This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Concerned Citizens And Parents Against Voluntaryism

There was an amusing post on (The link is broken.) There's a group called "Concerned Citizens And Parents Against Voluntaryism". They have a FaceBook page. There's an online petition to "ban all public discussion of voluntaryism".

It seems to be serious, rather than someone's idea of a silly joke. However, I'm not sure. I'm noticing a lot more "chatter" denigrating "market anarchism".

I consider this promising. The truth is spreading so quickly that statists feel threatened.

They are saying

"Voluntaryism" is a dangerous cult. They believe that government authority is not legitimate. Some of them are armed, and will resist if police attempt to arrest them.
A more accurate statement is:
Government is a cult. They are armed and dangerous. They will kidnap and torture anyone who disobeys their rules. They will murder anyone who refuses to pay "taxes"/tribute to them. They have successfully brainwashed billions of people.
Is the truth determined by a majority vote? If the majority have false beliefs, then that makes it true?

If you've brainwashed the vast majority of people, you're "not a cult". If you're spreading the real truth, you're falsely portrayed as liars starting a dangerous cult.

Voluntaryism, agorism, and market anarchism are spreading rapidly. That isn't because it's a dangerous lie. That's because it's true. Statists would rather believe that the voluntaryists are a dangerous cult, than understand the truth.

Here is another example. The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is criticizing the "Sovereign Citizens Movement". "Sovereign Citizens" is another version of voluntaryism, although "sovereign citizens" tend to look more for legal loopholes.

A "sovereign citizen" likes to talk about various adhesion contracts, such as:
  • By getting a birth certificate or Social Security card for your child, you're selling him into slavery.
  • If you have a State bank account, you're consenting to the income tax and IRS. Somewhere in the fine print, you're implicitly consenting.
  • If you accept mail with a zip code on it, you're consenting to Federal authority.
  • If you use Federal Reserve Notes as money, you're consenting to Federal authority.
Such arguments are nonsense. When you open a bank account, the teller doesn't tell you "By opening this account, you consent to IRS jurisdiction." The IRS wants to know your bank location, solely so they can seize your savings.

Nobody ever told me "By doing X, you consent to Federal authority. If you refuse to do X, you don't have to obey their rules." Even if it is buried in the fine print somewhere, it isn't a valid contract.

Some "sovereign citizens" decide to drive their car without a State permit. Technically, the law that says you need a permit to drive your own car is immoral. However, it's a poor risk/reward decision, to drive around without license plates or a registration or a driver's license. The first State thug that sees you will kidnap you and steal your car.

It's amusing the the "Southern Poverty Law Center" is promoting State obedience. The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is really "a group of lawyers dedicated to spreading poverty". Most State organizations make more sense if you invert the "official" name.

I'm noticing a lot more statists criticizing freedom activists. That's a symptom of progress. The truth is spreading rapidly. Even though the status quo has a lot of power, it's vulnerable because it's one big lie.

The Internet is facilitating the spread of the truth. State thugs would really love to cripple and censor the Internet. I don't see that happening. At this point, that can't be done without angering nearly everyone.


George Donnelly said...

The voluntaryism thing is a joke perpetrated by voluntaryists.

Anonymous said...

"Technically, the law that says you need a permit to drive your own car is immoral."

Well fine.

But in a totally Darwinian law of the jungle libertarian anarchy there won't be any roads to share anyway. The rich will own all the roads and you can't drive on them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

I once met an _insider_. Without being surrounded by layers of hierarchy I was shocked at what I directly saw.

Everything he touched was heavily compromised or wrecked. However he told a pack of lies saying all his projects were wonderful. It was obvious to anyone that he produced junk.

As telling the truth would be punished, his lies became the "truth".

In effect the guy could produce junk and say it was wonderful. Why bother he thought, if he could just lie?

He sold his junk to his friends in taxpayer subsidized banks. The money would come in the same whether it was junk or not. As his friends were high up in the banks, he hoped to avoid be told directly just what a rip-off it was.

If his friends got pushed out for being too stupid, corrupt or incompetent, he would just fall asleep and ignore the calls to clean up his junk. As his cons were all below a certain amount, it wasn't worth suing him. Plus who wants the bad publicity.

A good proportion of this guy's business was just turn-the-handle, boring work and all the money ultimately came from government. So he didn't have to be brilliant to get his loot.

This guy was slippery. Why lie to a client directly when you can hire a fresh graduate from university and get them to lie on your behalf?

If someone honest comes along, then he would get his thugs to beat them down with hints of ruining their reputation.

George Donnelly said...

You're wrong. Market anarchism is not about the law of the jungle, it is about civilizing man's social relations by enabling individuals to hold each other accountable for their actions. It restores the complex and powerful regulation inherent in all human relations.

FSK said...

I suspected (but wasn't sure) that was a joke. Lew Rockwell originally covered it as serious, but yanked the post rather than updating it to correct his mistake.

The Southern Poverty Law Center was serious. State thugs have classified people with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their car as "potentially dangerous terrorists". I see a lot of State propaganda criticizing freedom activists.

Regarding Anonymous #1 the pro-State troll, this is a common misconception. Statists say "Without government, abuse X would occur.", while abuse X occurs in the present precisely because of government.

Like with all services, the government monopoly overcharges me for roads.

The "Libertarian nightmare" of a toll booth on every corner would not occur. Roads would be owned by the people living in the area. How should existing roads be handled? They would are owned by the government, making them technically unowned. Existing roads should be jointly owned by the local residents.

Regarding Anonymous #2, some insiders are true psychopaths. I was working for one in the job where I had my first panic attack. If you're honest and competent, a psychopath will target you for elimination. Everyone else is intelligent-but-brainwashed, making it easy pickings for the psychopath.

Due to the nature of the State, a single psychopath can cause a *TREMENDOUS* amount of damage.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at