RESPONDING TO ROMANS 13

As a christian and an anarchist I often find myself under attack by members of both parties that I live by. It would be difficult to tackle both arguments at once so here is my response to Christians that oppose anarchy.
A Christians most basic response to an anarchist is to cite Romans 13: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." This is, in many peoples mind, concrete proof that God approves of the state. Under any amount of scrutiny however, this argument falls apart. If we as Christians are to obey the governing authorities, then shouldn't have Bonhoeffer kept his his mouth shut during the Nazi's brief reign in Germany? Shouldn't the Russian Christians in communist Russia silently accepted their fate as their churches were burned and their property seized by the state? 'Of course not. That was different, it was the Nazi's and Stalin, they were tyrants.' So if we have established that this passage does not apply to tyrants then we only have to ask : What makes a tyrant? The common understanding of 'tyrant' is someone who ignores the voice of the people, or one who suppresses the freedoms of the people. Our government is guilty on both counts. Not in such extreme cases like Nazi Germany, but the principle is very much the same. If you define a tyrant by one who ignores the desire of the people, then by your own definition, the government is my tyrant. I have no desire to be ruled by anyone on capitol hill and yet, because they will throw me in jail if I don't, I am coerced into submission. 'Well then, make a change. Get involved.' As I have stated in previous articles, democracy doesn't listen to the people, it listens to the majority and a republic is just a different spelling for the same principle. As an anarchist I have absolutely no voice in the house of 'representatives.' If I were to make a call, or write to, my congressman and demand that they make a proposal to the senate to revoke all labor laws, taxes, police/ military forces, and the entirety of the U.S. government, it wouldn't make it past their receptionist and certainly not the senate floor, because if they WERE to propose such a bill it would harm their chances of getting re-elected. I have no voice. The government ignores me because I am in the overwhelming minority of the political spectrum.
 Christians love reciting Romans 13:1 but they don't ever seem to remember verse 3:  "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended." Paul was a wise and intelligent person, so I would like to know what he was thinking when he wrote this. How many times had he been imprisoned and beaten by the Romans and Jewish leaders for preaching the grace of Christ? And how on earth does any government (let alone our own) fit this description? Time and time again the government has punished those who have tried to warn us about what the government really does (Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsburgh etc.) How on earth can we live free from fear when there are so many cases of police brutality? Anarchists are regularly called 'idealists' but everyone else seems to think that a government that doesn't abuse its power can exist. Anarchy doesn't need a society of angels, it just can't have an institution running around saying "I can make everything better and you are all under my authority whether you like it or not."

WHY I DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS

In a society manipulated by patriotism and empty rhetoric there are many vague sayings. One of the more popular is the yellow ribbon you see on car bumpers that say "support the troops" or american flag magnets that say "support our soldiers" etc. It is common place in our society today to hero worship soldiers and police as the brave defenders of peace and freedom while in reality they do nothing of the sort. If we can remove the blinders that patriotism and other forms of indoctrination have placed on us, we can see that those in the armed forces are much like mercenaries. They agree to go to war and fight for a paycheck. "No, they fight for their country, they fight for us, etc..." Really? How many men and women would be in the armed forces if they were not drawn in with such tempting college scholarships? How many would volunteer if they were not payed at all? Unless they were conscripted, nobody in their right state of mind would go to war for free. Besides this, what on earth does the army do that we should support? Occupying dozens of foreign countries? Preforming night time raids/kidnappings in attempts to find terrorist members? Killing people? Rape? There were 3,374 rapes in the military last year, a 6 percent increase, and an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults. The problem has been mostly ignored by the military. And yet in the face of all the evil that the army does, people still "support the troops."

 It doesn't surprise me either. I was once a conservative. I thought the war in Iraq was justified. Then I watched a documentary "No End in Sight" This movie didn't go into the philosophical argument about weather or not we should have gone, but it just showed the cold hard facts about how badly we damaged that nation. The bureaucratic inefficiency and the military's hard handed tactics combined to damage that country and its people deeper than we can understand. Because of the government and everyone that stood behind it (myself included) an entire generation of Iraqi people will grow up knowing that it was America that did this to them. The people of the middle east have a culture that never forgets and is slow to forgive, if they do at all. At the end of it all however, it was the soldiers that carried out the governments orders, as it always is. How many lives would have been spared if the army just refused to go? Unfortunately since day one of their military career, it is drilled into every man and woman's head to follow orders immediately and without question. Undoubtedly this makes them better soldiers but it doesn't help prevent wars.
 There are however, quite a few veterans who have turned from statism to become anarchists or libertarians, most notably the anti-war protesting vet Adam Kokesh, and it is these people who give me hope that everyone can see the light through the haze of patriotism. It is not because I think all the troops are baby killers, but because I can see the immorality in what the military stands for, that I can say with confidence that I do not support the troops. I despise, not the individuals, but the organization that they choose to work for and everything it stands for.

ANARCHY IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH CHAOS

           The biggest argument against anarchy: If there's no government what would stop society from collapsing and everyone killing everyone? This is certainly a valid question although a simplistic one. The double speak that everyone has grown accustomed to has everyone thinking that anarchy goes hand in hand with chaos and depravity while the opposite is true. Anarchists (the capitalist ones anyway) know that everyone has certain irrevocable rights such as life, a right to their property, and to live their lives, for better or worse, as they see fit. This sounds like a recipe for destruction but the strongest (and weakest) trait of anarchy is that it will reflect the morality of the people that are living in it. There is no doubt in my mind that if the government were to collapse tomorrow there would be wide spread chaos and death. There would be no government, but the cost of human life would be unjustifiable. Society would collapse. The biggest street gang would rule. America would turn into a mirror image of Somalia. That is not anarchy. That is chaos. Anarchy is order without rulers.
           I thoroughly enjoy the works of Alan Moore, a comic book writer. He is known for his excellent writing style and the sometimes controversial ideas portrayed in his comics. One such idea is Anarchy. While I agree with a lot that Alan Moore says, I disagree with him on how anarchy should come around. He says that anarchy can only come from the rubble of society. Order will emerge from the chaos and then there will be freedom. Yes, people will die but the end result will justify it all. I, however, believe that if we anarchists denounce the government for trampling the individuals will for the majority's will, then it is hypocritical of us to allow chaos to consume a few lives for the greater good.
          The only way to bring about a peaceful transition into anarchy is to change peoples MINDS. It is a dangerous gamble to hand complete freedom to people who don't understand what freedom entails. It is the anarchists job to convince people of the evils of government and the alternatives. You cannot simply tear down the government and expect people to not take advantage of those who cannot defend themselves. It has to be a gradual process of tearing down government brick by brick, not smashing the foundations. If society could be based on love for your fellow man and tolerance for their beliefs or life style then I truly, truly believe that government would become a thing of the past. 
          Of course this is an impossible dream. That is the terrible price of becoming an anarchist. You have to champion a cause that is already lost. You must live knowing that what is right will never be. It is a difficult belief to live with and not for the easily swayed. But it is the right thing to believe in. Anarchy, true anarchy, preaches peace, tolerance, and freedom. As a christian I can't see God having a problem with any of those things.

ARGUING AGAINST MINIMUM WAGE

           As of July 24th, 2009 the federal minimum wage law is $7.25/hour. Most see the minimum wage as an act of benevolence by the government. They think its lending a helping hand to the under privileged. As with all government programs and legislation, minimum wage is more harmful than helpful. A simple grasp of basic economics is enough to see that minimum wage slows economic growth rather than stimulating it.
          The primary problem with minimum wage laws is that it effectively makes working illegal if you're not worth the minimum wage. Anyone who's skills are not worth $7.25 an hour will not be hired because it doesn't make fiscal sense to hire someone for more than they're worth. Minimum wage forces employers to discriminate against people with little skill or experience. This is particularly hard on teenagers or college students when trying to get real jobs. Generally speaking they do not have an in demand skill set nor the experience to entice employers, so college graduates are stuck working menial jobs while living under tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Think of your  career life as a ladder and minimum wage laws keep removing the bottom rungs making it harder and harder to climb to the higher rungs. It prevents so many young people from gaining entry level jobs they don't gain the experience necessary for better, higher paying jobs.
            A common argument for minimum wage is that if we didn't have minimum wage then everyone would be paid next to nothing. Such a scenario is highly unlikely because it is economic suicide. If you don't pay your workers what their labor is worth, then someone else will. It is in the employers best interest to pay his/her employees what their labor is worth to prevent rivals from hiring them away. Proponents of raising minimum wage argue that you cannot support a family on minimum wage. While this is true, it is irrelevant because jobs that have minimum wage are not designed to support families (common sense tells us that you don't start a family until you can support one.) In the end, the only real way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity and the best way to do that is to have a truly free market, free of government and the restrictions it places on the market. If poverty could be solved by the government raising minimum wage then why don't they just set it at $25/hour and fix everything?

WHY CHILD LABOR LAWS ARE MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL

When people think of child labor they think of 8 year olds working in coal mines or sweat shops in Africa, being abused to make a profit for the greedy capitalists. First we need to ask "Why are the kids working?" They aren't being drafted into mass labor forces by evil corporations, they're trying to support their families. People think kids work because of terrible parenting, but the fact is they have to work because of the terrible state society has them in. Because society is so unproductive, the kids HAVE to work or the family will starve. People seem to think that whenever the industrial revolution came around during the 1800's everyone was like "Now that capitalism's here we can force children to work in factories!" Before the free market came around it was a fact of life that everyone (except the government of course) would be born, work, and die poorer than dirt. As the free market evolved, people began to steadily improve their quality of living meaning that kids had to work less and less. Child labor doesn't go away because of laws and regulations, they go away because mom and/or dad can bring more money into the house so the kids don't have to. Child labor laws come from the elementary idea that "If there's something I don't agree with I'll make a law against it and that'll take care of the problem!"

             The contrary was proven in Bangladesh in 2006 when they passed labor laws, specifically targeted at keeping children from working. The bill was encouraged by americans and europeans who thought they were doing these kids a favor.  After the bill was passed one of two things happened. The children went into prostitution  or they simply staved to death. Child labor is never pretty but it is the best option from a small selection of terrible ones. In many third world countries where child labor is prevalent  many children make 20-25% of the family income. If you lose a fourth of your income in these countries then you will starve, its just a fact. The answer to the problem of child labor isn't to deny these kids the right to help their families but to encourage more capitalism and freer markets which will steadily improve the standard of living, meaning that the children won't have to work such demeaning jobs. As with most problems in life this is no easy answer. It involves admitting that we often don't know whats best for others. It is also not a perfect end all solution. Child labor would still exist, but we would be able to cut our losses by allowing freer markets to drive up the standard of living for many people.

RENOUNCING NATIONAL PRIDE

               
               We've all said the pledge of  allegiance since we were in 1st grade. We've all seen bumper stickers on cars that say "God Bless America" or "Proud to be an American". We have all been convinced that America is a country to be proud of. When I became an anarchist I saw how ridiculous this is because to be proud of something, or someone, they should have done something to deserve that respect. What has america done that makes you proud? Is it how many prisoners we execute?  How good we are at buying our own debt? How many times we have meddled in foreign affairs? How many people have died in the wars that we intervened in? America has done little, if anything, to deserve the praise it receives. Our government has dug us into a hole of debt 15 trillion dollars deep. They have bombed and invaded countries that posed no threat to our national security.  They take away our rights and privacy in the name of safety from a threat that their undeclared wars create. They steal our money with the threat of prison if we don't comply. This is nothing to be proud of.
                By denouncing patriotism people will undoubtedly castrate me for supposedly disregarding our veterans sacrifices. Not the case. I pity veterans because they were sent to die and be maimed in wars that were not ours to fight. Honestly I think anarchy would be doing the men and women of the armed forces a favor because it would disband the government that has done nothing for them but send them to slaughter houses overseas for the past 60 years.  Patriotism is the belief that your country is great simply because you were born in it. Anyone who looks back at what America is responsible for and what we are currently doing cannot honestly claim that America is a magnificent country. Yes, we have more civil liberties than China or the Soviet Union, but if we continue to compare ourselves to god-forsaken communist countries and say "Well, we're not as bad as they are, so we're doing all right" then the standard will continue to drop and drop until we've become unrecognizable. Patriotism is one of the greatest lies ever created. Whenever the government wants people to serve them they call upon their patriotism. No war was ever started by the government saying "Think about yourself. Think about YOUR needs."  Virtually every war was either unnecessary or was started under exaggerated or false pretenses. Patriotism, and government in general, are two terrible lies that have kept humanity chained to an endless cycle of failure and death.

COLLEGE STUDENT LOANS AND THE GOVERNMENT

                The federal government now controls the whole student loan market. Barclay (a major global finical services provider) said in 2010 that by the year 2020 the student loan default would be estimated at nearly 225$ billion dollars. Americans owe more on student debt loans than on credit cards. The average debt for a graduating student is around 20,000-25,000$. Now I don't believe that the government should be involved in anything (or exist at all) but of all the things it screws up, it most certainly shouldn't meddle with the education system. If you were to take the government backed loans out of the picture then colleges would have to lower tuition in order to encourage students to continue coming. Tuition prices are high because universities can set them high because students will have government guaranteed loans paid for by tax dollars. The ones who benefit from these enormous tuition costs are not the students. They have tens of thousands of debt pilled on their shoulders by the time they're in their mid twenties. It isn't the tax payers who are stuck to pay for enormous amounts of debt accrued by government inefficiency.  The only ones who profit from these high costs are the universities themselves, who sell vastly overpriced degrees in subjects that will unlikely help students receive a job once they leave college.  Studies have shown that almost half of graduates are either underemployed or outright jobless.

                 People may say that investment in human capital is never a waste of money but the fact is that this is not human investment, its overpaying for degrees that border on being worthless. "Free" education does not help stimulate the economy, there is billions of dollars of debt because of this! My generation is leaving college with back breaking debt, unable to receive a job of any kind because of worthless degrees and minimal wage laws (another subject for another time) and people still insist that government intervention is helping. Peter Schiff said "People went to college before government got involved, it just didn't cost nearly as much. They could work their way through college and graduate debt free, now they're graduating with mortgages." Another argument is that without government loans then only the rich kids could afford to go to college, but WITHOUT government loans the cost of going to college would go down thus allowing more people to afford college. Yes, some people still wouldn't be able to afford to go to college, but then they'd have to look for different options, such as going into a trade. The massive increase of college applicants has left a constantly decreasing amount for trades such as carpentry, welding, masonry, etc despite the finical superiority that the trades have over a college education. As with everything that it meddles in, government has succeeded in driving up the price for education while destroying the quality, something that is only achieved by having a monopoly, which would certainly not exist in a free market society.