A new approach to reach people?

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

I posted this rant on my Facebook page, so it's geared for a very statist audience, but I was wondering what you guys thought & if it might be a good idea to retool our approach to introducing people to anarchism. I think this is the thrive movie approach:

 

I'd go for a totally voluntary and optional government.

 

Words can be invented & used to obfuscate reality & intention & to scare & terrorize people into conformity & compliance. Would you be surprised if I said that I'd be all for government IF all "taxes" were optional, all programs became services & products, & IF we were given the freedom to choose what government programs we wanted to pay for without fear of coercion, threats of violence, jail, or murder? If taxes & government services were optional, government would be called a business, & taxes would be called a bill for those services. While they are not optional, "taxation" is actually theft, "government" is actually organized crime, & their "services" are actually intrusions & monopolies. While there is government in its current form, or any corporation or mob using force, fraud & coercion, there is actually no freedom & this is actually not a free market. The free market, which is just me freely & willingly trading with you or anyone else I want to, has been demonized by mislabeling our current situation. If government is involved at all, taxes anything, subsidizes anything, or forces anybody to use their currency that they keep inflating, it is not a free & fair trade that is responding to natural supply & demand.

 

Maybe I would vote if all taxes would become optional. But that's not going to happen so I'm not going to waste my time pretending that I can influence anything to become better by voting. But since the word anarchy has become demonized to scare the public into believing that it equates to chaos, now we have chaos. Anarchy means without rulers. If you don't want anarchy, then you want threats to coerce your money out of you, and you want violence initiated against your neighbors for not paying off our masters.

 

So to appease everyone's anxiety we've developed over the thought of having no coercive slave masters, it might be easier for people to imagine optional taxes & services rather than no government. Until people start using words correctly & recognizing the actions of evil people for what they actually are, I'll start describing our solution this way, but it really is the same thing.

 

No politician will ever be elected who will want to put a stop to government theft & coercion, but let's pretend like that did happen & the government did make all services optional. Maybe the infrastructure would be useful to maintain order, peace, and prosperity. It would be much more than sufficient. If government became a profit driven business that didn't use coercion to gets its revenues & income, it would actually have to slim down, cut unnecessary jobs & budgets (putting most government worker parasites out of work), become more efficient & streamlined. If we saw or heard about anything the government was doing that we didn't approve of, we could actually make a difference by boycotting it & their services. Because of that, if all of government was voluntary, they would actually have to work out all their problems, inefficiencies, & evils. Only a vote with our dollars or resources to trade is a vote that actually counts. We'd actually have a say. Since we don't like war, wars would be over. Since we don't like incarcerating peaceful people, that would stop. Since some of us want to help the poor, handouts would stop. We'd stop the practice of indoctrinating children for 15000 hours that coercion was a virtue, that they could only aspire to be workers & job seekers, & to love their masters & their servitude. EVERYTHING wrong would be made right. The markets would become truly free, & much more equality would come about, because we wouldn't approve of protecting corporations from their liabilities, & bailing them out when their gambles failed. Government would become responsible & liable for any evils it perpetuates, hurting its own business. Government IS ACTUALLY a business right now, but one that is allowed to use coercion & violence to get its revenues, giving it a monopoly or else an unfair advantage in any industry it decides to get involved in, raising prices for everybody, & the debt for our unborn generations. If we made our moral standards apply to EVERYONE, without a government exemption, ALL OF THE WORLDS EVILS & INEFFICIENCIES WOULD EVOLVE THEMSELVES OUT OF EXISTENCE. If government were just another peaceful and optional business, then there would be nothing called "government." We would be our own rulers, & there would be anarchy, which would result in real order & peace.

 

All government programs people would WANT to pay for would still be provided. So there'd be optional services for roads, police, & security/protection, as long as there is demand for that product. The entire existing system can be beneficial for us ONLY if it is voluntary & optional in its nature. If you want me to move because I don't like coercion, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS VIOLENCE DONE AGAINST ME & MY PROPERTY STOLEN FROM ME. YOU HAVE BECOME AN ADVOCATE OF VIOLENCE & MURDER, & YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CAN MOVE. Now that you have this knowledge & an understanding of these higher moral standards, you have to evolve past what you've always thought & your state worship. Now that you have heard that taxation is theft, you either accept that definition, or you are compliant with evil.

[Aikenrooster]

I think a great way to reach people is to show them how much freedom they have now and how many decisions they are free to make, everyday, and ask them if they're OK with bearing the responsibility and consequences of those decisions.  Then ask them if they'd be OK with government making those decisions for them.  Then show the person how much control government has, now, and I think this would really open their eyes.

 

Whether they'd take any action, or not, is a different question.  

 

My concern with your approach, is that most people don't pay taxes now, and they are the ones who are using the government's services for free.  I think corporations and the ultra-wealthy would still be OK with funding government, as they do now, if they can still control as much of it, as they do now.  I don't think making taxes optional would enlighten people to anarchy.  I think making each American pay $50,000, this year, to balance our budget and erase our national debt, would open their eyes.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

This approach would be because people are to scared to rationally discuss life without government. I think my point is that "government" is in the wrong because they use violence & coercion, but if they didn't, there'd be no reason to get rid of "government." If they stopped using coercion & violence & we used forced to shut them down, then we'd be in the wrong. We would become the ones using threats & violence to get rid of them.

 

Not saying it would ever happen but I think it's a good argument to win people over & a good mental exercise. Would my fellow anarchists be ok with "government" if they stopped using coercion & the initiation of force?

[Aikenrooster]

This approach would be because people are to scared to rationally discuss life without government. I think my point is that "government" is in the wrong because they use violence & coercion, but if they didn't, there'd be no reason to get rid of "government." If they stopped using coercion & violence & we used forced to shut them down, then we'd be in the wrong. We would become the ones using threats & violence to get rid of them.Not saying it would ever happen but I think it's a good argument to win people over & a good mental exercise. Would my fellow anarchists be ok with "government" if they stopped using coercion & the initiation of force?

I don't think there would be a government mob, by definition, if they weren't using violence and coercion.  If people wanted to build a road, for example wouldn't they just voluntarily do it?  Why would there need to be a government if everyone were willing to sell his property(at true market value) for the road's right of way and people voluntarily invested into the company that was going to build the road, in exchange for profits derived from tolls and advertising or whatever scheme that might come to pass to make the road profitable.  The only reason government is need to build the road is to a)use eminent domain to steal land from people who don't want to sell, b)make your kids and grandkids slaves, because people don't want to pay for it today, and c)print more fiat currency in order to devalue future profits.  Without government, we wouldn't have to worry about any of those things.

 

I think Larken Rose is right when he says, "Just ignore government, and it will go away."

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

I agree on all those points. That's pretty much what I'm saying. Without violence & coercion, "government" would just be/become another company that we could do business with if we chose to.

 

In realistic terms, Molyneux has been convincing me of this: we need to educate people so that a larger percent of each generation is raised morally, & hopefully someday no one will want to work for or be part of "government" out of moral objection.

[Aikenrooster]

I agree on all those points. That's pretty much what I'm saying. Without violence & coercion, "government" would just be/become another company that we could do business with if we chose to.In realistic terms, Molyneux has been convincing me of this: we need to educate people so that a larger percent of each generation is raised morally, & hopefully someday no one will want to work for or be part of "government" out of moral objection.

I know Molyneux and a friend of man both want people to use the government as much as possible and hope that Democrats and socialists keep winning so that the government will continue to spend and collapse sooner.

But, I think I'd rather see decentralization.  I'd like to see a state like, Texas, or a province like, Alberta, secede from their respective countries.  If they can succeed, then two things will happen.  Other states would secede, AND counties or districts within those states will want to secede from their respective state/province.  Also, cities would want to secede. Then, as you can see, you'd start to have more localized government.  Hopefully, power would trickle down, and then it would just be communities governing themselves, or maybe you'd have the DROs that Stefan talks about.  7 billion monarchies would be cool.  

The more I read your OP, the more I think I like your idea.

 

What really irks me though, is that people will smile and wave at a cop, a judge, the mailman, and a soldier, all mobsters, but spit upon a convenience store cashier, a grocery store clerk, and say the most vile things to a restaurant waitress.  It should be the other way around.