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.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST DEMOCRACY

In previous articles I have clearly stated my distaste for the state in any form it may come in. In this article I hope to lay down a basic argument against the state, in particular, democracy.
              Government supposedly does many necessary things. It provides the police force and fire fighters, it maintains our streets and roads, even delivers our mail. These things do not prove, however, that government is necessary. It does not prove that only the state can preform these duties, or even that it preforms them well. In reality, government does two things 1.) it acquires its funds through coercive force (taxation) and 2.) achieves a monopoly on force and decision making authority.
                 Every legitimate business in society gets their income through voluntary means, whether by selling a product, or a service. Even scams, and those guilty of fraud are included because they too depend on the consumers participation. Only the government and thieves (the words are synonymous, really) receive their wealth by threatening you with consequences should you not comply and do what they say. The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer said that the only way one can receive wealth in society is by 1.) producing goods and exchanging with others and 2.) violent seizure of the wealth produced by others. The first option is beneficial to everyone involved in the transaction,  the second benefits only the looters at the expense of the looted. In ages past, monarchs had their power backed up by 'the will of God.' Presently, in our more secular culture, their power is backed up by the control of the military and the police force. These have given the government a terrifying monopoly on coercive force that it uses to back up their thievery.
                   It is commonly stated that because democratic governments are voted into power that this somehow makes them voluntary. The glaring flaw in this argument is that majority rule makes it majority tyranny. Just because the majority claims taxation as necessary does not mean it is somehow less criminal. Government (especially democracy) is often justified as necessary for "the general welfare of the population." This idea has been drilled into each and every individuals head since they entered the (government run) education system.The purpose is to convince everyone that the government is not, in fact, crime on a monumental scale, but rather something necessary for the well being of society.  The result of all this is an individual persons convictions and beliefs being sacrificed at the alter of majority rule. Why must I pledge allegiance to a country that preforms things I have moral convictions against? Because the majority said so? Some will point to the fact that America is a republic as well as a democracy. In a republic you elect senators to represent you in government (with congresses approval rating at an all time low they are clearly not doing their job) but they are not actually representing everyone in their state, they are representing the majority that elected them into power.
                 The concept of democracy, and indeed, government in general, is based on the social contract. It is an imaginary document that says that you sacrifice some personal liberties and rights to enjoy some government provided services. There are two big problems with the social contract, the biggest of which is that it doesn't actually exist. It is insinuated that because you were born in America (something you had no control over) that you must adhere to our laws and taxes. It is not an actual document between you and the U.S. government. Secondly, if you do adhere to the social contract, then what if a government service fails you? What if you are robbed and the police fail to catch the criminal? Then by the logic that comes with contractual agreements, because they failed to uphold their end of the agreement you are no longer obligated to either. The truth about democracy can be summed up in a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche "The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." Democracy isn't a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. It is a criminal organization writ large, elected by a majority that imposes their will on the individuals.
                

HOW FDR RUINED AMERICA

              Franklin D. Roosevelt is often defined as the president who saw America through the great depression and WW2. The fact is that he drove America INTO the great depression, not out of it. The roaring twenties came along, bolstered by a strong post WWI america and president Coolidge laissez-faire attitude towards the market and government. Then in 1929 the stock market collapsed. Banks lost money, people lost jobs, it was a hard time for everyone. People look at the great depression like it was the first recession america had when in fact america had gone through dozens of recessions prior to the 1929 market crash. All these recessions had little, if any, government intervention and lasted no more than 4 years. Now FDR came along promising people 'a chicken in every pot.' His plan to achieve this was to create dozens of new federal departments that would create new jobs by using federal funds to build bridges, roads, etc. All these new programs required money that the government didn't have, so FDR made the bold move of spending money that the government didn't have. FDR got the money from the only place government can. The people. Taxes were hiked up enormously to pay for these programs that were supposed to help people, but instead drove them into deeper poverty. Instead of the market working its way through this difficult time as it had in years past, government interfered and instead of lasting a few months, or a couple years at the most, the depression lasted nearly a decade. Eventually in 1945-'46 congress got rid of excess profit taxes, cut corporate taxes to the bare minimum and cut the top income tax rate to 86%. These rates were still high, but they were the first cuts since the 1920's and businesses felt that they could keep what they earned. The year 1946 was not without ups and downs but entrepreneurs believed they could invest again and be allowed to make money. With freer markets, balanced budgets, and lower taxes the unemployment rate was only 3.9 percent in 1946, and it remained at roughly the same level during the next decade. The Great Depression was over, small thanks to FDR.

              His economic failures, however, were not FDRs greatest crime against America. In 1942 he signed executive order 9066, which allowed the detention of any and all Japanese-Americans out of fear of spying or sabotage (similar orders were carried out by the Nazis and Soviets who also imprisoned people based on their ethnicity/nationality.) 110,000 people were thrown into internment camps, 62% of whom were American citizens. In 1944 the constitutionality of this order was upheld in the supreme court saying that the need of protection against espionage outweighed the rights of the Japanese-Americans. Such an act was a blatant violation of one of the most basic human rights there is. Yet today, Franklin D. Roosevelt is consistently named among the top three best presidents America has had. America is in dire need of a lesson in history and basic economics to see that a man who imprisoned American citizens on illegitimate charges, and dragged the free market down, is not to be idolized as a great man.

THE CASE AGAINST TAXES

           Nobody likes paying taxes. Absolutely nobody sits down in front of that pile of bills and says "Oh my god yes, I have to pay TAXES!" We don't like it but we figure that its just  another part of the deal to becoming an adult. However taxes are little better than theft on a national scale, and the thieves are protected by the laws they make. Why should you HAVE to pay taxes? why should anyone, let alone the government, be allowed to threaten you with prison if you don't give them your money? Don't be deceived into thinking that just because they're not next to you when you pay your taxes means that its not robbery. If people want to keep government up and running then they should pay out of their own pocket not force those of us that have moral convictions against everything the government stands for.
            Perhaps the most common argument for taxes is roads. If we didn't pay taxes who would build the roads? (because we all know that before government, roads were completely unthought of.) The building of roads is not some long lost secret guarded by the government. Private companies could maintain roads just like governments can, and even do a better job of it. In a free market society there would be incentive to keep the roads better maintained than roads owned by rival companies so as to attract more costumers. Another argument is for army wages. How would our military get their pay without taxes? First of all I don't like the idea of my money going to help kill people overseas in the Middle East. Secondly the answer is to stop these undeclared, unjustifiable wars overseas. We're are spending billions of dollars over there and things have only changed for the worse, with thousands of dead on both sides.
             More pro-tax arguments include the existence of the police and fire department. When I say we should abolish them both I don't mean we let criminals have their way with society and let fires burn forever, I mean we let private business form fire and police departments on their own. The quality of public service would drastically go up. Police brutality would be a thing of the past because of the awful public image it would create ex: 'Well the officers from this company were in a brutality case, I'm not going to ask them for help.' With the disbanding of the federal police and fire departments, lots of people would be out of a job. But when these private companies begin to form, who will they want to hire? Former cops and firemen of course! Also, to entice former officers/firemen to join them, these companies would offer better pay/benefits then anything these men and women previously had. In a free market society, the quality of services rendered will go up in order to entice more consumers.
                In closing I'd like to say that I don't get it why people get so mad at these bankers that skip out on their taxes. I applaud those people. They're keeping THEIR money out of the hands of the government. The less money that goes down that black hole the better. The rich shouldn't be forced to pay as much as we do, WE should pay as little as they do.

WHY DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL

          Richard Nixon first declared the official war on drugs in 1971, although the crusade against them has gone back to as early as 1914. Decades later, the drug war is still going strong and has no realistic end in sight. How can this war be won? The fact is that it cannot be won. The drug problem is far too big for any government to solve, let alone one as clumsy and inefficient as ours. Millions of dollars go to fighting this unwinnable war. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars go to military aid in Columbia alone, and yet the cocaine trade continues to flood into the country mostly unharmed. In June of 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy publicly stated "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." In Mexico, nearly 50,000 civilians have died and hundreds are kidnapped everyday as a result of their war on drugs and the various cartels are still as powerful and corrupting as they have ever been. Here in America, there are hundreds of non-violent drugs offenders in prison just because they were (for better or worse) living their lives as they saw fit. 

            Drugs illegality gives over the entire market to the criminal element of society, virtually handing over a monopoly into the hands of those who rarely have anything higher than a high school education. The result is nothing but corrupt or dead law enforcement individuals (Cops, Judges ect.) murdered civilians who just got mixed up in things, and the occasional cocaine or heroine seizure. The fact that big pharmaceutical companies cannot sell drugs has been a 24/7 black Friday for gangs and cartels. The cost to make drugs is actually very low. Their high price comes from the money needed to smuggle the drugs into the country. If drugs were legal then pharmaceutical companies would begin to sell them at much cheaper prices, thus destroying the cartels profits. There is no realistic way that some thugs producing meth out of a warehouse can compete with the resources of bigger, more efficient professional companies.

           There are few responses to this epidemic and none of them are pretty. The legalization of drugs is not a perfect, end all solution. An addict will still be able to get his/her fix, but with vastly cheaper prices they would be able to support their addiction for much less than what it would usually cost. This finical freedom would allow most to not be driven to desperate measures such as to steal, kill or turn to prostitution for money to maintain their habit. Those against the legalization of drugs cannot accept a very simple truth; that they have neither the right, nor the competence to run other peoples lives. Drugs can be hideous things and this would be a much better world  if they had not been discovered. Many thousands of lives have been lost to drugs, and this is not counting those that have been ruined or de-humanized by the needle. But it is a dangerous illusion that we can stomp out every vice through legislation and force.  

GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY

           Where does a democratic government get its authority from? One might say from the consent of the people. What then of the people who don't consent? Are they still obligated to recognize the government? Most people would say yes, but why? I do not agree with virtually anything this government does so why should I recognize its laws, or pay its taxes? As with all governments, it is because they have the power to imprison me. Governments are given this vast amount of power by the people who voted for them, and those of us who do not want to recognize their authority are told that we have to because the majority voted for them. Democracy is said to hear everyones voice but in this past election we see that it is not the case. Obama was elected even though 48% of the country voted for Romney, and he also won more states. How have these people made a change? How have they made their views heard? Nothing has changed. Democracy is a system where the 52% can suppress the 48%. Our bill of rights supposedly protects the minority from this tyranny but we can see it is slowly being chipped away at, taking away more and more protection from the minority in the name of national security. Anyone who thinks that democracy is a government system for the individual is wrong. It is a government system for the majority and what few safety nets we had installed to protect the minority is being taken away from those that would see a new statist regime.
          There is an unspoken agreement between most people and the government called the social contract. It is insinuated that you give up some of your personal liberties in exchange for the governments protection and services. This is fine with many people but the thing is, it is not a formal agreement. I didn't sign shit. I never agreed to be ruled over by these politicians, nor do I want to. Just because the majority believes in this imaginary contract, I am forced to live by it too? What if your house is robbed and the government fails to catch the perpetrator does that nullify you of your obligation to follow the government laws and pay taxes?
          In the end, all governments protect their unjustly derived powers with force. They tax you with the threat of prison, they can attack you if you're protesting, and now they can imprison you without trial if they suspect you of supporting terrorism (NDAA). A free market society would not have this monopoly on force because of competition between rival businesses. They would also not abuse their power because it would create a terrible public image, thus hurting business. However, since government has a monopoly on force they can act how they please, and regardless of how bad their public image, they wont go out of business because they have a monopoly.

THE CIVIL WAR, SLAVERY AND SUCCESSION

  

             The civil war is commonly portrayed in history books as having two purposes. The first was to end slavery in the south and the second was to re-unite America. Both of these clauses were either unnecessary, or outright wrong. The big one is slavery. Slaves from Africa were used in the southern states as free labor on plantations. Such a practice was an abomination towards human rights and was utterly unjustifiable in any circumstances. This was a big propaganda tool for the North during the Civil War. It was said that we had to invade the south and free the slaves. The thing is, every country that had made slavery illegal had done so without bloodshed. England had anti-slavery champions such as William Wilberforce. America had the great abolitionists Fredrick Douglas and Lysander Spooner. If the abolitionists in congress had continued to press the issue and held out, then it is very doubtful that slavery would have survived. Instead hundreds of thousands of people died and the economy was pushed to the very brink of ruin. While it was an absolute necessity to free the slaves, it could have been achieved without such great losses.
            The second reason given for the necessity of the civil war was to maintain the unity of America. This is perhaps the greatest act of hypocrisy I have seen. The Southern states were doing the exact thing that the colonists had been doing almost a century before hand. In order to compete with Englands trade with the south, congress passed laws allowing higher tariffs driving prices up, just as England had hiked up taxes on the colonies. The south, fed up with government intervention decided to split from the union. Just as King George III called the rebels 'traitors, so the north dubbed the south.The situation was the same for the south and the revolutionaries because although they were called 'traitors' they were not traitors by definition. They did not betray anyone or break any kind of  official contractual agreement. Their relationship with the King/Government was purely voluntary as such it is incorrect to deem these men and women 'traitors.' These people for their own reason whether wise or unwise choose to enact their natural right to leave an organization that they had no contractual obligation to. When they did this they committed no more treason (which implies treachery, deceit, breaking of an agreement) leaving the union than if they left a church, or university for another.
                I do not believe that who you are should be determined by where you are born, something you have absolutely no control over at birth. Just as you cannot choose your gender, ethnicity, or parents, you cannot decide what country you want to be born in, and the fact that you are forced to be an American just because of something you had no control over is ridiculous. If you want to stay American that's fine. If you want to secede and go to Canada then that's your prerogative. But the fact that the government can say "no you have to stay an American" is wrong and an invasion of personal liberty.

DEMOCRACY IS BROKEN 

             My entire life I have believed that Democracy was the best system of government. It had its flaws, it had its imperfections but on the whole it was still better than anything else out there. Sure sometimes the wrong guy got elected, but you had to take the bad with the good. The 2012 election changed everything for me. The newly re-elected president Obama has enjoyed almost universal approvement by the democrats and neo-liberals, while sustaining universal disapprovement by the republicans and conservatives . When Obama was first elected in 2008 I didn't like him so much but in the past year I have grown to despise many of his policies. The two biggest for me are his tendency to order predator drone strikes on Pakistan, Libya  and Syria and his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) In his four years as President, Obama has ordered nearly 300 drone strikes on countries in the middle east that are suspected of harboring terrorist leaders (bush ordered 52.) These strikes are supposed to precisely target hostile target and eliminate them without civilian casualties, but reports show that nearly 1000 civilians have died in Pakistan alone, including over 100 children.
               It is ridiculously simple to find this information anywhere, weather it is on the news, YouTube, or even Wikipedia  and yet on the night of Obamas re-election, people were REJOICING. People were shouting his name in the streets like he was a savior. I had of course heard of the stereotypical Obama supporter that thinks Obama can do no wrong, but I always thought that it was over exaggerated and that after four years of awful foreign and economic policies that America would know better. And yet here I was, witnessing people thrilled with his re-election and I realized how incredibly ignorant, naive, and easily manipulated the American public really is. Our national debt has increased by 3 trillion dollars under his leadership. Hundreds and hundreds of innocent people have died, inviting future backlash against America by a generation in the middle east that has lived under our drones. He signed the NDAA which is mostly an military funding bill, but hidden away in there is an act that allows the president to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial as long as they are suspected of aiding terrorists (the Nazis had a very similar policy.)                         
                These aren't exactly national secrets hidden away somewhere, they're easily accessible on the internet, and yet I could tell that none of these people had a clue. They really did have no idea that by the end of the month they would have a childs blood on their hands. I saw that the American voter is easily convinced by empty rhetoric and simple/vague saying like "Yes we can." Democracy sounds like a bad joke when you think about it. We will let all the simple minded, ill- informed masses on the street decide who will run one of the most over powered countries history has ever had the displeasure to witness. People honestly didn't know what they were doing when they voted for Obama they thought they were voting for someone that would give them free medi-care, free education, and 'change (another simple/vague slogan.)
                I greatly appreciate the works of Shakespeare, in particular his political drama/ tragedy "Coriolanus." In this play Shakespeare provides a biting commentary on the 'will' of the people, showing that they simply agree with whoever is speaking at the moment. The main character, Ciaus, is hated by the people but when he speaks to them they end up supporting him and almost vote him to be consul, but when his enemies speak they turn against him again. I find the same to be true with the presidential race. If you tell an Obama supporter that Romney wants to drone bomb the middle east, increase spending, and supports the NDAA (all of which he does, I despise Romney policies as much as Obamas) then they will denounce him and say what an awful president he would make. Say the same about Obama and they would give a poorly though out argument about how much is blamed on Obama, and how he will give out free health care.
This has been the story of how I became disillusioned with government in all its various forms and recognized anarchy as the only intellectually  honest position to have.


http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2012/01/obama-signs-new-law-incarcerate-us-citizens-without-warrant-due-process-trial.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html