Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Tucker misleadingly attacks Apple for hobbling AirDrop

Tucker Carlson slammed Apple on his 11-29-22 nightly broadcast for restricting the use of the Airdrop feature on its iPhone — in China only.  With widespread protests over China’s “zero-covid” policy that indirectly led to the deaths of 10 people in an apartment fire, Tucker views the limitation of a communications app as a clear sign that Apple is an instrument of the Chinese Communist Party.

After rightfully blasting US mainstream media for failing to report on tanks being rolled into action to intimidate protestors, Tucker said:

We can say, we know for a fact, that Apple is covering for the government of China. . . .  [In spite of it being located in the US and run by an American], Apple is in no sense American.  Apple’s loyalty is to the government of China.  

If you think that’s an overstatement consider this: Earlier this month [November, 2022] Apple did the bidding of the Chinese government to crush domestic protests against the Communist Party there.  Apple did this by disabling it’s permanent Airdrop feature in China — and so far only in China, the only country in which it’s disabled.  

So why did Apple disable that feature in China?

Well, because that feature — permanent AirDrop — allows iPhone users to communicate directly with one another — without using the internet or cellular networks, both of which in a totalitarian state like China are controlled by the government.

And that means without permanent Airdrop it’s effectively impossible for freedom-minded citizens to organize with one another — they’re powerless.  Apple, of course, knows this, and that’s why when iPhone users in China began using permanent AirDrop to complain about the Communist Party Apple just shut it down. 

Apple didn’t shut it down.  

Let’s look at some details.  Here is what the AirDrop control page looks like on an iPhone in the US — presumably the same as it would look anywhere else, including China.  


 “Contacts” are people who are included in their Phone app and is the default setting.  If they want to transmit or receive information using AirDrop with people not in their contacts, such as in a mass protest, they can change the setting to “Everyone.”

Even today protestors in China can do it.  But according to reports they can only do it 10 minutes at a time.  After 10 minutes they have to reset it from Receiving Off to one of the other options.

Yes, it’s a hassle, but it works.

Apple is a big company that tries to market its products around the world.  It is subject to market forces of competition as well as state forces of coercion.  Monopoly power lies with the state, not the company, no matter how big it is.  

Every state, including the US, has “pay to play” rules.  If Apple wants to sell iPhones in China, it has to satisfy state bureaucrats as well as customers.  This is one of many prices we pay in a world run by states. 

Blogger Don Surber reports on what happened to wealthy Chinese entrepreneur Jack Ma, co-founder and CEO of Alibaba, when he gave a speech in October 2020:  

He criticized the Communist Party, in the foolish belief that being the richest man in Red China protected him. It did not. Chairman Xi had him seized and sent off some place to be re-educated. He had money, not freedom. Now he is gone. Criticized by the pope, Stalin asked how many divisions does the pope have? Xi knew Ma also had no divisions. As George R.R. Martin wrote, power is power.

Neither does Apple have any divisions.  Apple could’ve removed its AirDrop feature altogether for China.  Maybe Xi will order it removed.  But for now it’s at least available in hobbled form.

Sunday, October 30, 2022

Does voting move us closer to a permanent jailbreak?

People today are voting for more of the same or voting for complete destruction of the same.  It’s not a vote for a particular candidate necessarily, although some of them sound refreshing in their campaign speeches.  Most importantly it’s a vote against the Democrats.  

The Democrats have usurped power to install an anti-life agenda.  They are not the loyal opposition.  They are destroying everything America is — freedom of dissent, freedom of opportunity, freedom from government intrusion, along with peace and prosperity.  They are using everything they can get away with to keep their grip on our lives.    

Democrats are not some crazed religious sect.  They’re a gang with control of the State’s omnipotent powers who have fraudulently acquired the label of legitimate.  It doesn’t matter that Biden is a cognitively impaired, ice cream-licking fool and that Kamala giggles and waves her hands to win affection.  They are number one and number two, with all the power the law assigns those positions plus the power they take on their own.   And they’re directing that power against us, the people who put them in office through a rigged election.

It’s long been said that power itself corrupts those who have it.  Will it corrupt people like Mehmet Oz, Kari Lake, or Joe Kent?  Or Donald Trump? Looking at history we see few officeholders who have been significantly untouched, notably former congressman Dr. Ron Paul and anti-war suffragist Jeannette Rankin, the first woman to hold public office and the only representative to vote against US involvement in both WW I and WW II, and who in 1968 at age 87 mobilized an anti-war protest against the Vietnam War.  Most officeholders, elected or appointed, see the power of the State as the only way to govern society, helping itself to our wealth in the process. 

“If elections changed anything they’d make them illegal,” we often hear.  The state, no matter how dedicated to our welfare it pretends to be, forbids the public from tampering with certain control centers or pillars of society. Two of those pillars are education and money, both of which it controls virtually without challenge.  Part of the educational failing is an understanding of money, and that’s one reason we’re headed for what Gary North has called the Great Default.

Most of you know about Ron Paul and his homeschooling course and opposition to the Fed.  Of the current crop of candidates how many even question government schooling or Fed-controlled fiat money? 

Voting might accomplish a temporary change for the better but if the State’s pillars remain untouched, how long would it last?  We do need government but not the ones we’ve been subjected to: The one we vote for and the other that controls them, the Deep State.

The elected government is a fake, the deep state is a monster, but no one talks about the governing power of the free market.  The first two governments live off of the third. Without its support the other two would not exist.  How did it happen that the most powerful government is also the slave the other two kick around?

 What organizations extract their funding by force? Walmart, Amazon, Apple, Home Depot?  The little girls and their mothers selling girl scout cookies?  If there was such an outfit it would be considered criminal. Why does government get a pass?  A double-standard is indefensible.

Government today is presumably run by experts — experts such as Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Jerome Powell. What do we, who are busy with our lives, know about viruses or foreign policy or monetary issues?  So we listen to experts as they sell us down the river.  We might trash them, but usually fail to criticize the system that makes them possible.  Its absence would mean anarchy, a word made evil by the State, but it is only another term for a society not subjugated by the threat of legalized violence, otherwise known as the free market. 

Does voting move us closer to a permanent jailbreak?  No, because it never gets rid of the jail.  Freedom from today’s government is never on the ballot.   

Let’s challenge it.  Let’s embrace the free market without the meddling of a monopoly State.  Let’s shrug off our oppressor.  For starters see here and here.


Thursday, October 13, 2022

Honest Money in Dishonest Hands

For those who would find relief knowing the Bible sanctions a market-derived medium of exchange, Gary North’s Honest Money will come as a godsend (no pun intended).  Even for those reprobates who forswear a religious worldview, his book will provide a solid grounding in monetary theory and history.  

North’s vast understanding of money and banking coupled with his lean, no-jargon writing style takes the labor out of reading.  His narrative carries us on a journey from the development of money in its innocent youth, where it was used solely as a means of facilitating trade, to money in its corrupt maturity, where today it also serves to facilitate power and profit for a ruling elite.  

Very importantly Honest Money also includes numerous bullet points at the end of each chapter covering the main ideas.  More good news: The book can be read comfortably in one evening.

Crusoe’s Choices

North begins with the familiar star of economic analysis, Robinson Crusoe.  But rather than the usual pedestrian account of how Crusoe will budget his time, North dramatizes the situation somewhat, as would be appropriate for someone recently shipwrecked on an unknown island.  

While on board a ship slowly sinking, Crusoe makes decisions about what goods to take to shore on his crudely assembled raft.  The various goods and conditions on the island are objective, but his evaluation of the value of each good is purely subjective.  Any gold on board has no value to a man marooned indefinitely on a desert island.  

Gold isn’t wealth. It’s heavy. It displaces tools. It sinks rafts. It’s not only useless; it’s a liability.

This is how North introduces the reader to the distinctions between objective reality and subjective preferences, and to the fact that money arises only in a social context.  With no one to trade with, poor Crusoe had no need of it.

What is money and where did it come from?

In subsequent chapters he builds on these ideas.  Money is a universally-accepted medium of exchange.  Originally, it was not imposed from above but evolved from competition with all other goods on the market, as the good most acceptable in trade.  Over the centuries, gold and silver became the most commonly used monies.

What about the supply of money?  Who determines that?

If we have honest money, the market controls its supply.  In today’s world it’s a committee.  Just as we wouldn’t want a committee to set prices for us, North says, “why should it be allowed to control the supply of money in which all prices are quoted?”

A complacent public

But what about the hapless public under this monetary regime?  Will they ever revolt?

Not very often. The public decides that paper money is money, not pieces of shiny metal. If paper is acceptable by the store down the street, then who cares? Who cares if prices go up, year after year? What’s “a little” price inflation? We’re all doing better, aren’t we? . . . .

“Inflation can’t hurt anyone too badly” is a delusion of fully employed younger workers. It can hurt everyone who isn’t staying ahead of it with pay increases, and I mean after-tax pay increases.

Inflation acts as a turbocharger for the progressive income tax.  The latter was passed in 1913 with rates so low and applied to incomes so high that almost no one worried, just as no one worries about a little inflation.  The average family made $1,000 a year, but the tax didn’t kick in until the $20,000 level, and even there it was only 1%.  Those few who made $500,000 or more were “soaked” at only 7%.

But once the law was in place the politicians changed the rules.  Imagine that.  In 1916, while Woodrow Wilson was bragging to voters about keeping us out of war, the top rate was bumped to 15%.  The following year, while Wilson was shipping American men “over there,” the bottom bracket plunged from $20,000 to $2,000 while the top rate reached 67%, then 77% a year later.  

As Rothbard has noted

As luck would have it, the new Federal Reserve System coincided with the outbreak of World War I in Europe, and it is generally agreed that it was only the new system that permitted the U.S. to enter the war and to finance both its own war effort, and massive loans to the allies; roughly, the Fed doubled the money supply of the U.S. during the war and prices doubled in consequence. 

Inflation is another name for counterfeiting.  Counterfeiters create money from nothing then spend it.  The private counterfeiter and the government counterfeiter have the same goal: to get something for nothing.

The public doesn’t trust private counterfeit money. The public does trust government counterfeit money, at least for a long time, until people’s trust is totally betrayed (mass inflation).

What is the difference in principle between private counterfeiting and government counterfeiting?  None.

A Tale of Three Counterfeiters

One of the most memorable parts of Honest Money is North’s tale of the counterfeiters.  Although counterfeiting is a swindle it acquires a high moral luster if it’s practiced in plain sight by the right people. 

In North’s tale three men counterfeit and are discovered.

The first one is a businessman with an offset printing press who prints 500 $20 bills and spends them into circulation.  

The second man is an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing who prints a million $20 bills, and the government spends them into circulation.

The third is the chairman of a major New York bank that has loaned a billion dollars of fractional-reserve money to Pemex, the oil company owned by the Mexican government.  Pemex cannot meet interest payments on the loan because the price of oil has collapsed. 

What happens to these three men?

The businessman is convicted of counterfeiting and sent to prison.

The government employee continues to print money until he reaches age 65, when he retires and collects a pension.

The bank chairman calls the Fed, who in turn calls the Mexican government to get them to issue a bond for $25 million.  The Fed subsequently creates $25 million to buy the bond.  The Mexican government sends the money to Pemex, which then sends it to the New York bank to meet its quarterly interest payment.  “The chairman of the New York bank gets a round of applause from the bank’s board of directors, and perhaps even a $100,000 bonus for his brilliant delaying of the bank’s crisis for another three months.”

The $25 million then multiplies through the U.S. fractional reserve banking system, creating millions of new commercial dollars in a mini-wave of inflation.

The World’s Most Powerful Insurance Company

Counterfeiters need protection if they are to succeed.  The biggest counterfeiters, the major banks, sought and established the protection they wanted in 1913, with the Federal Reserve System.  

The Fed’s public purpose was to prevent banking panics, as recessions were once called.  It was to create an elastic currency to meet the needs of business, through dispassionate and skillful management of the money supply. 

Under its watch, the economy has experienced at least 11 recessions over the last century, including the longest one on record, 1929-1945.

One of the greatest services the Fed does for government is monetize its debt.  When the federal government can’t raise taxes without facing a tax revolt and borrowing from private sources would entail high interest rates, it calls on the Fed to buy its debt on the cheap.  


Honest money is not necessarily a gold - silver standard, North says.  “The only standard that matters is the no fractional reserves standard, coupled with the no false balances standard.” 

As long as the Fed is around, we will never have honest money.  The purpose of the Fed is to inflate for the benefit of its friends: the big banks and government.  In light of this situation we should never question the success of government schooling. 

Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Could the US pass a physical?

"One of the differences between people and dogs,” according to Senator John Kennedy, “is that dogs would never allow the weakest or the dumbest to lead the pack.”

In the case of leader Joe Biden those qualities are exactly what his handlers want. 

There are many Americans who see Biden and his party as simply the latest installment of a pro-American government, even if they don’t particularly like it.  Nothing wrong here.  America is just taking a few different turns.  FDR did it with the New Deal, JFK had his New Frontier.  The Woke program is much the same. Turn America upside down — for its own good.  Ignore the yahoos who slam it.

In medicine there are standards of good health.  If all the measures check out, all’s well.  Can we do the same with government?  

Let’s start at the top.  Does the current resident of the White House inspire confidence?  Answer: No, not even among his own party.  The FJB chant at college football games suggests younger people are not sold on the “liberal new order,” either.  

How about the second in command should the president die or have been declared unfit for the job?  Would she be a strong leader?  Answer: No.  Who among us, regardless of political persuasion, would cast a vote for her competence to lead a superpower?  For reminders, see here and here

How about the economy?  Is it at least holding steady?  Is the outlook encouraging?  Are we producing products and services people want to buy and have the means to do the buying?  Answer: No.  We’re headed for the worst disaster in American history.  See here and here.

In connection with the preceding, how does the US dollar look?  Keep in mind the “dollar” is a fiat instrument exclusively produced by a government-supported cartel, the Federal Reserve.  Do the best and the brightest at the Fed issue new dollars according to validated economic principles? Answer: Of course not.  The Fed exists for two purposes — to buy government debt and ensure the solvency of the major banks.  Its alleged purpose, on which it has failed spectacularly and could only fail spectacularly, is to ensure price stability and keep the economy from falling into depression.  The Fed is even worse than the IRS because most people have no idea what it does.  (See here.)

And what it has done and continues doing is steal purchasing power from the holders of dollars, and by discouraging real savings turned the capital markets into a crapshoot. A warmongering government couldn’t get along without it.

Has the US worked to promote peace among nations and within its own borders?  Answer: Hell no.   The proxy war in Ukraine, like all wars, is murderous and costly, and threatens to become a nuclear apocalypse.  US warmongers are calling for the Putin regime’s destruction even if it means launching nuclear-armed ICBMs.  Do they know Russia has new ICBMs, the R-28 SARMAT aka Satan II, that can elude US missile defense systems and wipe out major cities in North America?  Are they seeking to validate a popular hypothesis of the Fermi paradox, that intelligent life tends to destroy itself through stupidity?  Have their evil intentions evolved into full-blown insanity?  See Col. Doug MacGregor’s comments here.  See Saagar’s Breaking Points here.

And with the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, US leaders have moved us even closer to a nuclear nightmare.

Every country has military recruiting ads not only to get young people to sign up but to put on a show for the rest of the world to see. China and Russia run ads showing the strength of their fighting forces — who would want to mess with them?  And the US?  View it and weep.

The causes of street crime are many and in addition to a soft-on-selective-criminals approach (here, here, and here) likely include the influence of a government at war with its population.  States are fundamentally exploiters of the people they rule.  Inasmuch as a state acquires its revenue through threat of violence, it thereby defines itself as an exploiter.  

But in the US there was once no income tax, no federal reserve, no wars, gently declining prices, and the greatest era of prosperity ever achieved: The latter part of the 19th century.  Judging by that standard what do we have today? 

Today, capping over a century of government meddling, we have Biden’s Orwellian Inflation Reduction Act that flatly won’t reduce inflation while releasing an additional 75,000 armed and trained IRS agents on middle-income Americans.  Just guessing at their logic: more tax revenue means less debt means less printing means less inflation.  And as a bonus, more agents means more jobs.

None of this comports with reality, of course, since inflation keeps the house of cards standing, and despite its recent rate hikes the Fed will print, print, print until the economy implodes, at which point those new IRS agents will join the National Guard trying to control the streets.  The government gets what it wants with force, why are we surprised when everyday people do the same?

Political fitness doesn’t include weaponizing government agencies, since in theory we are supposed to be a country of laws bound by the Constitution.  But theory be damned: It’s Republican hunting season.  As Senator Kennedy quipped about the raid at Mar-a-Lago, “The FBI and the Department of Justice are going to give Trump a fair and impartial firing squad.”  See here, here, here, and here.

To be in good health means respecting the Bill of Rights, particularly the First and Second Amendments.  Under the current regime First Amendment rights don’t include spreading misinformation, which on inspection turns out to be anything that conflicts with the regime’s pronouncements, the most egregious of which is the vaccines are safe and effective (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  

Of course, the Second Amendment simply has to go.  We can’t have civilized people pulling their guns on government agents raiding their homes or stopping them at fast food joints

All these political ailments and many more (border disaster, war on unvaccinated, climate change tyranny; also see here and here.) come together in one carefully crafted plan that features a one-world government and a population significantly reduced through pandemic restrictions and treatments (including suppressed treatments).  

This is clearly a conspiracy, and it’s all theirs (and see here).   

As Lara Logan explained, “It's not just America's sovereignty that's on the chopping block, it's sovereignty all over the world . . . This is the country that has to fall first in order for the other countries to fall.” (My emphasis; also see this.)

Government is promoting every possible anti-life policy it can get away with.  We are a long way from good health.

Yet, there are good reasons for optimism.  Remember, “A man doesn’t lose when he gets knocked down but when he don’t get up.” (Mel Gibson, Father Stu).  

Here’s someone who never got knocked down, a brave young girl, Fiona LaShalls, who looked them straight in the eye and told them straight where to go.  

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at 

Friday, September 9, 2022

The Story of the Fed is the Story of a Crime

“The magnitude by which [the reality of the Federal Reserve] deviates from the accepted myth,” writes G. Edward Griffin, “is so great that, for most people, it simply is beyond credibility.”  But as he makes abundantly clear in his landmark book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, now in its fifth edition, the case against the Fed is overwhelming. 

Creature, as Griffin explains, is four books in one: a crash-course in money and banking; a history of central banking in America; a discussion of the Fed itself and its role in American and world affairs; and finally, a detailed look at how the Fed and other central banks become “catalysts for war.”  

Without central banking, much of the carnage of the past 108 years would not have been possible.  

In November 1910 seven men representing roughly one-fourth of the world’s wealth took a clandestine train ride from New Jersey to a resort on Jekyll Island, Georgia, ostensibly to hunt ducks.  But instead of shooting birds they drew up plans for a state-privileged cartel, which served as the blueprint for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. 

For years, most people left the Jekyll Island tale for the fringe that loves conspiracy theories.  But gradually the story leaked out, beginning with an article by Bertie Charles Forbes, the future founder of Forbes Magazine, in Leslie’s Weekly in 1916 (excerpted here).  Following discussions with Paul Warburg, the Fed’s chief architect and one of the Jekyll attendees, Forbes confirmed the trip in his opening paragraphs.  Later writers, including some of those in attendance at Jekyll Island, corroborated Forbes’ story.  The secret trip of 1910, long considered the delusions of conspiracy theorists, was openly celebrated in 2010 by Bernanke & company.

Why did they want a cartel?  So they could practice fractional reserve banking with impunity, while shifting the negative consequences to the public.

The American people, of course, have been handed a thoroughly scrubbed version of the Fed: it exists to stabilize the economy and protect the public.  Never mind the crashes in ’21 and ’29, the Great Depression from ’29 to ’39; recessions in ’53, ’57, ’69, ’75, and ’81; another crash in ’87, a bear market in 2000 that wiped out $7 trillion in stock market wealth by 2003, the global meltdown of 2007-2008, and constant inflation eating away the buying power of the dollar. 

As economist Antony Sutton noted, “Warburg’s revolutionary plan to get American society to go to work for Wall Street was astonishingly simple . . . The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public interest.”

Griffin is detailed and clear about how the Fed works.  In the old days when governments wanted more money but were afraid to increase taxes, they printed it and forced citizens to accept it by making it legal tender.  It was too crude a scheme to fool most people, but now, with modern central banking, the theft is virtually imperceptible.

First, government doesn’t create money directly; its central bank does.  Second, the bank rarely needs to turn to the printing presses.  Instead, it often buys government debt, such as bonds, by writing a check.   “There is no money to back up this check,” Griffin explains.  “By calling those bonds ‘reserves,’ the Fed then uses them as the base for creating nine additional dollars for every dollar created for the bonds themselves.  The money created for the bonds is spent by the government, whereas the money created on top of those bonds is the source of all the bank loans made to the nation’s businesses and individuals . . .

“The bottom line is that Congress and the banking cartel have entered into a partnership in which the cartel has the privilege of collecting interest on money which it creates out of nothing . . . Congress, on the other hand, has access to unlimited funding without having to tell the voters their taxes are being raised through the process of inflation.” 

Government’s money tree

What might government do with such “unlimited funding”?

As Murray Rothbard has noted, the country had been in recession during 1913 and 1914 – high unemployment, with many factories operating at only 60% capacity.   The Morgan empire in particular had been losing money in railroads and had lost out to Kuhn-Loeb in the market for industrial finance.

The Morgans had always been closely connected to the Rothschild financial empire in Europe.  When war in Europe broke out, the House of Morgan, in partnership with the Rothschilds, became the American sales agent for English and French war bonds.  When the money came back to the States to acquire war-related materials, it was funneled through Morgan as the U.S. purchase agent.  From 1915 to 1917, J. P. Morgan arranged for $3 billion in exports to France and England, earning a commission of $30 million.  As historian Thomas Fleming has dryly noted, the U.S. became a branch of the British armament industry during the first 32 months of its neutrality.

But it was a precarious feast.  If the Allies should lose, American investors would sustain huge losses and Morgan’s business would nosedive.  Getting the U.S. into the war would extend the financial windfall, but the American public opposed involvement by ten to one, if Senator Robert La Follette, who delivered a scathing speech in the Senate opposing U.S. entry into the war, is to be believed.

In May 1915 the British passenger ship Lusitania gave war hopefuls a much-needed boost.  Nearly 1,200 passengers, including 128 Americans, lost their lives when a German U-boat torpedoed it off the coast of Ireland.  With its hold stuffed with U.S. munitions contraband, the Lusitania exploded a second time and sank in less than 18 minutes.  As Griffin documents meticulously, British and American officials had done severything in their power to make Lusitania a sitting duck.

With Morgan-controlled newspapers beating the drums for American participation, Wilson finally got his war on April 6, 1917.  Eight days later Congress extended $1 billion in credit to the Allies.  The British took their initial advance of $200 million and paid it to Morgan.  When they ran up an overdraft of $400 million three months later, Morgan turned to the U.S. Treasury for help.  Treasury-Secretary William McAdoo stalled until Benjamin Strong, the Fed’s main man, came to his rescue and paid Morgan piecemeal during 1917 - 1918.  Where did Strong get the money?  He simply created it.

The income tax, also enacted in 1913, raised $1 billion during World War I.  But seventy per cent of the cost of the war came from inflation, through a doubling of the money supply.  As Rothbard understates, “For those who believe that U.S. entry into World War I was one of the most disastrous events . . . in the twentieth century, the facilitating of U.S. entry into the war is scarcely a major point in favor of the Federal Reserve.”  In addition to grabbing wealth through direct taxes, government, in collusion with the Fed, took roughly one-half of the people’s savings from 1915 – 1920.  

Griffin lifts the curtain on the Fed’s operations and exposes it for what it is: a counterfeiting cartel in partnership with government, soaking the blood and treasure of our country.


The preceding is adapted from my book, The Jolly Roger Dollar -- and the pirates who made it.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at 

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

Mass Murder has always been politically acceptable

War is the Health of the State” wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918.  Ever wonder what it means?  

Gary North wrote extensively about what he called the Great Default, a time when government could no longer kick the can on financing its wealth-depleting welfare/warfare state.  He cites a 1999 book by former CFR president Peter G. Peterson, Gray Dawn: How the coming age will transform America—and the world, in which Peterson writes:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal civilian and military pensions -- will exceed total federal revenues by the year 2030. This would leave zero tax revenue for any other purpose -- not even for interest payments not for national defense nor for education nor for child health, nor for the federal payroll. Not a penny available for anything else.

Politicians have long ignored unavoidable doom because cutting benefits or raising taxes are politically toxic.  Yet the problems won’t go away.  What’s a scheming politician to do?

Cut the number of beneficiaries

In 2019 they came up with a plan, Event 201.  To this day most people either don’t know about it or consider it another conspiracy theory.  What if a bug, a virus, wiped out a significant number of old people?  Wouldn’t that ease the stress on the welfare state, at least delay its collapse?  

Further, what if this bug really wasn’t terribly lethal — let’s not kill the “wrong” people, for God’s sake — but could be promoted as on a par with the Spanish Flu?  Surely that would scare the devil out of those who trust government pronouncements.  And to make it more lethal, what if the health care systems could be incentivized to deliver “solutions” that killed on their own?  (See here, too.). Let the treatments do the killing.  

And what if authorities went further by banning or discouraging early treatments that might have precluded the need for a warp speed, poorly-tested vaccine?   Such early treatments to include not just hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but supplements such as vitamins D, C, melatonin, and zinc?  (See here for D.) Further yet, what if major social media companies could be “persuaded” to censor distinguished medical researchers who tried to expose the fraud for what it was?  

And what if the politicians got into the act by imposing restrictions on behavior as a means of fighting this terrible virus?  What if the restrictions included not only lockdowns, masks, and social distancing, but the closing of “non-essential” businesses, the determination of which would be left to their corrupt judgment and which would include gyms and churches?

What if, as the deaths and injuries piled up, public health reps and the media ignored or downplayed the incriminating statistics in public databases such as VAERS?

And what if, as the vaccines were rolled out prematurely, those who refused the vaccine were demonized as threats to the established order?  What if only the vaccinated were allowed the freedom to board airplanes or cross borders, or hold government jobs?  What if unvaccinated people, including health care workers who were on the front lines fighting the virus before vaccines were available, were condemned as “anti-vaxers” and fired from their jobs?

What if the vaccinated started to die suddenly, and the deaths from all causes far exceeded previous years?  Would people continue to believe the vaccines were “safe and effective”?  Would they continue to leave those beliefs unexamined and await further orders from the bureaucrats?

Yes, because major institutions they trust and dare not contradict, such as government schools, the FDA, CDC, AMA, even the NFL, et al would still be demanding obedience to the narrative.  Exercise due diligence?  What’s that?

All this and more is unthinkable among people who still regard reason as their means of survival.  But even irrationality sometimes has a decipherable logic, which in the case of the virus is: For each person who dies it is one less body off government’s back.  If enough die government might be fiscally solvent, assuming the survivors continue to pay taxes.  Biden’s new IRS army will help ensure they do.  

War to the rescue

Weaponizing a virus might not kill enough people the globalists want, however.  An old-fashion shooting war might be added to augment the population reduction.

The “greatest” US presidents are those in office during war — Lincoln, Wilson, FDR.  Never mind the astronomical death tolls on both sides of the conflicts, and never mind they had a hand in starting the wars.  Biden is rightly blamed for pulling out of Afghanistan in such a way that 13 servicemen lost their lives.   But Lincoln is regarded as a saint for causing the deaths of as many as 850,000 Americans.  And for what purpose?  Read Lincoln's first inaugural address.  And while we’re enraged over the 13 lives lost in Afghanistan, what about the rest of the 2,000-plus Americans who died there?  And the Afghans who died?   

The US deep state pours money and arms into the conflict in Ukraine, while keeping a watchful eye on Taiwan, hoping for something bigger — perhaps much bigger (here and here) — to come out of it.  If only government can find a way to get astronomical body counts, as happened in the two world wars!

If that happens Biden may someday be regarded by any surviving experts as the greatest US president because he presided over nuclear Armageddon. 


George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at s


Tuesday, August 16, 2022

Is justice possible without the State?

In Chaos Theory, Robert P. Murphy sketches how market forces would operate to support the private production of justice and defense -- two areas that are traditionally conceded to be the sole province of the State.  

Murphy contends that not only would the market be able to provide these services, but would do so much more efficiently and equitably than the system we have now.

Here, I’ll confine discussion to a few key points he makes about the production of “justice” on the free market.

As with the western pioneers and the world today, no single set of laws or rules is needed to bind everyone.  People would enter into voluntary contracts that spell out the rules they agree to live by.   “All aspects of social intercourse would be ‘regulated’ by voluntary contracts.”  

Who makes the rules?  Private legal experts, who would draft laws under open competition with rivals.  The market deals with “justice” as it does with other services.  As Murphy notes, 

“the market” is just shorthand for the totality of economic interactions of freely acting individuals. To allow the market to set legal rules really means that no one uses violence to impose his own vision on everyone else.

In an advanced AnCap society, insurance companies would play a major role.  People would buy policies, for example, to indemnify their victims if they were ever found guilty of a crime.  As they do now, insurance companies would employ experts to determine the risks of insuring a given individual.  If a person were considered too great a risk he might be turned down, and this would be information others would use in deciding if and how they wished to interact with him.

Critics say this might work for peaceful, rational people but what about incorrigible thieves and ax murderers?  How would market anarchy deal with them?

All Property is Privately Owned

Murphy reminds us that “wherever someone is standing in a purely libertarian society, he would be on somebody’s property.”  This allows for force to be used against criminals without violating their natural rights.  He cites the example of a person entering a movie theater, with an implicit contract such as the following: 

If I am judged guilty of a crime by a reputable arbitration agency [perhaps listed in an Appendix], I release the theater owner from any liability should armed men come to remove me from his property.

In this way the use of force would have been authorized by the recipient himself beforehand.

But where do these armed men take the criminal?  On a free market, a high-security analog to jails would evolve.  These jails, though, would resemble hotels because they would be competing with each other for business, which in AnCap means both pleasing the criminal and guaranteeing his secure detention.  

Unlike government prisons there would be no undue cruelty and virtually no chance of escape.  If a dangerous criminal escaped and killed again the insurance company would be held liable.  And a prisoner who didn’t like the way he was treated would have the option of switching to a different jail, as long as his insurance company was in agreement.

Would the Mafia Take Over?

People who support the State because they believe organized crime would take control of an AnCap society should consider that we’re already living  under the “most ‘organized’ criminal association in human history.”  Whatever crimes the Mafia has committed, they are nothing -- nothing -- compared to the wanton death and destruction states have perpetrated.    

We need to consider, too, that the mob gets its strength from the government, not the free market.

All of the businesses traditionally associated with organized crime—gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, drug dealing—are prohibited or heavily regulated by the state. In market anarchy, true professionals would drive out such unscrupulous competitors.

Applying AnCap

Murphy discusses several applications of anarcho-capitalism in today’s world, one of which is medical licensing.  Almost everyone believes that without government regulation we would all be at the mercy of quacks.  “Ignorant consumers would go to whatever brain surgeon charged the lowest price, and would be butchered on the operating table.”  Therefore, we need the iron fist of government to restrict entry into the medical profession.

But this is pure fiction.  Since the demand for safe and effective medicine is universal, the market would respond accordingly with voluntary organizations that would allow only qualified doctors into their ranks.  Insurance companies, too, would only underwrite doctors who met their standards, since they would stand to lose millions in malpractice suits.

Regarding the ongoing controversy of gun control, Murphy sees legitimate points to both sides of the debate:

Certainly we cannot trust the government to protect us once it has disarmed us. But on the other hand, I feel a bit silly arguing that people should be able to stockpile atomic weapons in their basement.

How might AnCap resolve this?  Let’s say Joe Smith wants an insurance company to agree to pay $10 million to the estate of anyone Smith happens to kill.  “The company will be very interested to know whether Smith keeps sawed off shotguns—let alone atomic weapons—in his basement.”  In this way truly dangerous weapons would be restricted to those willing to pay the high premiums for owning them.

Though it’s hard to imagine any company willing to issue a policy to a holder of nuclear weapons, nevertheless, if someone wanted to, there would be no agency with the authority to prohibit owning them.  But without a policy, a person would be unable to guarantee his contracts with others and would find it virtually impossible to function in society.

Getting there from here

Establishing an AnCap society depends heavily on the history of the region.  North Korean market anarchists, for example, might have to use violence to curtail that brutal regime, while in the United States, “a gradual and orderly erosion of the State is a wonderful possibility.”

The one thing all such revolutions would share is a commitment by the overwhelming majority to a total respect of property rights.

People already understand that rape and murder are crimes - even rapists and murderers.  The hard part is convincing people “that murder is wrong even when duly elected ‘representatives’ order it.”

We can build on intuitive notions of justice, just as newly arriving miners in California respected the claims of earlier settlers.  

To take a more modern example, even inner city toughs unthinkingly obey the “rules” in a pickup game of basketball, despite the lack of a referee.

As he explains in a footnote, the players in a pickup game still recognize the existence of a foul (and other rules), even if the offending player denies he committed one.  

Now, the market solution to such ambiguity and bias, for games deemed important enough to warrant the extra cost and hassle, is to appoint official referees to apply the “law” (which they too unthinkingly respect). Notice that at no point is a violent monopoly needed to achieve this orderly outcome. 


Those who defend the State as necessary to protect  property rights should brush up on their history, from day one to the present.  As Murphy wraps up,

I ask that the reader resist the temptation to dismiss my ideas as “unworkable,” without first specifying in what sense the government legal system “works.”

Seeing how government “justice” has worked especially since the election of 2016, that would be a tall challenge.

George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He eagerly welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at 

The State Unmasked

“So things aren't quite adding up the way they used to, huh? Some of your myths are a little shaky these days.” “My myths ? They're...