I feel a sufficient amount of conviction in the idea that a Laissez-Faire Free Market society can work without a government and only without a government intervention to openly state that I am now an anti-statist, with beliefs which probably fit the common definition of an “anarcho-capitalist”.

I actually feel that I’ve been slowly travelling towards this point of my life for quite a while, the recent months in which I dedicated quite a bit of time towards introspection, self-discovery, truly open minded debating and exploration being a sort of a catalyst that just accelerated my coming to this point. You can even see from my blog posts that I have been increasingly gravitating towards individualist humanist ideas of full individual liberty and responsibility and I have recently participated in a rather large and heated Libervis.com debate where I found myself defending libertarian / anarcho-capitalist ideas quite adamantly.

In other words I didn’t really need much by now to just tip me over into a full conviction. And a book I’ve just read (and simultaneously listened to, as the audio book is available), has provided much more than just a tip over. It blew my mind too. It is an incredible,detailed, logically sound description of a Laissez-Faire Free Market society and how it could really work and in fact work far better than any of the current government led societies. It literally has an answer to all of the major questions or objections I or most people would have against a society so radically different so as not to have or need a government.

The book is called “The Market for Liberty and that’s where you can download it in both PDF and audiobook format (torrent with high quality mp3s is high-speed). You can’t believe how much I recommend you read it. ;)

One of the fundamental reasons for which I find it so convincing is the fact that the authors base their reasoning on what is essentially a logical scientific theory which a back up in reality can easily be accounted for. We simply have to observe ourselves as human beings and how we naturally interact. It takes no genius to conclude that self-interest has a great deal to do with it. The book, in my mind, successfully and completely dismantles the ideas such as altruism and even pacifism which ultimately result in contradicting and even immoral and self destructive behaviour. Yes, I am no longer a supporter of altruism and pacifism. I might sympathize with the intention of those who associate themselves with these ideologies, but the ideologies themselves I find fundamentally flawed.

The scientific “theory” is a Natural Law which is as objectively real as the law of gravity. You can believe with all your heart and mind that gravity does not exist and then throw yourself off of a skyscraper - regardless of your beliefs you will suffer the consequences of the fall.

Similarly, there is a Natural Law to human behaviour, which if not followed must lead to adverse consequences to the society and its economy. Here is a nice quote about that from the book:


“Natural law does apply to human relationships, and it is just as objective, universal, and inescapable in this area as in any other. The proof of this is that actions have consequences . . . in the area of human interaction as surely as in the area of human medicine. A man who swallows poison will become ill (even if he has complete confidence that the poison is nothing more than vitamin pills). A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims (if some government doesn’t interfere). A
man who cheats his customers will be driven out of business by his more reputable competitors. The consequences of “breaking” natural law cannot be avoided. No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate, and they may not be readily apparent, but they are inescapable.

The free market is a product of the working of natural law in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships. Because man’s survival and well-being are not given to him, but must be achieved, men act to maximize their welfare (if they didn’t they couldn’t keep on living).. To maximize their welfare, they trade with other men, and when they trade, each man tries to get the best possible “deal.” Buyers bid against each other and push prices up. Sellers bid against each other and push prices down. At the point where the two forces meet, the market price is set, and everyone who wants to trade at that price can do so without creating surpluses or shortages. Thus, the law of supply and demand, and all other market laws, are really natural laws, directly derived from the nature and needs of that specific entity, man. The fact that market laws are natural laws explains why the free market works so well without any outside regulation. Natural law is always practical—it always “works.”"

Obviously, once a human recognizes that all actions have consequences it will be in his self interest to pursue activities which would result in maximum good for him or her, and in a society in which everyone is free to pursue anything (without the government to forbid certain kinds of pursuits or attempt to meddle in all of the other pursuits) coercion actually represents an undesirable means towards achieving maximum good for oneself. And it is therefore, as initiated by the market forces (powered by the law of supply and demand) enforcing the principle of non-coercion naturally.

This very notion undermines the criticism which somehow equates a society of fully free individuals to chaos (essentially, a lot more violence). Yet it is exactly the government, as a coercive monopoly, which has violence as an integral part of its way of “doing business”. As the book says, it “institutionalizes violence”. As such, the way government offers its services to people in what is consistent with the definition of a “protection racket”. They will protect us from poverty, for instance, by making us pay for welfare services under threat of theft of property (fines), incarceration or outright violence should we actively resist them.

Furthermore, by forbidding certain kinds of pursuits the government is actually creating “black markets” itself. And while you may already be aware of this, something that most people doublethink away, is that the very fact these pursuits are forbidden is what creates ecosystems of crime. This is because only people who are not afraid of government brute force are willing to enter markets which the government prohibits, because they themselves are not afraid to use brute force against the government as well. This gives way to organized crime or what we know as “Mafia”. So much for a government led society preventing the culture of violence that is usually associated with “chaos”.

And I no longer buy the argument that if the government doesn’t work this is just because there is corruption within it, but it would work if we got rid of that corruption. The thing is, government is fundamentally corrupt in itself, by its very nature as a coercive monopoly that concentrates power under the guise of protecting those which it coerces. It thrives on a moral contradiction.

Black market is just one of the actually more obvious ways in which the government harms the well being of individuals in a society, ALL individuals including the poor. The book describes ways which are much more subtle and much more easily escape the critics. Every single, even most seemingly insignificant regulation, can have tremendous consequences - all of which ultimately lead to MORE poverty and LESS economic growth.

The book even deals with such hard questions as how would a free market society deal with the few who would exercise aggression on other people and how would it defend itself from foreign attacks, and does this in a quite capable and convincing way. It further even poses that an effect that establishing a free market society in a particular part of the world would actually start the process which would lead to a world in which wars would not be fought. Because as people in the world see that government is an unnecessary evil whose impositions they don’t actually need to submit to, they will demand freedom, weakening their own governments while strengthening the economy of this single government-less free market country even further (by migrating there, investing there etc.).

And once all governments and their war machines collapse, who would be left to wage war? Aggression and trade are mutually incompatible. A Free Market is inherently anti-war, which can’t be said for governments the power of which is actually strengthened by the existence of an additional powerful enemy from which it needs to “protect” its citizens from (as we well see in the USA today.)

The prospects of establishing even just ONE Laissez-Faire Free Market society in the world are simply staggering. If it proves that it can work, and I am fully convinced that it would - because it respects the laws of nature governing human relations (without the need of artificial government) - it would mark an Earth shattering paradigm shift.

And I will be working towards establishing such a society. The book gives quite a sound and powerful method of doing it. It actually advocates against such methods as violent revolution, infiltration of government by other anarcho-capitalists, libertarians and alike or even total separation from the current government system (going off the grid or escaping into an unpopulated island). Instead it approaches a simple yet very powerful method: the spread of an idea.

And the idea that government is not actually a necessary evil, that taxes ARE actually theft and that paying taxes and other protection fees DOES NOT actually help the poor - are incredibly powerful ideas - might be the most powerful ideas you may ever convey to another person.

Therefore I would upgrade the statement of my purpose in life, my ultimate desire for the world from “a world where technology is used in a socially, ethically and ecologically responsible way” into “a world where governments no longer exist and technology is used and developed in a socially, ethically and ecologically responsible way”. I do feel now that the existence of a society without a government is a precursor to a society that is responsible in the way it manages technological use and development - because such a society is consisted of people who don’t just follow the leader and train dependence, but actually lead their own life and affairs and train personal responsibility.

And the only way we can hope for humanity to learn to use and develop technology responsibly is to make human individuals responsible and free themselves.

I would also note, as a result of this change in thinking, that I no longer assume as much distrust towards “Big Business” and corporations as I used to, and instead divert more of such distrust towards government itself. In fact, big business or small business or any business is doing exactly what we would expect them to do - follow their self interest (in which sense they’re actually most trustworthy). The fact that government has polluted the free market within which they operate and corrupted the balance it thrives on hence leading the business world in an awry direction is less of a fault of business and more of a fault of government meddling.

In their attempt to save the market from itself, they actually broke it, bluntly said. And I don’t take kindly to that, considering that I AM within that market and I SUFFER the consequences of their sleazy fingers in my affairs.

Nobody will stop this idea from spreading. I will dedicate DoublePlusHuman.com as a hopefully innovative and effective platform for spreading the idea of liberty, as it can fully be achieved.