun violence by stating that inthe Windy City in 2009, 258 public school students were shot last year – 32 died. While this is unquestionably a tragedy, it is really a more potent case against government schools and the atmosphere of bullying, clanship, and animosity they inherently produce. The writer totally ignores studies such as John R. Lott, Jr.’s “More Guns, Less Crime” – demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that gun ownership deters criminals, and stops as many as 2,000,000 crimes from being committed in America each year, often without any shots fired. Indeed, in every unbiased study by any group – ranging the full gamut of the political spectrum – statistics bear Lott’s research out.

Yet, angrily and most arrogantly, the writer states that “Mayors and state lawmakers will have to … keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws – to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials.”

Ah, yes: Those wearing government costumes and receiving government paychecks (stolen tax revenues) are always superior to the dumb unskilled peasantry, aren’t they? Especially since every court ruling in America at every level of the State-monopolized dispute resolution system have concluded that the police – and other government entities – are under no obligation to protect you or I. But you’d better damned well pay those taxes, chump…or we’ll shoot you. That’s our version of protection.

This deluded individual also claims that, in response to gun rights groups, “Officials will have to press back even harder.” Oh, the noble bureaucrat, only striving to do what’s moral, just, and true – pitted against the evil of those whose wish is to be independent, sovereign, and in control of his or her own life and property. Such people make the editorialist in question grind his teeth and pull out his hair in rage and frustration. How dare they protect themselves! How dare they not go along with the will of politicians and bureaucrats! The court is ignoring bloody reality!

And what else is new, mate? The court always ignores reality – like all government – by virtue of the fact that it even exists. No group self-appointed authoritarians has any legitimate right to dictate edicts that in any way effect your person or property, or mine; your liberty or mine. Lysander Spooner talked all about it way back in 1850 in his essay “The Constitution of No Authority.” I could care less what the Second Amendment says or doesn’t say, in the end. Natural law always trumps artificial, meaningless government “law” every time. I exist, and that automatically means I have every right to defend myself and my property with whatever weapons I choose. End of story.

So take that and get lost, Mr. Scared Anonymous – and while your’e at it, take the arrogant, worthless government you revere and identify with so much right along with you. No thinking man has any use for it.

To be sure, Porcfest was not a strictly anarchist event. There were Libertarian Party activists, Alex Jones “Infowarrior” –style constitutionalists, gun rights supporters, neo-hippies, and all manner of folks seeking greater freedom from government. I saw a license plate that said, MINIGOV. There were even two New Hampshire “state representatives” present. My overarching sense, however, was that anarchists and zero-government ideas predominated. I began to develop a distinct feeling that minarchism (that is, the philosophy of small government, for the uninitiated) as a prospective solution among freedom-seekers was a dying creed. This should make no one sorry. Within this movement, I don’t think there’s any longer a question that free-market anarchy is winning.

The crowd’s activities were entirely peaceful, and varied: Vendors sold food, tee-shirts, books, jewelry, and even ammunition. Liquor was sold without any government license.
People openly carried firearms. A lesbian couple got married in a non-state sanctioned ceremony. I didn’t personally witness any pot-smoking, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t any. Old friends reunited, and new friendships were forged. And a record number of freedom-lovers turned out.

Another observation was the crowd demographic: At least half of those in attendance were on the younger side – mostly under 30. In many cases, there was little distinction in appearance between Porcfest attendees, and the flower-children who were at Woodstock over 40 years ago. The big difference now, however, are the ideas. And as events like Porcfest grow and grow, that will become increasingly important. Witness that the hippie movement of the 1960s withered because of two cardinal flaws: One, that Marxism is good and moral, and capitalism bad and evil. Two, that it was perfectly okay to use those college degrees they earned in order to get elected into the system of government so as to change it from within. Comforting is the thought that such gross misperceptions will not apply this time around. And the energy and enthusiastic, inquisitive nature of these twenty-somethings is encouraging. My experience showed that they were interested in asking real and relevant questions and getting practical answers in return. Just maybe, this generation is learning, and has something meaningful and rational to say.

I was also humbled by having the amazing opportunity to participate in a couple of anarchist roundtable discussions with friends both old and new. Chaired by Marc Stevens of the No-State Project and author of Adventures in Legal-Land, the videotaped sessions included my long-time friend Jim Davies, Pete Eyre of the Motorhome Diaries, Author and hardcore anti-income tax activist Larken Rose, and later – Stephan Molyneaux, author and host of freedomainradio.com. Libertarian luminaries all, being able to discuss and answer questions with these fellows shoulder to shoulder was very exciting and a great honor. Everywhere we went, people competed to videotape us or get to meet with us. If there is such a thing as being a libertarian celebrity, then that was us. I got a further sense that lots of people – an ever increasing number – are reading anarchist material online and getting their heads turned around by it. “Tune in, turn on, drop out (of government)?” It works better now, I think, than it ever did in the sixties.

And the technology, of course, is different. A lot of computer, Internet, and media savvy was in evidence at Porcfest. Far from having to rely only on live speeches, underrground newspapers, and pirate radio stations, we now have through the Computer Revolution a means of communicating with each other and the world such as has never yet been realized in human history. The ramifications of this for the dissolution and collapse of government are staggering. By making ever increasing use of alternative media and its accompanying technology, it is now within the grasp of anarchists to form a significant enough population minority to seriously threaten the continued power of the State. Once the landslide starts, I don’t see much of any lasting effect that can stop it. As Henry David Thoreau said, “When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished.” I am of the opinion that we are, at long last, on that very road.

Finally, I think what an event like Porcfest shows is that, even though there still remain some differences between various wings of the Freedom Movement, they are not nearly as significant as the similarities: A spirit of deep tolerance and mutual respect for individualism. A willingness to learn different viewpoints, yet all concepts predicated upon and within the context of a peaceful, voluntary society. Respect for the life and property of others without interference. And, of course, an utter rejection of the violence and coercive force which is the underpinning of all political governments. As previously stated, I think that the minarchists and patriot groups are more and more themselves beginning to see this.

I think I’ll almost definitely be attending Porcfest 2011, and I hope that if you’re reading this, whoever and wherever you are, that you’ll join me. We at the Center for a Stateless Society wish to be uncompromising in our pursuit of logic, truth, and liberty – things only possible in a tangible and workable sense in a world set free from the barbaric destructiveness and irrational violence of government. We are here to provide as many people as possible with the intellectual and moral tools by which to make the case for free-market anarchism, and thereby radically change the future to one of peace and nearly unlimited bounty. Government, throughout history, has been tried in every conceivable form, and look around you at the results. We can and will achieve liberty. And the sooner you help, the faster we’re going to get there.

Coke, revered by a large segment of the Jamaican population, has used a large portion of the proceeds from the alleged sale of these products to distribute food to the needy, send children to school, and build hospitals in his homeland.  Some locals even equate Coke to figures such as Robin Hood or Jesus.  While this may be a bit overblown to some, it does not extinguish the fact that these are private efforts – in spite of what Coke’s real motivations may or may not be – to supplant both inadequate and confiscatory government action with voluntary independent welfare.  It is simply being supposedly financed by the sale of items of which governments disapprove of altogether (drugs), or seek to severely restrict (guns).  Governments everywhere, after all, feel their monopoly on violent coercive force is threatened when it cannot tax that which it wishes to demonize, and when non-governmental individuals are capable of defending themselves.

It runs deeper, however:  Consider that in order for the Jamaican State to affect Coke’s initial arrest, 76 people in and around Kingston had to die.  Coke’s supporters must’ve had some reason to risk life and limb in order to prevent his kidnapping by government agents – some reason to consider Coke more valuable to them than the State.  Would these people have ever fired on police with their weapons if Coke had simply been left alone?  Would 76 people have died from cannabis or cocaine use in the same time period?  Was the public danger of narcotics and gun possession so great, that it justified this kind of aggressive slaughter initiated by the Jamaican government – obviously under tremendous political pressure from the American one to do so?

I’m not trying to say, necessarily, that Chris Coke was or is a saint.  I’m simply pointing out that when any rational person examines the net effect of the entire tableau, it is far better in any long run to tolerate people ingesting certain substances into their bodies as they see fit, owning whatever weapons they prefer to defend themselves, and leaving be those who choose to be agoristic entrepreneurs by buying and selling such items.  That, compared to the violent intrusion of government, financed on a compulsory basis by taxation applied almost universally to everyone.  Jamaicans were forced to finance the slaughter of those 76 people by their own government, while they will now lose Coke’s philanthropy.  Americans, by proxy, also financed it, and will now foot the bill for Coke’s transportation to the U.S., his trial, his support and upkeep while in custody – and, if he is found “guilty” – his subsequent imprisonment in an American federal gulag.

Don’t even try to convince me that this is a more agreeable situation than the aforementioned.  I’m an anarchist, and so too used to utilizing my powers of logic: Something governments are not, and never will be, predicated upon.