Abolition of statism

Abolition of statism
By
Parker Lutz

As a kid I grew up in a conservative household. There was a time when I believed what the government told me and supported its actions. In my sophomore year of high school in the summer of 2009, my world view would be forever changed. My brother showed me a documentary and the blindfold of political complacency was removed from my eyes. 

I had become a libertarian. I remained a libertarian for many years and I still believed in government. I did not know it at the time but I was being exposed to voluntarist thinking and theory on my youtube account and on Facebook. By February of 2015 I came to a startling realization. I realized that the problems we see in government are often caused by government. I came to the belief that government has neither the power, the ability, or the desire to fix the problems that it creates. If by some miracle they do fix a problem, they will inevitably create a new problem in its place. I had become a voluntarist.

Voluntarist’s believe in the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is not a radical idea but rather simple kindergarten logic. It is the belief that all human interactions ought to be mutually beneficial or “voluntary” (The Simple Voluntarist). From an early age we are taught, “don't hit and don't steal.” 

These are moral absolutes that we all agree upon. A voluntarist believes that violence in all its forms are wrong including but not limited to rape, murder, assault, theft, etc. As human beings we have the right to protect ourselves against harm brought upon us by others. “Self-defense using physical force is not an initiation of aggression, but rather a reaction to it; therefore, it is morally acceptable to use force to defend your life, the lives of others, and justly acquired property.” (The Simple Voluntarist). The non-aggression principle is the moral idea that “prohibits the initiation of force by one person against another.” (The Simple Voluntarist).

Forcing someone to have sex with you is rape. Forcing someone to give you something that they own is theft. Forcing someones to die is murder. (The Simple Voluntarist). 

Almost every person agrees with the non-aggression principle and live their life according to it, but there are plenty of people in society that violate the non-aggression principle on a daily basis under the pretext of “law”. You may be unknowingly aiding and abetting these people by supporting them and their actions, giving them money and believe their acts of initiated aggression moral and legitimate. (The Simple Voluntarist). 

Perhaps it’s best to describe first what the State is not, followed by what the State is. Many people will state that government is created through the “consent of the governed”. These two words, consent and govern, are in complete contradiction of one another. Consent is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. To govern is to control, influence, or regulate a person, action, or course of events. (Rothbard).

 Control is a very interesting word. To control something is to restrict an activity, tendency, or phenomenon. The power to restrain something, is a means of limiting or regulating something. So in other words, to govern something is to control it, and to control something is to restrict, restrain or limit something. If you are restrained you are not free. (Rothbard).

Others might say “we are the government”. The collective word “we” disguises the tyranny. If “we are the government” that which is done by the government is approved by the individual, done voluntarily and thus is not tyrannical. If a man is thrown in jail he's thought to have done so to himself. So under this same logic the 6 million jews that died during World War II died under the rule of the Nazis, were justly executed because they were participants in the democratically elected government. (Rothbard).

Since the jews were participants in an elected nazi government, anything that was done to them was just and thus, voluntary. (Rothbard). We must completely reject the fallacy that “we are the government” or that “the government is us”. It is not. If 70% of america decided to steal from the other 30% would this not be considered theft? (Rothbard). 
The State can be very easily and briefly defined as that of a parasite. It creates nothing, and maintains a monopoly on violence and the use of force. Any private individual who behaved like the government would be arrested (assuming that he wasn't shot dead first). (Rothbard).

All men are born in to the world with nothing and must use their intellect to figure out how to harvest the resources needed to secure their happiness and well being (production and labor) as well as to work with others by giving them something that has been justly acquired for something in return (free trade). What one acquires justly through the production of his labor he may sell and give away as he pleases and like wise he may buy that with which someone is willing to sell. There are only two ways of acquiring resources. The first is the economic means for which i have just dicussed. (Rothbard).

 The other is very straight forward and simplistic. This alternative method is done through one sided robbery, theft coercion, and the confiscation of one’s wealth. This is known as the political means. The producing of goods and services and trading them through voluntary engagement is natural, for it provides for the benefit of everyone involved. (Rothbard).

The acquiring of goods through theft on the other hand only brings destruction in the long run because any person who commits these acts is in essence a parasite. They add nothing to society and instead subtract from it. This reduces the willingness of laborers to provide above and beyond there own needs and inevitably the victim is sucked dry. Once the source of the thieves livelihood is gone the thief must find a new victim or die. Even in the short run the thief acts in contrast to that of his best interests. (Rothbard). 

Now that we have a clear understanding of the two means of resource acquisition the State can be more fully understood as to what it is. The economic (voluntary) and the political (coercive) we can come to a full understanding of what the state really is. The state is the full use of the political means of acquiring resources by looting and plundering everyone in a geographical area. They maintain a steadfast monopoly on violence and coercion and use the law as their justification. (Rothbard).

Imagine for a moment that bandits go into Chicago and kill all those who would serve as protectors of the productive class. These bandits in essence become the new rulers of Chicago and rather than looting the city would peacefully occupy the established area only requiring that those they rule over pay a small tribute every so often. The bandits had transformed themselves in to politicians. (Rothbard).

A common fallacy that often comes up is the “social contract”. Some will say “Everyone has agreed to The Social Contract, which gives the State the right to control people "for the greater good" (or insert other excuse), taxing them and forcing them to follow laws.” (Voluntarist Wiki). CS Lewis once said that “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Thomas Jefferson said “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” In his book The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner wrote “It is manifest that the only security against the tyranny of the government lies in forcible resistance to the execution of the injustice; because the injustice will certainly be executed, unless it be forcibly resisted.” His first inaugural address Ronald Reagan said “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.” (Ronald Reagan). It is clear to people that the social contract is fallacious in nature, and in order to disprove this fallacy we must have a clear understanding of what a contract is and the social contract theory. Social contract theory is “Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.” (The Simple Voluntarist). 

This so called social contract failed to meet the proper legal definition or characteristics of a contract. A contract is “An agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are “offer” and “acceptance” by “competent persons” having legal capacity who exchange “consideration” to create ‘mutuality of obligation.’” By government standards the social contract is unenforcible. There are several things that must be present in order for a contract to be legally enforceable. (The Simple Voluntarist).

A contract must be voluntary, entered into “Without Duress” (without the threat of harm), Both parties must be “Competent”, There can be no “Undue Influence”and  there must be a “Mutuality of Obligation”. From the moment you are born you are entered into the social contract against your will. Failure to acknowledge the social contract will be met with force against you, thus you are under duress. (The Simple Voluntarist). Because you are entered into the social contract from birth you are not legally considered competent. (The Simple Voluntarist).

“Undue influence involves “one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.” This one is obvious. Under the “Social Contract”, one of the parties employs legions of armed men and possesses a seemingly endless amount of power and resources.” (The Simple Voluntarist). If there is no mutual obligation no contract exists. In the event that one party fails to uphold the ends of their contract recourse must be taken. 

The United States Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect you, even if you are a woman who has obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband. (The Simple Voluntarist). On June 22, 1999 Jessica Gonzolas called the Castle Rock police in order to get them to arrest her estranged husband who had abducted her three children. Simon Gondolas had on that night violated a court order which stated that he remain no less that 100 yards away. “He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver. Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck.” (The Simple Voluntarist). 

Police officers will state that “The No. 1 duty of a police officer is to go home to his or her family at the end of the shift. It is not to protect you from violent criminals, it is to protect themselves.” (the simple voluntarist). In many ways one could make an effective argument that this mindset, is the reason we see so many unsettling police shootings and why we continue to see them on a constant basis. 

“You get what we saw on that video released last week showing Dallas police shooting a mentally ill man nonchalantly holding a screwdriver in his hands. You get the questions swirling around the shooting death last month of an unarmed man said to be approaching a Grapevine officer with his hands raised. It would explain other such shootings in situations that seemed to pose no immediate threat to officers. Maybe it’s time to quit nodding along and question the maxim that going home at the end of the day trumps all other considerations.” (The Simple Voluntarist).    
The government forces us to pay for its services despite the fact that it has no obligation to provide said services. In the even that you should be in danger and call the police and they don't show up, you have no legal recourse. If you experience such lack of service from a private company you can sue to get your money back. “If the government had the same obligation, everyone affected by 9/11 would get a large refund.” (The Simple Voluntarist). 

The government breaks the contract any time they fail to protect someone from harm or anyone whose right were violated. In legal standard, the social contract fails. At best the social contract is invalid and at worst it is criminally fraudulent. There is nothing legitimate or legal about the belief that because you were born in a country and have not moved, that the government has the right to infringe on your rights and forcibly take your money to pay for a service that the have no obligation to provide. (The Simple Voluntarist).

“The entire argument underpinning a government’s legitimate authority over a “country” and its “citizens” is false in its premise, and incredibly flawed in practice.” (The Simple Voluntarist). It is an absurd belief that government must violate your rights to protect your rights. 

Since government steals from the productive members of society in order to maintain itself, creates a violent monopoly by force, and has committed blatant acts of fraud we have no choice but to once and for all conclude the American experiment and to end the State altogether. Only after the state is abolished can we finally be free. 

Work Cited
Ronald Reagan .. "Government Is the Problem" Perf. Ronald Reagan. Rickey Pickles, 2009. Film.
"VOLUNTARYISM IN SIMPLE TERMS." Simple Voluntaryism. Simple Voluntaryism, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
G, J. "Social Contract." Voluntarist Wiki. Voluntarist Wiki, 4 June 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
Jefferson, Thomas. "Tyranny Quotes." Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Lewis, C.S. "Tyranny Quotes." Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Rothbard, Murray. The Anatomy of the State. Auburn: Ludwig Von Misses Institute, 2009. Print.
Spooner, Lysander. "Tyranny Quotes." Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.