Does this mean we left-libertarian market anarchists are better off embracing the Nevada GOP as a vehicle for libertarian reform? Not at all. The Nevada GOP is probably still, on balance, far from embracing radically limited government. We’re also anarchists and not interested in even very small government. I mention this, because an anarchist may still prefer an extremely tiny government to a larger one in relative terms. This would only hold true as long as government existed.

What about the option of infiltrating the Nevada GOP and striving to push it in a more radically libertarian direction? This is arguably a waste of resources that could be spent on building anarchy. We would have to hide our left-libertarian market anarchist identity. There would otherwise be a backlash against the “evil” anarchist entryists. It’s important to remember that statists at least sometimes deal with disagreement by initiating force via the government, so we left-libertarian market anarchists would be subject to said force by the Nevada GOP. As long as they continued to embrace the institution of government at least.

An interesting question is whether this will have an impact on the broader GOP. If the Nevada GOP is more successful at the polls, other state parties and even the national organization may decide to embrace its approach. This would be encouraging and have a positive impact on the politics of the U.S. It’s something to welcome, but it shouldn’t distract us from achieving anarchism. It would lighten the burden of statism on women and same-sex marriage, so there is merit in pursuing this kind of reform. As long as it doesn’t mean abandoning the goal of creating anarchy. That is our ultimate goal.

The final point to make is that this does represent progress, but it’s fairly limited. The next step is to actively embrace the pro-liberty position on both issues. Let’s encourage our GOP friends to go the distance and really embrace freedom. You can let them know that left-libertarian market anarchism is the true embodiment of the sometimes freedom friendly rhetoric of the GOP. It’s also a good idea to spread this message to your Democratic Party friends and anyone else who will listen. There is great disillusionment with the existing political system. The time is ripe for friends of freedom to convince others of the morality and practicality of our vision. It’s better to act before this despair disappears. We may never get a better time than now to act. Let’s work on creating a free society.

Há notícias do Kansas nesse sentido também. Nesta semana, os legisladores do Kansas, com base na liberdade religiosa, votaram uma proteção legal a empresas que se recusam a fornecer serviços à comunidade LGBTQ. Opositores notam que isso significa que o governo tem a tarefa de proteger comportamentos discriminatórios.

A mesma tendência é perceptível em Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio e Indiana. Alega-se que a visão de mundo socialmente conservadora é melhor para famílias e crianças — e, portanto, o casamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo deve ser banido. Uma voz dissidente, Shannon Minter, diretora legal do National Center for Lesbian Rights (em português, Centro Nacional de Direitos das Lésbicas), afirma, ao contrário, que “o estado não pode privar quaisquer grupos de pessoas de um direito fundamental com base nas visões religiosas de alguns”.

É o dinheiro dos impostos trabalhando — os argumentos políticos se resumem simplesmente a “eles deveriam apoiar ou rejeitar esta lei no plenário”. Esse é o problema fundamental com o discurso político. A retórica está presa na vertical.

Deixe-me propor, então, uma ética de liberdade? Com a liberdade, o poder social é maior que o poder do estado. Ao invés de olharmos para a estrutura vertical do governo, nós olhamos horizontalmente uns para os outros no mercado — a verdadeira arena pública.

No mercado, nós trabalhamos para comercializar bens e serviços, desenvolver federações, criar instituições e empurrar nossa sociedade para a frente. O mercado é a expressão máxima do que é de todos. Mercados libertos são mercados livres de estruturas de poder que impedem o exercício da democracia.

Não há qualquer necessidade de leis que protejam ou permitam a liberdade de associação. Os conservadores estatistam usam a retórica da “liberdade religiosa”, mas defendem uma sociedade que não chega nem perto da liberrdade. Se um grupo religioso ou civil deseja honrar um relacionamento entre indivíduos conscientes, então, em liberdade, que seja. O uso dos tribunais para bloquear esse progresso não é nada além de uma tática para marginalizar as pessoas na sociedade.

Eu não sou favorável (mas sou simpático) ao uso dos tribunais para combater essa agressão. Não lamento a existência da propriedade privada ou das trocas voluntárias — eu as defendo. Também defendo protestos passivos, boicotes e trocas mútuas. Estas devem varrer práticas empresariais regressivas do mercado. O mecanismo de mercado permite esse tipo de progresso, enquanto o mecanismo estatal atrapalha e às vezes impede as mudanças sociais. Os movimentos sociais crescem em oposição ao poder estatal — ou seja, aos conservadores estatistas e a sua sede por poder.

A história pode ser vista como uma disputa entre o poder estatal e o poder social. É hora de colocar os comuns de volta no poder. O trabalho individual dos seres humanos é capaz de construir sociedades. O poder institucional e suas amarras ao progresso estão no caminho da extinção — finalmente.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

News is coming out of Kansas on the topic as well. Just this week Kansas legislators, citing religious liberty, voted to give legal protection to businesses who refuse service to the LGBTQ community. Objectors note that this means government is charged with protecting discriminatory behavior.

The same trend is visible in Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Indiana too. Arguments claim the social conservative worldview is better for families and children — thus same-sex marriage should be banned. A voice of dissent, Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is quoted saying “the state cannot exclude any group of people from a fundamental right based on religious views held by some.”

Taxpayer dollars at work — political arguments summed up simply as “should they support or reject this bill in the capitol.” That’s the fundamental problem with political discourse. Rhetoric is stuck in the vertical.

May I propose the ethic of liberty? In liberty social power is greater than state power. Instead of looking to the vertical structure of governance, may we instead look horizontally to one another in the market — the true public arena.

In the market we labor to exchange goods and services, develop federations, create institutions and progress our societies. The market is the ultimate commons. The freed market is liberated of power structures that are hurdles to democracy.

There’s no need for a law to protect or prohibit freedom of association. Big Government conservatives use the rhetoric of “religious liberty,” but advocate a society that is anything but liberated. If a religious or civil group wishes to honor a relationship among consenting individuals then, in liberty, so be it. The use of courts block such progress – it is nothing but a tactic to marginalize people in society.

I do not advocate (but am sympathetic to) the use of courts to combat such aggression. I do not begrudge property rights or voluntary transactions — I am a proponent of them. I am also a proponent of sit-ins, boycotts and mutual exchange. The latter will run regressive business practices out of the market. The market mechanism allows for such progress while the state mechanism burdens and often halts social change. Social movements are born in opposition to state power — hence Big Government conservatives and their lust for the power structure.

History can be viewed as a race between state power and social power. It is time to put the commons back in charge. The individual labor of human beings can build society. Institutionalized power and its hurdles to progress are a dying creed — good riddance.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, A igualdade só pode ser alcançada no mercado.

The consequences of this violence are disastrous for individual liberty. This violence and bigotry makes trans* people afraid to express their gender identities. It makes us afraid to walk in certain places and times. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and gender self-determination are jeopardized by violence, bigotry, harassment, and murder.

Rather than protecting people from these crimes, the police and prison systems all too often perpetrate them. In October, a drag performer in Texas was tased by cops and died shortly after. CeCe McDonald still languishes in prison for surviving a hate crime in which her racist and transphobic attacker died. The state’s criminal justice system all too often incarcerates trans* and gender non-conforming people for defending themselves from violence.  A 2011 report found that 29% of trans* people had experienced police harassment and abuse. Is it any wonder that 46% said they “were uncomfortable seeking police assistance”?  In the struggle against gender violence and abuse, the state is not an institution we can rely on for help.  It is damage we must route around.

I hope you will take some time tonight to find a Transgender Day of Remembrance event in your community. Please take some time today to mourn the many trans* folks, especially trans women of color, who have been murdered. Trans* lives matter. Violence matters. Freedom of movement, gender expression, and gender self determination matter. Today let’s mourn our dead; tomorrow let’s fight for the living.