Forum

HI , to all fellow Anarchists here . I see the club is pretty much inactive and has been so for some time now . I have asked Chess.com to be made SA of the club in order to rescue it . I would much appreciate to hear peoples feelings on this and also if anyone is happy to come in and help. Club is well worth it I hope you agree.

I'm starting this thread because the chat feature is probably not the best venue for debate. 1. "Without wages and private ownership of the means of production, there would be no incentive to create, innovate, or even be productive." Beyond the "incentive" to survive? Last time I ate, I wasn't compelled to do so by "market forces" or by the prodding of a boss. Is this just anomalous behaviour in your account?

First and foremost, to make matters clear, I am a non-statist as well as supporter of capitalism. (I am very aware that many of you would objurgate me for holding what some might call a contradictory position if I used the word, "Anarchist" as in, "person who wants to 'smash' the affluent".) This being said, what brings YOU to oppose the State? My first answer, in short, is that abstract, ethical principles are broken by governments. Another, (again in short) is the science of Economics - a rather Utilitarian argument.

I have a question for anyone who cares to answer: In my exploration of Anarchism, I have found Libretarianism/Anarcho-capitalism/Volunteerism, to be the most logical and rational approaches to a "Stateless" society. BUT, I have yet to hear anyone address the issue of the handicapped/disabled/mentally ill population... Is there a Free-market solution to caring for those who TRULY can't care for themselves? To ensure that they don't "fall between the cracks" (so to speak)? Can anyone direct me to a book, or website, which would answer this question for me?

says the left libertarian, "My ideas had the word first, therefore, I am right and you are wrong!"

I would like to dispel the myth that Anarcho-Capitalists/Voluntaryists support the existence of corporations -- they do not. A corporation is a government created legal entity. For this reason, it is a straw-man argument.

I'm a little confused by the group description which refers to the goal of creating a "free market private property" society. I'm sorry, but that's NOT a goal of anarchism, as espoused by Pierre Proudhon. In the past, I've met plenty of so-called "anarcho-capitalist libertarians", but to be quite clear, those people are not espousing anarchism. I hope this is a real anarchist group, and not a libertarian group. I have really never understood how people can confuse anarchism with libertarianism. Corporations are absolutely tyrannical, and replacing the government with a "free-market private-property" society would simply reduce most of the population to feudal serfdom and abject poverty. Ultimately, Proudhon was quite clear, "Property is theft!" If you don't agree, you aren't an anarchist. Of course, Proudhon was not saying that you do not have the right to own your own clothes, or a place to live. What he meant by "property" was the existing legal definition, based upon Roman law, via which an owner is free to do with his property as he pleases. In so doing, the owner robs the community of that property. The notion of a "free market" system of "private property" is really the exact opposite of anarchism, as it rejects the basic notion that property belongs to the community, rather than to the individual.-Adam Rinkleff

The State and the Capital are the only terrorists – Solidarity with N. Maziotis In the evening of July 16th, 2014 comrades put up a solidarity banner at the gate of the Polytechnic School, on Patission Street, in response to the fact that Revolutionary Struggle member Nikos Maziotis was recaptured by police in central Athens. Anarchist Nikos Maziotis, who was on the run for two years, was seriously wounded and arrested earlier today after a shootout with cops in Monastiraki. He was then transferred to the tightly-guarded Evangelismos hospital, where he remains hospitalized. According to his lawyer, the comrade’s life is out of danger. From about 22:30, dozens of anarchists gathered for one hour outside the hospital to demonstrate their solidarity with urban guerrilla fighter Nikos Maziotis.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151

I propose this thread as a place to offer our games for analysis and/or analyse the games of others. A way to improve ourselves as players and/or coaches, in a voluntaryist manner. I am a positional player, rated 1750+ in correspondence 960 (this puts me around the top 2% on this site), who tries to focus on long-term ideas and solid play. I have little opening theory knowledge, but as a member I have access to the opening explorer on this site should someone need to check something out. (I'm not sure how much access non-members have). I would prefer to analyse 960 games if people have those. If people are interested, I will try to analyse 2+ games this month (first come first served), with 1+ game per month thereafter. By analyse I mean give at least a few ideas per game, perhaps others might have different ideas or more to say per game. Maybe a new thread for each month would be wise, should demand be high enough.

The Case for Anarchy It's time to (sort of) smash the state, says Bakunin biographer Mark Leier. By Charles Demers, 26 Jan 2007, TheTyee.ca Obviously, the writers of political biographies needn't share the politics of their subject -- in fact, if they did have to, then the cottage industry of books about Hitler would be even more disturbing than it already is. Nevertheless, when the biographer's politics do complement those of the life being described, the result can be a particularly passionate and engaging piece of writing. That's certainly the case with anarchist historian and SFU Centre for Labour Studies director Mark Leier's new book about the life of Michael (or Mikhail) Bakunin: The Creative Passion (St. Martin's Press). Leier, whose previous books have explored either the history of B.C. anarchism (Where the Fraser River Flows, Rebel Life) , or else offered an anarchist critique of B.C. history (Red Fags and Red Tape) , has here turned his attention to the tale of one of anarchism's philosophical founders and its theoretical roots, and has used that story to launch a compelling case for "rule by no one." Charles Demers: The other day, I caught an Entertainment Tonight-like segment about the new film, Children of Men, which depicts a fascist near-future in Britain, replete with ubiquitous cops and army, refugee camps and mass deportations. The announcer -- who pronounced tyranny as 'tie-ranny' -- called it 'anarchy.' To what extent are you starting at less than zero in terms of public awareness of your subject matter? Mark Leier: No question, the word anarchy freaks people. Yet anarchy -- rule by no one -- has always struck me as the same as democracy carried to its logical and reasonable conclusions. Of course those who rule -- bosses and politicians, capital and the state -- cannot imagine that people could rule themselves, for to admit that people can live without authority and rulers pulls out the whole underpinnings of their ideology. Once you admit that people can -- and do, today, in many spheres of their lives -- run things easier, better and more fairly than the corporation and the government can, there's no justification for the boss and the premier. I think most of us realize and understand that, in our guts, but schools, culture, the police, all the authoritarian apparatuses, tell us we need bosses, we need to be controlled "for our own good." It's not for our own good -- it's for the good of the boss, plain and simple. During the Clinton/Chrétien years, there was a sense that the left wanted a robust state, and the right wanted a bare-bones government. In the post 9-11 era, though, the dynamic has shifted, and the right has embraced an exponential increase in so-called security measures and the strengthening of the state in terms of policing and military capability, and keeps pushing with what Chalmers Johnson has called a program of "military Keynesianism." Does this make the anarchist critique more viable, more relevant today? First, I think it's misleading to say the left has usually been in favour of a strong state and the right a weak state. The question is, really, what did they want the state to do? To smash poverty, or smash heads? To break up monopolies or break unions? To end poverty or exterminate native people? Much of the left and the right have called for state intervention; the real question is, for what purposes? The renewed interest in anarchism is directly related to the curtailing of liberty in our day and age. It's also connected to the opportunism of traditional politics, where no one dares talk about real issues and propose real solutions and take real stands. Anarchism is a demand for real freedom and real autonomy, and it's not surprising that when our choices within the system are shrinking, people start questioning the system itself. The evils of the state are being brought home to us every day, sometimes in body bags. Still, so many of the victories of the left and of working class movements have been measured in terms of legislation and regulations: for instance, the spate of new regulations in the meat-packing industry that followed Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is generally seen as a step forward. But doesn't this mark the tightening of the grip of the state, and its regulatory arms? How does this mesh with an anarchist analysis? That's an excellent question, and one that has often plagued anarchists. In the 1890s, the anarchist Emma Goldman campaigned against the eight-hour workday, not because she thought people should work longer hours but because she thought that workers should not depend on the state to improve their condition. But at one of her speeches, an old worker came up to her and told her that he agreed with her argument, agreed that workers should reject palliatives and should not have the state act for them. But, he added, he was old -- he wasn't going to see the revolution, and a legislated shorter workday would give him some real liberty right now. Goldman changed her mind about the need for reforms, and concluded that seeking reforms in the here and now was important. So while some anarchists prefer to remain purists and reject any state intervention, many historically have not. I don't know if it's more naive to think we can use the state to do some good or to insist that nothing good can come from the political process. My instinct is to say, let's do both, in the spirit of the Wobblies and Emma Goldman: take what we can get but never think that it is enough. I don't think this is a very satisfactory answer, by the way, but those kinds of questions perhaps need to be worked out in regard to specific issues and circumstances rather than in theory. Similarly to the last question, the environmental crisis that we face today seems -- from the writing of folks like George Monbiot -- to be an issue of too much freedom, and the need for strong regulation against polluters, which would seem to me to indicate the need for coercive government powers. Well, it's a question of whose freedom, and in this case, of course, it's the freedom of capital that is too much. For the rest of us, strong measures against polluters would actually increase our ability to control our lives. And of course the state is among the worst polluters, with its hydroelectric projects and the like. The conundrum is this: can the important environmental measures we need take place within a capitalist economy that is based on constant growth? If not, then shouldn't we be organizing for radical social change -- anarchism -- not just new regulations? Having said that, of course we need to mobilize and organize to force governments to do as much as possible as soon as possible. But as Edward Abbey put it, the ideology of growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell; as long as we have an economy based on growth, whether this is population, GDP, kilowatts, or whatever, we are unlikely to be able to take the actions we need to take to save ourselves. The anarchist alternative of small-scale communities -- sketched by people such as Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, and many others -- that are as self-sufficient and sustaining as possible, then seems eminently practical, while the "sustainable development" notion seems utopian. Unlike most utopian theories, anarchism seems not to contain the potential for totalitarianism, and I wonder if this has something to do with the implied assumption that its core demand of rule by no one is essentially unrealizable, but should always be striven for nonetheless, to save politics from atrophy. The best example of this would probably be Noam Chomsky's support of Svend Robinson, a tacit admission of a maximum program (anarchism) and a minimum program (support for real-world, achievable reforms). The philosophy seems to offer a perpetual-motion version of political critique, one that could never be satisfied and essentially shouldn't be. I think Chomsky's example is rather like that of Emma and the Wobblies: push for what you can, but don't lose sight of the larger goal. Without that larger goal, it is impossible to determine if the reforms are the right ones; abandoning reforms means making life worse for a lot of people in the here and now. So I would agree that one function of anarchism is critique. But I also remain convinced that something like an anarchist future, a world of no bosses or politicians, one in which people, all people, can live full and meaningful lives, is possible and desirable. We see glimpses of it all around us in our day-to-day lives, as people organize much of their lives without depending on someone to tell them what to do. We see it in that spirit of revolt -- a spirit that is often twisted by anger and despair, but nonetheless shows us that people have not given up. We see it in the political activism, the social lives, the demands for decency and respect and autonomy people put forward, the desire to be individuals while still being part of a community. No, I don't think bowling leagues are the anarchist utopia, but they, like much of our lives outside of the workplace, are organized without hierarchy and oppression; the most meaningful, truly human parts of our lives already work best when organized on anarchist principles. Yet I also believe that in its function as critique and as a vision of the future -- perhaps the only one that doesn't end in our extinction as a species, or, as Orwell put it, as a jackboot smashing a human face, forever -- anarchism is not only desirable but possible and necessary.

Woody Guthrie - Vigilante man

Workers rally to protest EU austerity WEDNESDAY, 02 MAY 2012 00:08 Occupy protesters make comeback in US BY DANIEL WOOLLS The Associated Press MADRID – Banging drums and waving flags, hundreds of thousands of workers marked May Day in European cities Tuesday with a mix of anger and gloom over austerity measures imposed by leaders trying to contain the eurozone’s intractable debt crisis. Taking the baton from Asia, where unions demanded wage increases as they transformed the day from one celebrating workers rights to one of international protest, workers turned out in droves in Greece, France and Spain — the latest focus of a debt nightmare that has already forced three eurozone countries to seek financial bailouts. In the United States, demonstrations, strikes and acts of civil disobedience were planned, including what could be the country’s most high-profile Occupy rallies since the anti-Wall Street encampments came down in the fall. Under a gray, threatening Madrid sky that reflected the dark national mood, 25-year Adriana Jaime confided she turned out because she speaks three foreign languages and has a masters degree as a translator — but last worked for what she derided as peanuts in a university research project that was to last three years but was cut to three months. Jaime has been unemployed for six months, and sees her future as grim at best. “I am here because there is no future for the young people of this country,” she said as marchers walked up the city’s main north-south boulevard, protesting health care and education spending cuts and other austerity measures. Many carried black and white placards, with the word NO and a pair of red scissors pictured inside the O. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is trying desperately to cut a bloated deficit, restore investor confidence in Spain’s public finances, lower the 24.4 jobless rate, and fend off fears it will join Greece, Ireland and Portugal in needing a bailout. Ana Lopez, a 44-year-old civil servant, said May Day is sacred for her but this year in particular, arguing the government is doing nothing to help workers and that the economic crisis is benefiting banks. “Money does not just disappear. It does not fly away. It just changes hands, and now it is with the banks,” Lopez said. “And the politicians are puppets of the banks.” In France, tens of thousands of workers, leftists and union leaders rallied ahead of a presidential runoff election Sunday that a Socialist is expected to win for the first time since 1988 — a potential turning point in Europe’s austerity drive. Anger has emerged during the campaign at austerity measures pushed by European Union leaders and conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy. Many voters fear Sarkozy will erode France’s welfare and worker protections, and see him as too friendly with the wealthy. Challenger and poll favorite Francois Hollande has promised high taxes on the rich. “This May Day is more than ever very political ... Mr. Sarkozy has allowed himself for too long to manhandle the lower classes of the population, the working classes,” said Dante Leonardi, a 24-year-old at a march in Paris. “Today we must show ... that we want him to leave.” In debt-crippled Greece, more than 2,000 people marched through central Athens in subdued protests. Minor scuffles broke out in Athens when young men targeted political party stands, destroying two and partially burning another. There were no injuries. Italian Labor Minister Elsa Fornero insisted on the need to reform labor market laws that make it virtually impossible for employers to fire workers in some situations, discouraging hiring. Because of that gridlock and the lack of work in Italy, she said, “It’s not a nice May 1st.” The German economy is churning and unemployment is at a record low, but unions held May Day rallies anyway. The DGB umbrella union group sharply criticized Europe’s treaty enshrining fiscal discipline and the resulting austerity measures across the continent. The group called instead for a “Marshall Plan” stimulus program to revive the depressed economies of crisis-hit eurozone nations. Around 100,000 people in Moscow — including President Dmitry Medvedev and President-elect Vladimir Putin — took part in the main May Day march through the city center, though not to protest the government. Television images showed the two leaders happily chatting with participants on the clear-and-cool spring day. Many banners and placards criticized the Russian opposition movement that has become more prominent in Moscow over the past half-year. One read “spring has come, the swamp has dried up,” referring to Bolotnaya (Swampy) Square, the site of some of the largest opposition demonstrations in recent months. Communists and leftists held a separate May Day rally in Moscow that attracted a crowd of about 3,000. Police arrested 22 people at the rally who were wearing masks and refused to remove them during document checks. Police said those arrested were self-styled anarchists. Earlier, thousands of workers protested in the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and other Asian nations, with demands for wage hikes amid soaring oil prices a common theme. They said their take-home pay could not keep up with rising consumer prices, while also calling for lower school fees and expressing a variety of other complaints. An unemployed father of six set himself on fire in southern Pakistan in an apparent attempt to kill himself because he was mired in poverty, said police officer Nek Mohammed. Abdul Razzaq Ansari, 45, suffered burns on 40 percent of his body but survived. In the Philippine capital, Manila, more than 8,000 members of a huge labor alliance, many clad in red shirts and waving red streamers, marched under a brutal sun for 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) to a heavily barricaded bridge near the Malacanang presidential palace, which teemed with thousands of riot police, Manila police chief Alex Gutierrez said. Another group of left-wing workers later burned a huge effigy of President Benigno Aquino III, depicting him as a lackey of the United States and big business. In Indonesia, thousands of protesters demanding higher wages paraded through traffic-clogged streets in the capital, Jakarta, where 16,000 police and soldiers were deployed at locations including the presidential palace and airports. There were also protests in Taiwan, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

1. The right to live and live as you were born. http://articles.cnn.com/keyword/police-corruption Earlier today, the Department of Justice filed a formal legal complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) alleging widespread constitutional violations and lawless mistreatment of Latinos. According to the complaint, Arpaio and his staff engaged in widespread, violent and demeaning mistreatment of Latino residents of Maricopa County, often targeting individuals solely because of their race: 1. Forcing Women To Sleep In Their Own Menstrual Blood: In Arpaio’s jails, “female Latina LEP prisoners have been denied basic sanitary items. In some instances, female Latina LEP prisoners have been forced to remain with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation because of MCSO’s failure to ensure that detention officers provide language assistance in such circumstances.” 2. Assaulting Pregnant Women: “[A]n MCSO officer stopped a Latina woman – a citizen of the United States and five months pregnant at the time – as she pulled into her driveway. After she exited her car, the officer then insisted that she sit on the hood of the car. When she refused, the officer grabbed her arms, pulled them behind her back, and slammed her, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then dragged her to the patrol car and shoved her into the backseat. He left her in the patrol car for approximately 30 minutes without air conditioning. The MCSO officer ultimately issued a citation for failure to provide identification.” 3. Stalking Latina Women: “In another instance, during a crime suppression operation, two MCSO officers followed a Latina woman, a citizen of the United States, for a quarter of a mile to her home. The officers did not turn on their emergency lights, but insisted that the woman remain in her car when she attempted to exit the car and enter her home. The officers’ stated reasons for approaching the woman was a non-functioning license plate light. When the woman attempted to enter her home, the officers used force to take her to the ground, kneed her in the back, and handcuffed her. The woman was then taken to an MCSO substation, cited for ‘disorderly conduct,’ and returned home. The disorderly conduct citation was subsequently dismissed.” 4. Criminalizing Being A Latino: “During raids, [Arpaio's Criminal Enforcement Squad] typically seizes all Latinos present, whether they are listed on the warrant or not. For example, in one raid CES had a search warrant for 67 people, yet 109 people were detained. Fifty-nine people were arrested and 50 held for several hours before they were released. Those detained, but not on the warrant, were seized because they were Latino and present at the time of the raid. No legal justification existed for their detention.” 5. Criminalizing Living Next To The Wrong People: “[D]uring a raid of a house suspected of containing human smugglers and their victims . . . officers went to an adjacent house, which was occupied by a Latino family. The officers entered the adjacent house and searched it, without a warrant and without the residents’ knowing consent. Although they found no evidence of criminal activity, after the search was over, the officers zip-tied the residents, a Latino man, a legal permanent resident of the United States, and his 12-year-old Latino son, a citizen of the United States, and required them to sit on the sidewalk for more than one hour, along with approximately 10 persons who had been seized from the target house, before being released.” 6. Ignoring Rape: Because of Arpaio’s obsessive focus on “low-level immigration offenses” his officers failed “to adequately respond to reports of sexual violence, including allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls.” 7. Widespread Use Of Racial Slurs: “MCSO personnel responsible for prisoners held in MCSO jails routinely direct racial slurs toward Latino prisoners, including calling Latino prisoners ‘paisas,’ ‘wetbacks,’ ‘Mexican bitches,’ ‘fucking Mexicans,’ and ‘stupid Mexicans.’” 8. Widespread Racial Profiling: “[I]n the southwest portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are almost four times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. . . . In the northwest portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are over seven times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. . . . Most strikingly, in the northeast portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are nearly nine times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct.” 9. Random, Unlawful Detention Of Latinos: “MCSO officers stopped a car carrying four Latino men, although the car was not violating any traffic laws. The MCSO officers ordered the men out of the car, zip-tied them, and made them sit on the curb for an hour before releasing all of them. The only reason given for the stop was that the men’s car ‘was a little low,’ which is not a criminal or traffic violation.” 10. Group Punishments For Latinos: “In some instances, when a Latino [Low English Proficiency] prisoner has been unable to understand commands given in English, MCSO detention officers have put an entire area of the jail in lockdown—effectively preventing all the prisoners in that area from accessing a number of privileges because of the Latino LEP prisoner’s inability to understand English, inciting hostility toward the LEP prisoner, and potentially placing MCSO officers and other prisoners in harm’s way.”

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html Tyranny of One, Tyranny of All Practical Anarchy Written by Darrell Anderson. People who migrate toward the philosophy of anarchy eventually ask the big question. How do anarchists live in a world overwhelmingly infected with the philosophy of statism? In other words, how does an anarchist live practically in a statist world? Fundamentally, an anarchist rejects the concept of one human ruling other humans. By definition, anarchy means “without rulers.” Anarchy does not mean without law or order, only that all people at all times are free to pursue their own happiness. The foundational boundary is that no individual may trespass against another. Trespass might take different forms. Some people think of trespass only in terms of physical violence, but trespass can occur without immediate threat of physical harm. Taxation systems, for example, trespass against people who have not provided explicit consent to participate. Any deprivation of property rights is a trespass, regardless of how minute or incidental. Because of the statist mindset, the anarchist realizes that the majority of the population is continually seeking to deprive him or her of rightfully and lawfully owned property. That property includes an individual’s own body through conscription laws, both militarily and civilly (jury duty, for example). Thus, an anarchist recognizes that the current systems of legal plunder are illegitimate and have no foundation. Yet, no anarchist should be naïve to think that those possessing political power are going to walk away when asked. I would think that most anarchists, if not all, agree that the first philosophical act an anarchist can or must do is to always make a positive effort not to knowingly trespass against other people. Yet, even in a statist world, such an approach is challenging. Suppose, for example, a client or customer refuses to pay you according to the terms of a contract. You could try to use a third party mediator or arbitrator, but you cannot force the damaging party to participate. If your contract calls for arbitration, you still cannot force or compel participation. Should you then, appeal to the statist court system? Doing so, in some anarchists’ opinions, implies that an individual is then legitimizing the statist adjudicative system. Other than “self-help” enforcement, the only other alternative is to count your losses and move on. Thus, the first step any anarchist should take is an attitude adjustment. Learn to watch and be ready for any way that one might commit trespass and avoid such situations. The second step any anarchist must take is to be prepared to provide restitution when trespass occurs. Tightly related to those attitude adjustments is developing a lifestyle that reduces the opportunity for trespass or being trespassed against. A primary practical act any anarchist should commit is to eliminate debt — all debt, and should do so as quickly, lawfully, and assertively as possible. Debt is bondage. With such a dark cloud overhead, debt compels an individual to participate in the statist world. There is no way to distance one’s self from the statist world as long as an individual has both feet in “the system” with debt. You cannot limit the effects of the statist system as long as you embrace debt. Avoid thinking that debt cannot be eliminated quickly. Numerous stories and testimonies are available from people who, after they became focused, were able to eliminate their financial debts. Yes, sometimes eliminating debt means liquidating assets, and that will be an option each individual must evaluate. By eliminating debt, such that only typical living expenses remain, an individual then has more breathing room to escape the clutches of the statist world. Without the overhead of debt, people can explore more easily various options for financial freedom and liberty. Without debt people discover options other than “working for the man.” Without debt, people can become more self-directing, more self-sufficient. When people become more self-directing and self-sufficient, justification and desire for external societal controls become less important. Statism begins to lose legitimacy. By eliminating debt, paper trails also disappear. Overhead, such as reconciling bank and credit card accounts, can be dismissed as well, thereby eliminating stress and wasted time that could be devoted to other pursuits. Without those paper trails, the statists lose control to monitor or steal from you. In all, however, a rationally thinking and reasonable anarchist is willing to admit that completely escaping the statist world is impossible. All that can be pursued is reducingthe effects. For example, an individual can escape various tax systems, but never fully. An individual can choose to not own a home, but unless an individual wants to live in a cardboard box or play squatter or caretaker, must then endure the costs of rent — and the landlord will pass the cost of property taxes to the tenant. Likewise, an individual can find ways to stop paying income taxes directly, but nobody can avoid the hidden embedded costs of taxation that are passed down the line to the final consumer. Some people have estimated that the income tax increases the final cost of products by 30 percent. Bypassing sales taxes is possible in many ways, but no individual completely escapes those costs. Similarly, traveling requires using the “king’s roads.” Arguably the roads belong to nobody, but try convincing a “law enforcement officer” or that individual wearing the black dress. An individual can choose to travel without license and insurance, but for most people such risks tend to be abnormal. More importantly, the anarchist who is mentally consumed with seeking ways to avoid the statists is missing an important lesson. Anarchy, if anything, is a philosophy. Anarchy is an attitude expressing liberty of action. When an anarchist is so consumed with seeking ways to avoid statism, that individual actually becomes a slave to an obsession. By definition an anarchist believes in the rule of nobody, yet if such an individual becomes obsessed with escaping the clutches of statism, that person then begins a process of submitting to emotional and psychological rule of one’s self. Emotional and psychological bondage is just as effective as physical bondage. Anarchy is an attitude that reflects a fundamental belief that people are autonomous. Anarchists believe that each individual is self-responsible and self-directing. That simple foundation means an anarchist should realize that no individual can control the actions of other people. The best any individual can do is control the outcome of his or her own life. A practical anarchist realizes he or she is an idealist living in a non-ideal world. The distinction is that although occasionally some people will use force, coercion and the threat of violence to compel action from you, you do not have to volunteer to participate. There is a difference between voluntarily participating in the statist game and being compelled as a question of survival. There is no shame in the latter. Some people argue that seeking idealism is a waste of time. However, why should people not strive for the ideal? Would you prefer that doctors help deliver live babies only 50 percent of the time? Would you prefer a spouse or lover to remain sexually faithful only 75 percent of the time? Would you prefer to be healthy only 5 days a week? Would you prefer to live in a cardboard box or nicely constructed house? People strive for the ideal every day and that is what the anarchist seeks. To argue that one should not strive for an ideal is to argue contrary to the observations of everyday human actions. Anarchy not is only a philosophical ideal, but a sensible approach toward life. Too many people are obsessed with looking for false security or paradise rather than just getting on with life. An anarchist does not wait for other people to provide fulfillment, but takes the bull by the horns. An anarchist is self-directing. Anarchists realize the world is changed one individual at a time. Although accepting and embracing the social nature of all humans, mindless group-think is unacceptable to the anarchist. Because human nature continually strives to be free, an individual could argue that anarchism is not idealistic but realistic. An anarchist should ignore statists. When confronted by a statist, an anarchist should (usually) take the path of least resistance. Sometimes that means yielding to some nonsensical fiat rules. Pay a tax when cornered to do so, if necessary obtain “permission” to travel on the statists’ roads, etc. Most of these issues are not worth losing sleep over, and sometimes can be avoided. Practical anarchy is rational anarchy: “A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . .But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.” — The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein A good strategy for practical anarchy is always avoid trespassing against others and also to reduce the effects of statism and change the world by personally eliminating debt. By eliminating debt, and thereby opening the doors to bypassing many statist control mechanisms, an anarchist has done much to pursue a quiet and peaceable life. Eliminate debt and many of the remaining challenges often become academic or intellectual exercises. Yes, in the end an anarchist still will pay a few bribes to secure a quiet and peaceable life, but with debt, the burden is almost too much to bear. The next practical step is to teach and provide guidance to other people. No political action is required but the world gets changed one individual at a time. Finis.

Inflating War Central banking and militarism are intimately linked “One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism,” Ludwig von Mises wrote. “Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier.” This explains why American politicians have always resorted to the legalized counterfeiting of central banking to finance wars, the most expensive of all government programs. If citizens had a clearer picture of the true costs, they would be more inclined to oppose non-defensive intervention and to force all wars to hastier conclusions. Government can finance war (and everything else) by only three methods: taxes, debt, and the printing of money. Taxes are the most visible and painful, followed by debt finance, which crowds out private borrowing, drives up interest rates, and imposes the double burden of principal and interest. Money creation, on the other hand, makes war seem costless to the average citizen. But of course there is no such thing as a free lunch. As a general rule, the longer a war lasts, the more centrally planned and government-controlled the entire economy becomes. And it remains so to some degree after the war has ended. War is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne famously declared, and the growth of the state means a decline in liberty and prosperity. As Robert Higgs wrote in Crisis and Leviathan, among the effects of World War I were “massive government collusion with organized special-interest groups; the de facto nationalization of the ocean shipping and railroad industries; the increased federal intrusion in labor markets, capital markets, communications, and agriculture; and enduring changes in constitutional doctrines regarding conscription and governmental suppression of free speech.” Inflationary war finance inevitably leads to calls for price controls, which inflict even greater damage on the private enterprise system by generating shortages of goods and services, which are falsely blamed on capitalism. The state uses this excuse to grant itself even greater central-planning powers. Inflating the currency as a method of war finance is often a first step in the adoption of what is essentially economic fascism. Paper and printing were invented in China, but American politicians were the first to use government paper money. It was adopted by the colonial government of Massachusetts in 1690. As Murray N. Rothbard wrote, the Massachusetts government was “accustomed to launching plunder expeditions against the prosperous French colony in Quebec.” The loot was typically used to pay mercenary soldiers, but when one of the expeditions failed and the soldiers threatened mutiny, the Massachusetts government printed 7,000 British pounds in paper notes to pay them. The government promised to redeem the paper money in gold or silver, but took 40 years to do so. Meanwhile, the public was so suspicious of the notes that they depreciated by 40 percent in the first year. By 1740, every colony except for Virginia had followed Massachusetts’ lead in issuing fiat paper money. The results were dramatic inflation, boom-and-bust cycles, and depreciated currency. During the Revolution, a form of centralized banking was adopted when the Continental Congress issued “the Continental” in 1775. Because it was not backed by anything of value, the Continental depreciated so severely that it was virtually worthless by 1781. “Not worth a Continental” became a popular slang. Some of the states attempted to deal with the inflation caused by the massive printing of Continentals with price-control laws. The predictable effect: shortages so severe that George Washington’s army almost starved in a field in Pennsylvania. The situation became so desperate that the Continental Congress issued a resolution on June 4, 1778 urging all the states to abolish their price-control laws: “Whereas it hath been found by experience that limitations upon the prices of commodities are not only ineffectual for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil consequences—resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to repeal or suspend all laws limiting, regulating or restraining the Price of any Article.” Within three months, “the army was fairly well provided for as a direct result of this change in policy,” write Robert Schuettinger and Eamonn Butler in Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation. Despite the economic calamities caused by America’s first foray into centralized control of the money supply, at the end of the Revolutionary War the nation’s first central bank—the Bank of North America—was created, with defense contractor/congressman Robert Morris implanted as its president. Centralized banking might have been ruinous for the general public, but political insiders like Morris profited handsomely. The bank was given a monopoly license to issue paper currency, and it used most of its newly created money for loans to the central government. In so doing, it inflated its currency so rapidly that within one year the market lost all confidence in the bank and it was privatized. Alexander Hamilton was the real founding father of central banking, as the Federal Reserve Board declares in one of its publications. His Bank of the United States (BUS), established in 1791 after a momentous debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over its constitutionality, was partly intended to finance “sudden emergencies” like war, in Hamilton’s own words. He rejected Washington and Jefferson’s foreign policy of commercial relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Instead, he advocated a permanent military establishment complete with a large navy and standing army that would pursue “imperial glory.” As historian Clinton Rossiter explains, “Hamilton’s overriding purpose was to build the foundations of a new empire.” Hamilton praised public debt as a “blessing” and complained to George Washington, “We need a government of more energy!” Jefferson, on the other hand, opposed both a large public debt and a national bank, arguing, “the perpetuation of debt, has drenched the earth with blood”—a reference to European monarchs’ endless wars of conquest funded by public debt. Hamilton’s Bank of the United States ran up 72 percent inflation in its first five years and created such economic instability that its 20-year charter was not renewed by Congress in 1811. Then came the senseless War of 1812. There was no central bank, but the federal government still devised a way to monetize the war debt. It encouraged the creation of dozens of private banks, then in 1814 declared a “suspension of specie payment.” That is, banks were not required to redeem their paper currency in gold or silver. Thus, under the direction of the U.S. Congress, banks were allowed to inflate their currencies at will for two-and-a-half years as a means of monetizing the war debt, thereby disguising the costs of the conflict to the public. Inflation during the war years averaged about 35 percent. This was exacerbated when the BUS was resurrected in January 1817 and empowered to create a national paper currency, purchase public debt, and receive deposits of U.S. Treasury funds. Rothbard explained the politics in his History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Second Bank of the United States was pushed through Congress … particularly by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas … a wealthy Philadelphia lawyer [and] close friend, counsel, and financial associate of Philadelphia merchant and banker Stephen Girard, reputedly one of the two wealthiest men in the country. … Girard was the largest stockholder of the First Bank of the United States, and during the War of 1812 Girard became a very heavy investor in the war debt of the federal government. … [A]s a way to unload his public debt, Girard began to agitate for a new Bank of the United States. The Second Bank of the United States “launched a spectacular inflation of money and credit,” writes Rothbard, coupled with a great deal of fraud. It promptly created the “Panic of 1819,” the first real depression in American history. For the first time there was large-scale unemployment in cities such as Philadelphia, where employment in the manufacturing of handicrafts fell from 9,700 persons in 1815 to only 2,100 in 1819. After nearly 20 years of inflation, fraud, political corruption, and boom-and-bust cycles caused by the Second Bank of the United States, President Andrew Jackson heroically vetoed the bill to recharter the Bank in 1834, and it went out of business. But the Hamiltonian nationalists did not. They would wage a political crusade for the next two decades as members of the Whig and Republican parties to inflict central banking on the nation once again. They finally succeeded during the Lincoln administration with the Legal Tender Act of 1862, which empowered the secretary of the Treasury to issue paper “greenbacks” that were not redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new comptroller of the currency. The Acts also placed a 10 percent tax on competing state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The predictable effect was massive inflation, with the greenback dollars so devalued that within one year they were worth only 35 cents in gold. All of the negative economic effects of inflation—devaluation of private wealth, unfair redistribution of income from creditors to debtors, and hindrance to rational economic calculation—damaged the Northern war effort, but not as much as that of the South. The North funded most of the war with public borrowing; the South funded most of its wartime expenditures by printing Confederate dollars. Consequently, inflation in the Confederacy averaged more than 2,200 percent per year. The nationalization of the money supply created an engine of inflation—and a powerful lobbying force to advocate that it keep running. Northern manufacturers realized that during periods of inflation, domestic currency tends to depreciate faster than prices are rising. A falling dollar makes domestic goods cheaper and the price of imports higher. Henceforth, they became a powerful political force in favor of an even further centralization of banking. Meanwhile, the heavily indebted railroads realized that inflation cheapened their debts, so they allied with manufacturers as a permanent lobby for inflation. These special interests joined the political coalition that created the Federal Reserve Board in 1913, which became an important source of finance for America’s disastrous participation in World War I four years later. The Fed did not just print greenbacks, as was the case during the Civil War. It printed enough money to purchase more than $4 billion in government bonds that were used to finance the war. The amount of money in circulation doubled between 1914 and 1920—as did prices. This was an enormous hidden war tax on the American people: wealth was cut in half, along with real wages, and just about everything consumers purchased became more expensive. The boom created by the Fed’s war financing inevitably caused a bust—the Depression of 1920, the first year of which was even worse than the first year of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Gross domestic product declined by 24 percent from 1920-21, while the number of unemployed Americans more than doubled, from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. The Great Depression of 1920 only lasted one year, however, thanks to President Warren Harding’s inspired policy of cutting both government spending and taxes dramatically. In the wars that have followed, central-bank financing has inflicted essentially the same kind of damage on American society: inflation, economic chaos, reduced real wages, price controls and other government interventions, and ideological attacks on capitalism rather than the real culprit, the Fed. Adam Smith recognized the advantage of financing wars with taxes rather than public debt when he wrote, “Wars would in general be more speedily concluded, and less wantonly undertaken. The people feeling, during the continuance of the war, the complete burden of it, would soon grow weary of it, and the government, in order to humor them, would not be under the necessity of carrying it on longer than it was necessary to do so.” Central-bank inflation renders the costs of war even more invisible than debt financing does and is therefore even more disastrous for the American public. __________________________________________ Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and the author of How Capitalism Saved America, The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and Hamilton’s Curse.