The Elephant in the Room

You don't have to be a genius to connect the dots. Let's have a look at what the US government has been up to since 9/11.

1) The PATRIOT Act- warrantless wiretapping on everyone, through the NSA.

Why would a government that trusts its citizens even enact such legislation? We were told it was to fight terror, but al Qaeda has only grown in strength and this wiretapping program completely fails to stop all forms of domestic terrorism. Even when the shooter uploads youtube videos telling what he plans on doing hours in advance.

2) Increased militarization of the police.
(Come on, you don't think this is for weed and prostitution busts do you?)
3) NDAA
(An act which authorizes the government to indefinitely hold people up without trial or due process. It has already been passed and signed into law)
4) Off shore prisons that circumvent US laws against cruel and unusual punishment
(Bradley Manning is alleged to be held in Kuwait, I'll leave the readers to find details out for themselves)

Sarcasm aside, it should be obvious what the US government is doing. Citizens or allies which are happy don't need constant watching or military police. Whether you come from the right or left, by now you should be aware that you can't trust the people we have in power.

It's likely the US is heading down the path of skepticism against its own citizens that many empires before it have gone through. Secret police, lack of habeaus corpus, and a declining middle class are all signs that oligarchy has taken over, and don't care or are incompetent to protect the middle class from themselves. It shouldn't be a surprise then, that in this sort of society we have people going around shooting cops.

I'm sorry, but that's natural law. When you have a society in which people hate their leadership, have guns, have been pissed off for years, you are going to get dead cops. Let me put that in a mathematical equation.

Poor people + guns + really bad leadership = dead cops

Therefore it should also come as no surprise that we're going to have some people that advocate killing cops as a clear message to Washington that the people of America are not to be trifled with. It's not just the libertarians. Communists, religious radicals, and even government officials themselves can have a bad habit of killing cops when things just aren't going their way. It's part of the job for cops, to enforce the will of the nation state even if that puts their life in danger.

With the recent shootings in Canada and Las Vegas being perpetrated by individuals that have libertarian-ish ideals about government, conservatives and pro-gun advocates in general are slowly being transformed into the nation's next "hated group". For a long time, this group has been Muslims. Despite the fact that Muslims often hold different beliefs, the government felt comfortable treating them as a giant group of terrorists that might be working on something nefarious at any given moment. The same sort of suspicion is being applied by government to libertarians and conservatives today, and ironically everything conservatives supported doing to Muslims after 9/11 will probably be done to them, but I digress.

Soon after the shootings, Facebook pages such as Copblock, FilmingCops, and other libertarian pages began to take blame for these shootings. It wasn't long before Christopher Cantwell's articles on shooting cops was also found, along with Larken Rose's video which asked the question about when it was acceptable to shoot at cops. Cantwell's blog became widely read to represent the views of libertarians and Adam Kokesh (a libertarian podcaster) also declared the shootings "not necessarily  unjustified violence", citing police killings and enforcement of the drug war as indefensible.  Soon posts such as this began to spring up, attempting to shame and ridicule Kokesh and Cantwell away from any association with the libertarian movement.

There is a serious problem though, with shaming people like Cantwell and Kokesh for expressing their honest opinions. Their opinions are not being subjected to logical scrutiny at all. Reactions against them range from "Isolate him now" to "He's fat/ stupid/ lazy". All of these are grounded in fear. When the mind can't figure out a real argument, this is the only option the fearful mind sees. They're likely not even expressing their honest views, these are a strategic move against the government or NSA from associating them with anyone violent. That strategy ignores the fact that the government isn't that sloppy and if it really wanted to cleanse society of radicals, there is probably a treasure trove of evidence against them in their digital footprints.

The shaming of people for expressing opinions others don't want to hear is quite telling of their anxiety. Nobody shames a Muslim radical for saying "death to America", nobody takes crazy Muslims seriously anyway. But if average white guys start saying things like that, it causes anxiety because they're not religious fanatics and reasonably credible as "regular guys". Therefore, truly having to confront this question causes fear and dread in people. This fear-based reaction is worrying for multiple reasons though. For one, it discourages people from ever raising a voice against the state.

When is too far? At what point do we consider the corruption in Washington and the lack of accountability within police departments to be "too much"? This is the elephant in the room within our ex-free society today, we are all left to decide where this line needs to be.

It's a perfectly fair question, and by shaming people against asking it, we inadvertently squash the will of others to voice themselves. This is the only way it's possible for people to be taken in trains to concentration camps where they know they'll be killed without any struggle or whimper. People only do that when they know that their fellow civilians will not support them in resistance anyway. By shaming people who ask the question about limits to the people's forgiveness of the government, we also give way and encourage the government to continue doing what it's doing.

I'm not saying everyone now has to agree with Cantwell and Kokesh, but their question is a valid concern and can be responded to without discouraging the question itself.

For example, "Mr. Cantwell I respectfully disagree but I don't think escalating violence is going to be good for the liberty movement."

For the record, this author thinks peaceful evolution and nonviolent parenting is the way to progress society out of this mess. (Or do I? Am I saying this under duress?)

Violent overthrow of the state is probably impossible by untrained and ill equipped militias, it would take a military coup to change anything real. This is exactly what led Rome out of being a republic as well. My general rule is to look at Roman history to find out what's going to happen next for America.

Natural Law

Natural law is an important topic, and almost never gets discussed in depth, but somehow inevitably ends up in the conversation. This is because it's not properly defined for most people, and many times it gets brought up without anyone having heard that this is a real noun with a word and full definition.

"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it."

- Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

     In other words, it's actually just law based on science. Natural law always gives us many options for how individual and groups can behave with one another. Natural law is determinable by (near)everyone with their sense of empathy, provided they didn't have it destroyed through trauma in their development phases. Most people have some idea of what empathy is, but few have the mental focus to combine what is learned from empathy and always commit it to real conduct outside. 

     Natural law is a law based on feelings and messages (both verbal and nonverbal, if applicable). It is the knowledge that certain messages will create certain feelings within the receiver, which are meant to provoke a response for the sender to acknowledge. We all have a basic knowledge about how these cause and effect relations work by the time we're adults. These are simply common laws of nature most people accept without hesitation. 

For example (generally speaking):

- Don't physically attack anyone without cause, that will provoke a strong negative response from everyone.

- Don't be passive aggressive with members of your family, the other person get the real message later rather than sooner.

- Don't invade a home in which the owner has a gun. Anything can happen.

- Don't try to kidnap a bear's cubs. The mother bear will attempt to kill you.

These statements are all rooted in causal relationships reasonably expected in general from the nature of reality. Kids may have problems understanding these relationships, but overtime people learn through experience and also learn to figure out misunderstandings without escalating conflicts anymore than necessary. Among individuals, this is natural law. Most individuals get along with one another perfectly well through this "common legal system of the people".

Groups and governments also know this legal system is commonly understood by their allies and opponents, but often act in complete disregard of these principles. Betraying common law is never without cost though, which the government can only recuperate by threatening and stealing from the citizens through taxes and inflation. Natural law also dictates this can't work forever. A blundering government constantly seeking to cover up their mistakes by passing the costs to other will soon find itself with no more hosts left.

There are other ways people misinterpret natural law as well. 

Notice the teacher telling the child his natural right to sit and stand came from the state. However, only a state can obstruct a natural right (such as to sit during a pledge) through violence. The state can't "grant" this natural option to a paraplegic, only to people who possess the right to stand or sit naturally already.

- When government bans a drug, the drug is never eradicated. The market simply moves underground and cartels may take over if the trade is lucrative enough. Open markets eliminate cartels, and the government is simply on a mad quest to fight human nature (or economics) itself. Most supporters of the drug war believe enacting the law keeps the drug under control, when in fact the higher black market prices encourages producers.

- When a parent punishes their child for doing wrong, it teaches the child nothing about why what they did was wrong, only that they shouldn't be caught doing it. The parent erroneously believes punishment proves to the child the activity is no longer a good idea.

- When a couple engages in hurtful "mind games" with itself. Each member of the couple believes plausible deniability can save them from ever getting caught, but eventually the coincidences and body language changes can send the couple going toward a sudden eruption of emotion. 

Force and hurtful intentions in general, (no matter how concealed) beget resistance. This is natural law, and natural law applies to all. Naturally, most people think it's smart to be on the side of natural law.

"Communism is simply the next stage in history. Capitalism is obsolete. This is because the workers have all the real power and as soon as they realize this, communism will take over and private property can be abolished. Communism is better in all ways than capitalism at everything, and therefore its takeover is inevitable. All humans would benefit from communism, so they will fight to establish it."

"Eventually, the black market will starve the state. This is because the true producers in society will simply have too little incentive left to continue trying to prop up the American society and government, and will prefer to a voluntary system of private property. The dollar will hyperinflate, and true capitalism will be restored. Capitalism is better than all philosophies that demand non-voluntary interactions. Human nature loves capitalism and will fight to restore it. This is inevitable."

"Civilization will bring itself to a toxic climax eventually and a major ecological catastrophe will wipe out global civilization as we know it. The only people left will be those that chose to exit civilization and live in harmony with nature. The imbalance civilized people feel because of their soul-less culture causes them to "de-humanize" the environment and harm things they actually depend on. When civilization collapses, even if it's just a few native Americans high in the Andes, the time of the primitivist will return. Nature loves harmony, and the steady march of evolution will shed the non-essential parts. This is inevitable."

Many other notable historical figures and documents have cited their support and appeal for societies to conform to natural law, as best as people know it.

Natural law theories have ... exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius,Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Plato was also a fan of natural law.

According to Plato we live in an orderly universe. At the basis of this orderly universe or nature are the forms, most fundamentally the Form of the Good, which Plato describes as "the brightest region of Being". The Form of the Good is the cause of all things and when it is seen it leads a person to act wisely. In the Symposium, the Good is closely identified with the Beautiful. Also in the Symposium, Plato describes how the experience of the Beautiful by Socrates enables him to resist the temptations of wealth and sex. In the Republic, the ideal community is, "...a city which would be established in accordance with nature."

- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

The United States of course, has largely no idea what natural law is or that its government is on a mad quest to destroy it from people's minds. To think about natural law demands independent critical thinking, because by definition it is a system of ethics and reasoning which one has to look for beyond authority to find.

The Harvey Two Face Strategy in Politics

American libertarianism is finally gaining traction. We can see this evidently from polls, the increased rate of escalation of the police state, and the increased vitriolic rhetoric from state-lovers. If there was any sign truly confirming that libertarianism is growing, it would be all the forces against it rising. But the higher rate of adoption comes with many costs. Will libertarianism go the way of communism and the tea party, being hijacked by a few clever but determined people seeking power over the movement at all costs? Or will libertarianism in the United States once again become the globe's beacon that rights and liberty are real, and prove that markets can function completely independent of coercion?

The latter seems preferable but comes at a price for the current ruling class. Corporations that depend on protectionism, cheap labor, and subsidies will fight libertarianism to keep their power. Politics is like a poker game. The players are cordial to each other, but everyone knows to win the game requires complete eradication of the enemy's chips. Libertarians understand this-- that what they're asking is for the ruling class to give up its power or for the black market in some form or another to starve the state. The ruling class also understands this perfectly well.

The battle isn't between libertarians and the state yet. The battle is currently between libertarians and themselves. There are presently two narratives about society and state that will decide which way the movement will go.

1) The current state is legitimate, and reformable. It may not be perfect, but it's not as if Congress is full of ex-KGB communists. Eventually political pressure will force the state to give up most of its power, through candidates like Rand Paul who can unite the conservatives and moderates.

2) The current state is illegitimate. They are perfect in their operations, complete with all the incentives necessary to make sure the ruling class makes lots of money from the working class in America, poised to try to dominate the world, and even contains the illusion of the chance of a free society through mass media and an electoral system that largely agrees but allows occasional outliers on the political spectrum (but carefully none in positions of power to change anything real).

To examine which is true, some basic facts must be established as true or false.

For the first narrative to be true:

• Rand Paul must provide evidence he will not be corrupted and bought out.
• Rand Paul must show he plans decentralizing power away from the state, not towards it.
• Rand Paul must find a way to sway powerful interests within politics to give up power.

For the second narrative to be true:

• Rand Paul (and even Ron Paul) will provide evidence they can be corrupted and bought out.
• Rand Paul will show he is planning on centralizing power further for the state.
• Rand Paul will find a way to compromise with powerful interests for power. 

If these premises are accepted, the evidence seems glaringly biased. 

Point #1: Rand Paul must provide evidence he will not be corrupted and bought out.

After the failed 2012 presidential bid of Ron Paul, a surprising video emerged on the internet of Penny Freeman. Penny Freeman came onto Adam Kokesh's show Adam vs. The Man in an effort to disclose truth about Ron Paul that wasn't found on mainstream media airways, although one would have imagined this to be broadcast by liberals-- considering they chose instead to focus on racist writings written by someone else. Although published under his name by some trusted source, Paul's positions on the drug war, poverty, and inflation clearly prove he's genuinely concerned about upward mobility for those in the working class, the most disadvantaged of whom being minorities and non-whites. Penny Freeman broke into tears during the interview discussing how she believed Ron Paul had been bought. Adam Kokesh asked excellent, penetrating questions about the specifics, and Freeman gave details on how she believed there should not have been any chance of Ron Paul failing given the ideas he had and his track record as a Congressman. She explains that she had experience in real grassroots campaigning in Texas, and that given how much money was donated to Paul's campaign from his supporters, there should have been a monumental grassroots campaign that couldn't have failed. Instead, the campaign stayed largely online and the campaign itself was managed by Jesse Benton, an outspoken neoconservative. Many in the liberty community refer to him as an obvious RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Jesse Benton is an interesting character. Benton is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, and is currently working for Mitch McConnell. McConnell is currently the 7th most senior Senator and 4th most senior Republican. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't have any strong liberty voting record. Thomas E. Woods also had a few words to say about Jesse Benton. 

"...how much money would you have to be paid to work for an enemy of the things you’re supposed to stand for? Maybe now people will understand why Jesse would fly into a tirade after some of Ron’s most heroic moments, when the rest of us were cheering...

...Early on in the campaign I posted a note that under the circumstances I thought was astonishingly restrained. I said that if the fundraising success of 2008 was to be surpassed, the grassroots would have to be persuaded that professionals would be brought on this time, that debate coaching would take place as it does in all other campaigns, etc. Nothing could have been more obvious than that. And this was obviously the note of a friend, not an enemy.

Jesse, on the other hand, denounced me in a series of emails, and made perfectly clear that I was to be cut off from everything — the campaign, Campaign for Liberty, etc."

How was a neoconservative put in charge of Ron Paul's campaign? Perhaps it was just a mistake.

What is stranger still is how Ron Paul was still cheated out of the election at the end, as detailed here. What this means is something people can only speculate at, but evidence points to the liberty campaign being sabotaged from inside as well as outside.

Point #2: Rand Paul must show he plans decentralizing power away from the state, not towards it.

In this area, Rand Paul has a slightly mixed track record, but overall it's quite clean. For example, he is quite well known for his support for a balanced budget amendment, opposition to bailouts, rolling back military spending, opposition to unlawful searches, and opposition to gun control. Because they are well known, it makes little sense to cite them all, but they can all be read in detail here.

Point #3: Rand Paul must find a way to sway powerful interests within politics to give up power, instead of endlessly compromising to gain power for himself.

This is the most difficult (but also most important) area, and Rand Paul has been less than stellar. What's going on here?

• He supports stopping NSA wiretapping, but wants to imprison Snowden for whistle-blowing.
• He supports ending indefinite detention, but wants to keep Guantanamo open (why even keep Guantanamo open then?).
• He isn't too worried about nuclear weapons in North Korea, but willing to apply economic sanctions against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons are also available to all through the black market).
• He supports states rights deciding on gay marriage, but supports the landmark United States vs. Windsor Supreme Court decision to federally define marriage as only for heterosexual unions.
• He opposes the PATRIOT act and warrantless wiretapping because of his principles to the constitution, but endorsed an establishment republican with complete opposite stances to block a liberty democrat.
• He opposes big government picking winners and loser in the market, but supports the creation of select cities to create "economic freedom zones" of lower taxes and regulations.. picked by the state.

These are the more curious decisions he's made, which don't include obviously political moves such as opposing the federal legalization of recreational marijuana, or his pro-Israel stance. Here, Rand Paul clearly falls into the same trap as the Libertarian Party. In order to gain power and influence, he is being forced to compromise his values. There is no other explanation for some of the things he's done and said, but is it all in vain? 

The truth is, the very fact that he has to become a "Harvey Two-Face" (a character from Batman whom no one in government can tell how virtuous he is, but secretly aids Batman) proves his ambitious quest is impossible. If what voters wanted mattered, there is no reason to compromise values. His job would then just be to prove to the voters his stances are what they want and need, and pursue the path of liberty and American exceptionalism to its fullest extent (according to Paul, American exceptionalism means unapologetic pride in the founding values of America) if that's what he really believes in. This is clearly not what is happening though. Paul understands his job is to infiltrate an organization that is morally vile and soulless. He understands there is no hope of accomplishing anything meaningful without being a darling of the mainstream media, owned by America's wealthy elite. The incoming election will expose everything to the informed participant of the election, but some indications of what will happen have already surfaced. 

According to Time Magazine's Zeke Miller:

"...several donors who have had private conversations with Paul about his foreign policy said those talks have not assuaged their concerns. And unlike his father, whose intensely supportive base was fairly contained, they worry that Paul’s smoother approach could make him a contender. “Can he win Iowa, yes. Can he win New Hampshire, yes. Can he win the nomination, maybe — and that’s scary,” says one former Mitt Romney bundler at the conference who did not want to be named.

On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries."

Full text is here

Only Time can tell what will happen (pun intended), but Paul underestimates how closed the political process really is. The simple fact remains that there are extremely wealthy people with a lot to lose and many resources at their disposal, and there is no shortage of propaganda (much of which has been discussed above, but doesn't even scratch the surface) that can be used to discredit him. Democratic opposition will be undermined by the Benghazi scandal, so it's likely whoever wins the Republican nomination will take the helm of the nation.

At best, Rand Paul is the closest thing to the perfect infiltrator. Just as an evil person masquerades as a good person to wreck havoc on unsuspecting victims, Rand Paul is doing the opposite. At worst, he's a great "public works project" to the liberty movement, steering vast amounts of money and resources fruitlessly away from ways to achieve liberty outside of the political system. This may be exactly what the United States needs to millions more of disillusioned anarchists, though. If Rand Paul can't do it, then who?

Particles and Waves

There's an interesting video made by the South Park creators of one of Alan Watts' monologues about particles and waves called Prickles and Goo. In it, Alan Watts explains how the universe is neither particles nor waves. Some people (Prickles) simply choose to see the universe as rigid and seek precision in physical observances, and the other types of people (Goo) see the universe and humanity as fluid. The Prickles see the Goos as vague and unscientific, and the Goo see the Prickles as machine-like and unable to see what is human. In short, the pragmatist is the Pricke and the Goo is a romanticist.

Political thought is also strongly affected by this duality. Certain people like to believe that the only way to change the world is through violent revolution. They only see goals and ideals they want to see society in, and obstacles preventing that (cops, tanks, bullets, etc). In their world, you advance the cause of freedom solely by doing actions which remove these obstacles faster than the state can replace them. Naturally, I'll refer to these people as "the prickles" for the duration of the essay.

On the other extreme of the spectrum are the people who don't currently believe in reality as the prickles know it. These people see only waves and "vibrations" in the world. These people have varying beliefs but are often religious and believe in some form of causal relationship between unethical action and bad things happening (God's punishment, bad karma, etc.) and vice versa. Without surprise, these people will be "the goos".

Both sides have short comings. As Alan Watts said, the world is both gooey and prickly. The true and consistent prickle is the barbarian. The barbarian knows nothing about the world other than maintaining his freedom and remaining sovereign from the evil government of Rome or whoever. The barbarian prides himself on being the absolute strongest breed of human in existence and the source of nightmares for the puny civilized people. Rome doesn't dare attack him, and his tribe is the strongest militarily. For this reason, his tribe's future is safeguarded even better than the Romans. But, even the barbarian wonders about his way of life.

If the barbarian is the strongest, why does civilization belong to the civilians, and not to him?

The reason is because the barbarian is so concerned with fighting that he forgot everything about how to live and associate with others. The barbarian knows nothing about how his lifestyle and world view do not allow for stable livelihoods that focus on the development of art or technology. These are the fruits of something totally unknown to him.

On the other extreme is the superstitious hippie, who keeps a copy of The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho with her at all times and genuinely believes that good things happen to people who put out "good vibes" into the world and bad things happen to people who bring "bad vibes". The hippie prides herself on how kind she is to everyone else and how much good karma she puts into society that compounds and spreads, but also has frightening thoughts sometimes.

Why do babies die in drive by shootings? Why are so many people hungry in Africa? Why does the universe punish them like this?

These answers all lie completely outside of her mystic society in gritty empirical reality. Babies die in drive by shootings because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people are hungry in Africa because they lack resources to summon enough food from the earth. There was no "deserve" in it at all. There was just the cold truth.

Reality is simply too big for any single ideology. It is all things at once and it is none of them, and therefore it's shaped by both the particles and the waves. Governments are great at controlling physical reality by force, but often lack control over the mind. Hence the Catholic Church, North Korea, virtually every totalitarian cult knows that in order to safeguard control over people forever, you must control their minds. Kim Jong Un knows that it doesn't matter how many soldiers he has if word spread within his military that he's a completely unnecessary tyrant. The lifelong work of his father and grandfather would be made worthless if one slip-up by him causes a military coup.

Snowden also expertly made use of waves instead of particles. He kept his record clean, went through official channels before going rogue, and made his case for why he released the data meticulously clear and indisputable to any reasonable mind that it should have been done. In the end, he got exactly what he wanted from the beginning: nationwide discourse. The positions of the US government's physical forces were rendered irrelevant once he was granted asylum by Russia. Snowden protected himself with nothing but a narrative. By releasing secrets slowly to the media, he also maximized the impact by also exposing how people were willing to lie to Congress about the forms of wiretapping taking place (without penalty). Any reasonable person now knows the government is not to be trusted.

Another great example is Osama bin Ladin. Official record states that he was trained and had a fairly good understanding of how the United States' leadership worked. His plan to terrorize America achieved its objective: to make the US so angry it sent out a foolish and expensive invasion overseas to deal with him, which bankrupted the domestic economy. Bin Ladin manipulated fear of the public and corruption in the institutions to move the chess pieces into the positions he wanted them in. The plane was never meant to be his real weapon for the war, his goal was simply to provoke fear and anger among the population for the politicians like Dick Cheney to exploit.

A contrary example for particles would be David Koresh and the Waco tragedy. Koresh believed himself to be the final Messiah, and was eventually killed along with women and children in his compound. Koresh's waves never seemed to have "worked". Koresh was brutally gunned down despite his human shields, faith, and message. In this case, the particles "won" decisively. This happened because of a lack of public support for Koresh, as his church had been involved in statutory rape. There was no reason to hope Koresh's plan would stir the emotions of the public. His waves were contaminated.

How and why does this phenomenon work? To begin we have to understand why civilization happens. Civilization simply doesn't work unless the founders at least seem to be working in the interests of protecting rights that people hold dearly. Without rights there is no law, without law there is no stability. Without stability, there is no civilization. Even in our world of nuclear weapons, drones, and the national security state, the US government has to pay close attention to how much of our freedom it takes away. At a certain point, natural law dictates people would begin trying to move or escape to somewhere else. This was seen quite recently with how the government avoided creating a bloody massacre at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. This is a grim fact governments must face, something Judge John H. Wood Jr. found out too late. Judge Wood was given the nickname "Maximum John" because of his reputation for handing down long sentences for drug offences. He was allegedly assassinated by Charles Harrelson, the estranged father of actor Woody Harrelson (a notorious anarchist and 9/11 truther). Harrelson later claimed he never was actually the one to kill Judge Wood, but that someone else did and he agreed to take the blame in exchange for a large amount of money. Later Harrelson's accuser also claimed it was someone else.

Feelings, thoughts, and concepts are not imaginary. These things are as real as bullets in stopping fascism, and must be observed and used wisely. Once we understand the details of how art or documentaries can change the world, we get a taste of peaceful evolution. Those who ignore waves and focus on trying to change "real" conditions face a monumental task-- there is no hope for the world in their paradigm without a virtuous group of philosophers somehow getting the upper hand over the state militarily. Waves are always everywhere, in this sense. Many people feel strongly about children, basic human rights, or access to water. It doesn't matter how many guns the president has access to, if he's caught raping a child, swift and decisive retribution would likely follow as a wave of indignation turns his own citizens and bodyguards against him.

Many on the left, particularly those involved with the psychedelic movement are intrigued by this idea in manipulating minds and events through these sorts of values and not worrying about unchecked institutional power. Art, drugs and philosophy have been the favorites by non-violent revolutionaries for pushing positive change into the world, and for good reason. The current nation state cannot run without illusion and division. If the majority of Americans understand there is no benefit for themselves or their community to trust the state, there would be little left supporting it. Art, psychedelic exploration, and philosophy all explore the core of the mind to bring out the most bold ways to show and see what is authentically felt by the human soul.

For the individual, this is a matter of interpretation of the circumstance. Sometimes people are threatened at gun point and the particles matter. Other times we see police and the army switching sides to fight with protesters like in Egypt recently. This technically means anarchy is actually a permanent reality, and that power and particles belong to he or she who controls the waves of trust of other humans. Particles are most often moved by gangs and governments like chess pieces to change the flow of history, however waves control the minds of the individuals in government and gangs themselves.

Idealistic philosophical movements are wholly committed to the idea of waves over the long-term, and particles in the short term. The right-libertarian tactic of using non-violent parenting and compassionate upbringing is meant to change the brain chemistry in future humans. The libertarian left is currently pursuing a society based on trust which will naturally require humans to be far more empathetic than they are now. Such ambitious plans for global utopia are finally realistic within the next few generations, and the only thing needed is for the waves from the right and left of libertarianism to come to agreement and work together. True communism at the end of history will require the minds of everyone working together, and human society could function as a collective body which runs on trust, much in the same way cells in the body have transcended the need for things like credit and money. Such a society is necessary to obsolete the existing state-capitalist institutions through sheer superiority in all ways, in the same way smartphones today have destroyed the need for computers from the 1990s.

Molyneux's Inconsistency

https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

Molyneux argues for an anarcho-capitalist utopian society, but more importantly than his politics are his views on family and the "happy soul" of a person living in a non-violent, cooperative, and healthy society. In his videos he supports nonviolent communication towards others (in particular, children) that purports never to use aggressive language and favors empathizing with the unmet needs of people instead of demonizing anyone's inevitable outburst of expression of their unmet needs.

Example #1:
When a child attacks animals or pets randomly we can't accuse the child of being demonic. Instead, it makes more sense to look for why the child feels frustrated and angry enough to randomly attack non-threatening life. We may find that the child is being neglected or abused.

Example #2:
When a drug addict is taking heroin, we can't accuse that person of being a worthless hedonist. Instead, it makes more sense to look for why the addict isn't able to produce enough dopamine to get through his day without his drug. We may find he has self esteem issues or feels a lack of will or reason to push for recovery because his world is so bleak.

However

When a businessman who runs a private prison and enjoys profiting off of the slave labor of mostly non-violent poor people, he's a psychopath. He's made of evil, should be ridiculed frequently, and mocked for how empty his life is. He deserves no empathy, even though he probably had a tragic upbringing.

Would it not be more consistent with Molyneux's own philosophy to empathize with such a person and speak about them as well in a nonviolent manner, and allow oneself to feel grief for their problem instead of mock it? In Molyneux's own words, the "wealthy elite controllers" or "ruling class" in government and private sector are power addicts and struggling to cope with their violent, hierarchical world and spend their lives trying to get to the top. Instead, they could be using their brilliance, determination and resources to make the world a better place in which they can enjoy lives of openness, safety, and creation of wealth rather than living constantly behind a perfectly held mask with no soul behind it, constantly terrified that their own bodyguards could be conspiring against them in a manner so perfect they had no chance to see it coming.

The wealthy elite are currently living Socrates' nightmare scenario for the tyrant who chooses power instead of philosophy. If this is the case, why should they be closed off and mocked by anarcho-capitalists? Why don't the anarchists instead attempt to empathize with and look for what is good and human in them, rather than mock them for being tragically trapped in their false selves?

One may be inclined to wonder if this means anarcho-capitalists should have a pacifist stance against the wealthy elite. In other words, does this mean we should empathize with the wealthy elite and love them into freeing the public schools, economy and media? To put it simply, yes. It makes no sense to try to oppose the state through violent means when they have the guns and nuclear weapons. The only option is to logically show them that making their choices carries a heavy price for many, including for themselves and their families. This can be done in a myriad of ways, and this reality comes grimly for those hoping for an exciting, violent Hollywood ending to the state.

Politicians aren't the only ones safe from the self-defeating wrath of Molyneux though. Molyneux does this frequently with activists on the left, referring to them as people having "child-like tantrums" and scorns socialists as entitled and unproductive. Instead, they could be people who have lost hope in business leaders and the market's natural generosity and seek institutional support for the protection of the basic needs of humans or simply be misled by a flawed narrative of history and the way market incentives work. Molyneux does not call Noam Chomsky a manipulating university bureaucrat when he appears on his show, but does implicitly when he attacks socialism and public sector workers.

Molyneux could attempt to use empathy with the values of leftists for protecting the basic needs of the poor around the world and have discussions on how these needs could be better met with markets and entrepreneurship rather than presents from political leaders. This would show leftists where the common ground from what liberty offers and what their basic demands are, and encourage people to watch the debates and interviews on real issues such as historical narratives and benefits all from agreeing to property rights.

Molyneux (for good reason) prides himself on his consistency throughout his views and real-world conduct, so why should certain people treated as though they don't deserve empathy as human beings for their views or respect? Is this not the way Molyneux describes all people should behave and relate with one another? Does Molyneux wonder how children process his views on nonviolent communication being "put on hold" when the topic concerns a group of people that fundamentally clash with his views too much?

The last line was a joke, and I have great respect for Molyneux. My view is simply that Molyneux is 99% consistent about his philosophy on everything else, so why shouldn't he discuss all groups of people with empathy and non-violent communication? The attacks are simply a waste of breath and only serve to slow the libertarian cause.

The Argument for Panarchism

Panarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

This essay will focus on the two largest philosophical movements, American libertarianism (or the libertarian right) and European libertarianism (or the libertarian left). This essay will not address any movement to centralize power further, such as Maoism or minarchist capitalism. The importance of solidarity between these movements cannot be emphasized enough. Aside from both philosophies logically necessitating unity, the pragmatic potential for further ensuring the liberty of future generations is also too great to ignore. Panarchism is the movement that seeks to combine all anarchist movements, as the one true anarchist movement. Panarchism seeks to prove to anarchists that both camps are better off uniting rather than shrugging and accepting statist allies.

The first step to decent and civilized discussion between the camps is always proper communication. Consider the following example, suppose an ordinary citizen encounters someone in support of the drug war. Which of the following options would you say is more likely to bring positive results in changing the opinion of the drug war supporter?

Option 1: "The drug war is the modern day holocaust. People don't do drugs because they are undisciplined, it's because they come for horrid childhoods living in impoverished conditions that often leads to them seeking escape in the form of drugs when they're older. Kids suffering from child abuse, neglect, and living in constant fear rather than nourishment become mentally scarred as adults, never trusting or letting their guard down. As a result, drugs are their only escape from reality. To punish a heroin addict is to brutalize someone who as already been brutalized all their life. It's time we use compassion instead of punishment to heal these people. These people are sick, not criminals."

Option 2: "You have no idea what you're talking about. The drug war is the modern day holocaust. If you had an ounce of compassion you'd realize the drug war does nothing to help addicts and is only there to help cops kidnap people for the prison-industrial complex. TV is making you a mindless Fox News drone, how about reading some alternative media sometime?"

Obviously, option 1 was nonviolent communication, and option 2 was violent, aggressive communication. Using aggressive communication immediately creates the wrong sort of reaction in the listener's mind, causing them to get defensive and making the debate personal rather than allowing their mind to become open and trusting of the speaker. Before philosophy can even begin, the speaker must use nonviolent communication as specified by Marshall Rosenberg, as detailed here (please take the time to watch, it's short and vital to understanding the essay):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHBD7Ihy5U

Of course, speaking this way all the time requires the speaker to understand people in a different way. We are not shills, drones, robots, or puppets of anyone. We are simply beings with needs, and every expression in aggressive communication is a tragic expression of an unmet need (in the first example, it would be a need for compassion to drug addicts). Details concerning what is a real need and what specifically constitutes violent communication can be found easily here and on his website.

" I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."

- Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game

Secondly, there are several misconceptions about various anarchistic philosophies that must be cleared in order to prove the case for panarchism, and a philosopher by the name of Kevin Carson has already covered this topic in depth. In the following quotation, he uses the word capitalism to mean the system which the United States and most of western world uses currently. Most right libertarians would call this crony-capitalism. He writes:

"...industrial capitalism, to the same extent as manorialism or slavery, was founded on force. Like its predecessors, (crony) capitalism could not have survived at any point in its history without state intervention. Coercive state measures at every step have denied workers access to capital, forced them to sell their labor in a buyer's market, and protected the centers of economic power from the dangers of the free market. To quote Benjamin Tucker again, landlords and capitalists cannot extract surplus value from labor without help of the state. The modern worker, like the slave or the serf, is the victim of ongoing robbery; he works in an enterprise built from past stolen labor."

- Kevin Carson, 

The Iron Fist of the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism as a State Guaranteed System of Privilege

The state has indisputably been guaranteeing privilege for those with enough wealth to bribe it, as humorously shown by South Park. This leads to centralized producers, which has the effect of higher prices for consumers and forcing wages for all down for all workers by creating a market with an artificially low number of employers. This phenomena of market behavior that occurs when the number of buyers (for labor) are small and the number of sellers (workers) are large is called oligopsony. Given the shocking state of most Prussian style state monopolized education, it would not even be controversial to say the entire system is set up to try to create obedient and helpless workers which are the product, and not the consumer of this system. The corporate-state society survives on breaking the souls of individuals, herding them into controlled environments like cattle and then pretends their poverty is an unfortunate accident caused by the free market, and their only option is generally to rent away their lifespan for subsistence so that at least their children have a remote chance at middle class success through college (which often involves enormous debt for many). Many libertarians though (and particularly objectivists) express support for the economic model and business leaders created by a government that auctions away rights and privileges, as well as deride many of the chronically unemployed poor as lazy. There is no such thing as lazy though. People only react to their perceived incentives.

In essence, libertarian capitalist philosophy itself dictates that injustice has been done upon working people in the United States and abroad by states and their partners. Restitution has to be done by the ruling class to the people that have been under relentless attack by the state for centuries, yet capitalist libertarians contradict their own philosophy by not advocating corporate equity be handed back to the working people. This attitude of defending the crony capitalist ruling class indicates to other movements that capitalist libertarians are mislead or not serious about changing society. Restoring justice by examining many of the Fortune 500 companies for attempting to employ the state to use violence to attempt to make competition more difficult or alter markets through coercive means in any other way is the same as saying the mob must be prosecuted for racketeering. Each large corporation deserves to be examined in a case-by-case basis, and where it is deemed that the controlling interests are owners of criminal property, the equity should be restored to the workers. Without a time machine, it is impossible to know exactly who should be controlling what property after all of this coercion. However in the absence of a verifiable true owner of the capital, turning the capital over to the workers will likely be the best course of action in the interests of efficiency and incentive for growing the company.

Without establishing justice prior to establishing a free market, the ruling class has been effectively been encouraged to do it again, and there is no reason to believe the same corporate ruling class wouldn't. Cries for competition to save the day will land on deaf ears if the corporate cronies ally themselves with a new mafia, and the cycle starts again.

American libertarianism is not a philosophy offering a get-out-of-jail free card to corporate cronies.

The libertarian left also suffers from misconceptions of their own philosophy. Despite bearing the label of anarchism, many anarchists on the left feel comfortable making demands from the state along with liberals for universal healthcare, economic controls, and state-mandated education. The left is misinformed though, on where the state gets its wealth from. The common intent behind all of the left's demands is to shift wealth and economic power from the ultra wealthy ruling class to the proletariat, but this never happens. All government pressure the left attempts to apply on the ruling class is always used against other members of the proletariat, and hence the wealth gap continues to grow despite many liberal reform successes.

By advocating reform through the state, all of the left appears to the libertarian right as Obama's puppets clamoring for redistribution in a zero-sum game in exchange for all of their liberties. For there to be true progress for the proletariat, the anarchists must recognize that the state and ruling elite would never truly yield any substantial reform and that instead they should join the libertarian right in condemning the entire ruling class.

The last major objection to panarchism involves the following theoretical example: A group of anarcho-socialists are travelling down a road in the woods, and it's getting dark. The socialists spot a building with light, and find that it's a motel. The motel owner demands $1,000 (or any arbitrary sum) and the anarcho-socialists are broke. If the anarcho-socialists attempt to occupy the empty room, something similar to this would happen, as the anarcho-socialists don't recognize ownership of means of production and the anarcho-capitalist views occupation as aggression.

The core problem with this scenario isn't that there isn't a solution which is immediately obvious, but that both camps have already implicitly agreed that the other camp is utterly devoid of empathy and wants to do the other side harm. When we assume that the majority of people are good and want to peacefully contribute to the well-being of others, the need for labels one way or the other disappear. If the anarcho-socialists had no where else to go, it isn't likely that an ordinary person would turn them away to be eaten by wolves. On the other hand, it also isn't fair to the motel owner for the socialists to be able to use a room for the night, use amenities like lights, TV, and bathrooms, and not have to contribute back in some way. For the socialists, if they are unable to pay, can still potentially repay the motel owner through work or some identification or electronic means to contact their commune to settle the balance.

The driving force behind the argument for panarchy is that for a society based on honesty and empathy, anything is possible and a society in which people believe the others are trying to harm them naturally causes disorder. The common thought between all brands of anarchism though, is that societies in which people are free naturally tend to produce more virtuous, happy people.

These misconceptions are just a few examples of how in reality, the practical difference between both philosophies aren't that dissimilar, and that all forms of anarchism (including resource-based economies, or any other arbitrary "formula" for people to self-govern with) would actually enhance the total health of society by counter-balancing each other's weaknesses. For example, if an anarcho-socialist community were taken over by a Stalin figure, people could escape to the capitalist societies and easily find jobs there. If the capitalist society were taken over by oligopolies that were somehow enslaving everyone, people could seek help from the anarcho-socialist communities. In the end, competition would ensure that people have maximum choice and liberty.

This sort of society would have no reason for war, and the next problems to face humanity in this paradigm will likely be issues that occur from over-production and planetary health. However, it will be up to the people living in such a utopia to ensure that space travel and terraforming are made possible before any ecological calamity occurs. If it is actually in the interests of all anarchists to work towards a society in which all philosophies are welcome to compete, why do the anarchists remain divided? Why do the anarchists ally themselves with the inconsistent statists? It's time for anarchists to find a new, higher grade of comrades to assist them in making a society possible that obsoletes the current power structures. The statist libertarians will inevitably betray the anarchists on both sides, as the Bolshieviks betrayed the Russian anarchists. Let us remember, true freedom is always illegal.

The future is imminent.

Defeating the Alpha Male

Anarchism as a philosophy in varying contexts has existed since before the Civil War. The idea that all people should be completely free to do as they wish with no interference from anyone else as long as no aggression or fraud is committed is understandably appealing. Many philosophers on the right and the left have tried to analyze how this can be implemented, how states can be defeated, and more importantly, how to protect the precious jewel of freedom once it's attained. They all miss one important detail though, how and why states came to power to begin with, and why there are almost no truly free societies today. For an ideology to have any chance at succeeding, the first step is to be humble and admit where the followers failed and why the philosophy hasn't been implemented already. There is no progress without exposing and treating weakness.

There are many anthropological views on the matter of how states rose to power. Most people believe in a voluntary social contract theory-- that states arose by people needing protection in early cities from gangs of looters that came to steal and enslave. Government provided protection, and religion helped keep order and give people guidance once the city was protected. Given the other option people had to go back to being easy meat, the choice to use state and religion to establish peace seemed obvious to people. 

Most anarchists have an opposing view-- that states were never voluntarily implemented. Anarchists believe there were marauding groups of thieves and slave traders that basically promised to provide security in exchange for goods, but were in fact simply looking to "automate" their practice of stealing. The fearful people gave up their resources, but not their freedom. The freedom was lost at the beginning of religion, where people began to use gods to endorse governments. In the ancient world, the "mandate of heaven" argument was common, and this is why states exist. Religion was the tool used to twist morality and turn the citizens against each other.

The truth is likely somewhere in between, and depends on individual views and circumstances. However, there is another unlikely place we can look to for the existence of states, and understand why they exist. Our evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees are a great place to look to understand human relations. Chimps exist in tribes, defend territory, and mating rights. There is an alpha male that is stronger than all the other males who is able to claim total freedom and sovereignty, while the other males must live lives serving the alpha male's commands and give up their mating rights. In essence, the tribe is the city and the alpha male is the state. 

Scientists observed this phenomena. Many times, there were many males that lived under horrid conditions beneath cruel alpha males. The males could have united to kill the oppressor, but continually chose not to. Scientists were baffled. Had the chimpanzees understood the mandate of heaven? Unlikely, considering upon old age, alpha males were routinely disposed of. A mandate of heaven would have allowed an alpha male to rule well into old age, by tricking the other chimps into believing that attempting to kill him was a sin and would unleash the wrath of the gods. The real reason involves a flipping of perspective. The beta-chimps can kill the alpha chimp anytime by uniting, but don't because of how useful the alpha chimp is in case of attack by another tribe. The alpha male isn't popular, but he's useful in emergencies. Alpha males even go so far as to provoke conflicts with other tribes, to continue to keep tension and fear within their own tribe to make sure they're never seen as unnecessary. Many anarchists know this sounds familiar to the United States' "War on Terror".

This is the real reason people want government. Government is an evil, but an evil which protects its own wealth (the citizens). Therefore, to convince the citizens to unite against against the state, anarchists must acknowledge this need from the common citizen and address it in a thorough extent. For anarchists, this means there is a monumental task ahead of them: a successful anarchist nation must be able to successfully defend itself against every state in the world to show people that the "alpha male" is no longer necessary.

There are a number of easy fixes that can make this task far easier, many of which were already outlined in Stefan Molyneux's "Practical Anarchy". Molyneux's arguments rest on simply making it irrational for a state or states to invade. Most of the time when states invade an area they must destroy an army or forces, and then set up their own tax structure for extracting a return on investment. Every time a state invades another state though, most of the work is already done. The previous state already had a tax structure complete with identity information of the citizens, bank logs detailing current wealth, buildings, and the labor force to organize the taxes and accounts. In other words, a state invading another state is similar to a farmer killing another farmer, and then finding that the chicken coop is already set up to give a steady amount of eggs, the dangerous animals are penned, and the house is ready for someone to move into. It's similar to cracking an egg; once the shell (or army) is broken, the contents inside are easy to get.

Anarchic settlements would be different, though. Even assuming no organized defense movement were started, anarchic settlements would be difficult to conquer and costly. Citizens would have ample access to guns and their markets would shift in anticipation of an invasion, there is no existing tax structure or means to established means to rob wealth, and citizens can also use things like digital money to hide their wealth in case of military defeat. There is no national treasury to loot or any government treasures either. This is similar to a farmer trying to go into a wild forest and attempting to set up a farm within it, by building it from scratch. If the state wanted to loot real items like iPods or computers, they would only crash the price of these items in their own countries and render their domestic producers bankrupt, reducing their own tax base. Even shipping off citizens of a free society for slave labor is unlikely, as slave labor can't be taxed and would only grow unemployment domestically. Existing labor which is taxable is always preferable. Finally, if the invading country was completely led by bafoons who wanted to invade a free society because of some racial cleansing motive, Molyneux writes that nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent, as they push the costs of war back onto the politicians, who can't keep their families safe in nuclear attack like they can in a normal war that progresses slowly. Ordinary wars and the most vile statist initiatives are always at the expense of people other than the ones pushing for them.

"
The first thing that I would note is that nuclear weapons have been the single most effective 
deterrent to invasion that has ever been invented. Not one single nuclear power has ever been invaded, or threatened with invasion – and so, in a very real sense, there is no bigger “bang for the buck” in terms of defense than a few well-placed nuclear weapons. 

If we assume that a million subscribers are willing to pay for a few nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion, and that those nuclear weapons cost about $30 million to purchase and maintain every year, then we are talking about $30 a year per subscriber – or less than a dime a day. 

" - Stefan Molyneux, Practical Anarchy

Molyneux's analysis misses two important details though. Not just one state but every state has an incentive to destroy the anarchist settlement before it succeeds, or else their own citizens may follow suit. This was witnessed by George Orwell in Catalonia, and he wrote about it in Animal Farm.
"

On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. However, the actual details of the story did not come to me for some time until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

I proceeded to analyse Marx's theory from the animals' point of view. To them it was clear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans. 
" - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm

There is no reason to assume all the nation states of the world, or at least the UN, wouldn't make an attack against a truly free society. Not to loot, but to squash the dream back into history books or worse, erase it from history books entirely. Any number of false excuses can be used for this, such as accusing it of being a lair for drug manufacturing (which will inevitably happen in a free society if it is illegal everywhere else), calling it a black market for dangerous weapons, or declaring for some reason or another it "needs democracy" and should be liberated. To make matters worse, such an event could be used to "refute" the idea of freedom and later libertarians of all stripes will spend years debating fabricated points of data by the state and other criticisms about the "failed anarchic settlement". It would not be an exaggeration to say that a rash failure of freedom would set the freedom movement back even further than it is today.

Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons is extremely against everything anarchists stand for. Nuclear weapons do not discriminate between statist and infant, and there would be many causalities and lasting genetic damage that would bring hatred against anarchists forever. There is probably no better way to solidify the "anarchist terrorist" label forever, and this would be exactly what the rulers want, even if it means sacrificing their own tax cattle.

The situation painted may make the struggle for freedom look hopeless, but this is because most people only look at the struggle to obsolete the alpha-male from one direction. They look to remove the alpha male from power by defeating him (or should I say, all of them) in battle because battle appears to most to be the only way rights can truly be won. The other option is to simply change the battle, though. Instead of playing the game, anarchists can defeat the ruling classes everywhere by changing the rules of the game. In the same way bitcoin changed the rules of finance forever, anyone can change the rules of war. Coming out with a military breakthrough so fundamental it crushes the need for armies and protection from the alpha male. If guns had been 3-d printable and accessible by any peasant in the early part of the age of gunpowder, any civilian would have been able to buy one. If suddenly there were a distributed network of advanced weaponry the state still doesn't know much about, the state can potentially collapse within minutes. Humans would simply feel no obligation to obey the police, if none of the police were better armed than the average citizen.

This is what we need today. An advanced weapon which can be quickly and cheaply made, available to all which makes riot police armor, tanks, guns, navies, and air forces irrelevant within just weeks or months of time for distribution. If today, everyone got hold of powerful magnetic manipulators that could twist and destroy guns, tanks, and all metal devices of the military rendering them all useless, ruling classes everywhere would likely give up without a fight. If we had government building infiltrators who fired "awakening bullets" that injected enemy officials with a chemical that triggered subconscious virtue processes to override their orders, no politician would dare start a war, fearful of high ranking officials suddenly switching sides in secret. This future can arrive sooner by the invention of other ideas which obsolete non-military functions of the state. For example, a trustless open source justice system any private group can use would shake the faith of the idea that the state is necessary to establish rule of law and justice. Robotic cops could even be programmed alongside open source justice systems to enforce these laws or assist the poor with robotic slave labor. Such moves by innovators would cause tremors throughout the globe, as individual citizens frantically scramble to avoid ever having to deal with the painful process of state courts again to settle disputes, and the poor are finally freed of their bonds to the state.

The most desirable outcome would be that the government simply embraces inevitable change and the same officials take their seats in the open source government, complete with safety for the officials and accountability for all. The corrupt will not be killed but removed from office, and those somewhere in between virtue and corruption may have "awakenings" that bring them back to serving the interests of their people. There is no reason for a dictatorship of the proletariat or use of any guillotine. The ultimate sign of victory would be that the innovators never fired a bullet or hurt anyone to defeat those that did.

The future is imminent.