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.