The libertarian business model

There’s a cynical cartoon that’s been circulating forever on social media that shows a seasoned cancer researcher telling a new recruit, “Yes, finding a cure for cancer would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  But remember, not finding a cure is how we butter our bread.”

Surely, I thought, researchers don’t seriously adopt that attitude.  A cure even for one of the over 100 types of cancer would immortalize the researchers and likely earn them a Nobel Prize.  Why would they settle for the obscurity of a steady but inconsequential job?  Why would they be so devoid of moral ideals, when that was likely the reason they chose a career in research from the start?

But the cartoon continued to nag me.  Even brilliant people want job security, and under the steady flow of government funding, struggling but never succeeding would guarantee that security.  

Their wish for an uninterrupted revenue stream also explains their hostile and litigious opposition to any claim by alt medicine that, as Bill Sardi argues, we already know how to cure cancer.

If you’re going to drag your feet finding a cure you have to be ready to pounce on someone like Sardi who maintains there already is one.  You have to stage experiments that fail to support the claims of alt medicine that often use treatments found in nature, such as amygdalin and medical marijuana.  Big money can only be made with patented drugs, and that puts a big bulls-eye on the backs of doctors who use treatments not approved by state authorities.

It reminded me of political leaders who conduct endless wars in faraway places not to defeat an enemy but to expand budgets.  The same problem exists with so-called social wars, such as the wars on drugs and poverty.  Spend, spend, spend, and spend some more while seizing the moral high ground.

Libertarians are different?  

In many respects libertarians are like Edmond Dantes in Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo, unjustly condemned to a horrible dungeon for life and spending years struggling to escape before finally succeeding.  At no time did Dantes consider his efforts an end in themselves, as the state’s various wars are.  He was sustained by the faint hope of escaping — of leaving the dungeon — and working to that end defined his days.

For libertarians their dungeon is the state, but unlike Dantes they have no idea how to escape. They don’t know how to get from here to there. About the closest they come to a plan is writing a bunch of articles and books that end up saying bring the troops home and bring back the original Constitution.  Are they taking up a petition to bring this about?  Not that I’ve seen.  Or if they have a pessimistic outlook, they tell us the world is going to hell and there’s no way to stop it.  

One conspicuous exception to this approach was Congressman Ron Paul, who had a plan to end the Fed and argued for honest money throughout his career.  His confrontations with Greenspan and Bernanke in Congress were models of courage and integrity.  Reforming the Fed was impossible.  It was corrupt from the root.  And he told them so.

With few exceptions libertarians are not like Dr. Paul.  They tell people liberty is the ideal but in this power-mad world there’s no way to reach it.  Maybe after the state collapses but not sooner.  It’s not going to go away with votes cast by the public in state-sponsored elections.  Voting for liberty is never a choice.  By its nature the state is an enemy of liberty, and it is in charge.  

The libertarian business plan is thus similar to that of the state’s.  It keeps readers reading but without a plan of escape.  Reading (or watching or listening) is an end in itself.  

Here are some anonymous examples selected at random.  Each takes a position I fully support — as far as it goes — but as a reader what action should I take to make the position reality?  The writers don’t say . . . except the last one, number 5, and I believe he was saying more than he realized.

1.  We should get rid of the FBI, DEA, ATF, and the rest of the law enforcement alphabet of bureaucratic fiefdoms by repealing the War on Drugs and the rest of the nanny state statutes.

2.  Do you want to be free or not? It’s an important question because if the answer is yes, then a necessary prerequisite of freedom is the dismantling, not the reform, of American socialism, including its crown jewel, Social Security.

3.  [Libertarians] favor liberty, free markets, and a limited-government republic, which not only provide people with economic prosperity and high standards of living but also nurture such values as self-reliance, independence, conscience, courage, and voluntary charity.

4.  We, therefore, need to revive the idea and ideal of a truly free-market-based liberal democracy over any socialist version of democracy that may be offered to us.

5.  The Marxist Communist Movement looked unstoppable.  But it stopped in China in 1979, and it stopped in the Soviet Union in 1991. It is gone. A fat North Korean man with a bad haircut is the last visible trace of it.

There really was a threat. The USSR had nuclear missiles. But the USSR's leaders never used them. The threat then went away quietly. The Russian missiles are still there, but Russian leaders don't want to destroy Western markets by means of nuclear weapons. Their power and their wealth depend on these markets. Once again, the free market solves the problem. [Emphasis mine]

I have proposed that the only government consonant with civil society is the free market.  I think many people are aware of it without actually identifying it as such.  It is capable of supplying all our needs, especially justice and defense.  I believe if people were given a choice to vote on the free market as their full-time government many of them would agree.

I am giving them an opportunity.  See my latest book.

****

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, father of twin daughters, and grandfather of an active grandson.  He's also a filmmaker whose short movies are available on Amazon Prime.  His latest book is Do Not Consent: think OUTSIDE the voting booth.

The monopoly model of government

I begin with a quote from Tom Woods that I agree with completely:

But as long as we refuse to entertain original thoughts, and instead stay wedded to the monopoly model for police, there will be problems. The predictable results of any monopoly are less satisfactory service at ever-higher prices. There is no reason to expect that security provision to be any different.

Allow me to expand it: As long as we stay wedded to the monopoly model for government, there will be problems.

To those who think it wouldn’t work, keep in mind two considerations:

1.  Does the current monopoly model for government work?

2.  Does the absence of monopoly work in other areas of our life?

Any institution, whether it’s Amazon or the government, needs funding.  Amazon gets it through voluntary trade. Our monopoly-model federal government acquires its revenue not merely through taxes, but with the “accommodative” activities of the central bank, itself a monopoly counterfeiter established by law.  

In today’s liberal media large organizations like Amazon are considered monopolies.  True, they have enormous market influence but a critical distinction still exists.  Bezos and his employees don’t have a police force at hand ready to break down your door and haul you off for failing to buy the latest Prime video offering.  Amazon relies on voluntary trade and advertising (persuasion) to acquire revenue.  You and the rest of the world could shut it down permanently by taking your business elsewhere.  No such option exists for monopoly governments.  If you don’t pay your taxes, you’re either fined, incarcerated, or murdered.

The situation is not one of lily-white businessmen versus evil politicians.  To a large extent both sides conspire against the public.  Historian Gabriel Kolko wrote about this in his landmark study, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916.  Essentially it refuted the idea that businessmen were predominantly laissez-faire while trenchantly opposing political “reforms.”  In Kolko’s words,

It was never a question of regulation or no regulation, of state control or laissez faire; there were, rather, the questions of what kind of regulation and by whom. . . . 

The federal government was always involved in the economy in various crucial ways . . . laissez faire never existed in an economy where local and federal governments financed the construction of a significant part of the railroad system, and provided lucrative means of obtaining fortunes. . . 

Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of [the 20th] century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible competitive trends under control. . . . 

Important businessmen did not, on the whole, regard politics as a necessary evil, but as an important part of their larger position in society. Because of their positive theory of the state, key business elements managed to define the basic form and content of the major federal legislation that was enacted. They provided direction to existing opinion for regulation, but in a number of crucial cases they were the first to initiate that sentiment. [All emphasis mine]

For example, those sentimental bankers back then, led by Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn-Loeb, publicly calling for reform of the Money Trust, established the Federal Reserve System, a central bank that feeds the fat cats and their wars while penalizing anyone foolish enough to save its paper/digital product. 

Free markets free the people

Free markets deliver the goods — and you’re not forced to take delivery.  Competition and the drive for profits ensures that consumer satisfaction is the foremost consideration of participating firms and individuals.  And what keeps consumers satisfied?  Low prices and high quality.

But only with a government based on contracts and consent will we have free markets.  For details start with Robert P. Murphy’s Chaos Theory. 

By contrast you live under an arrangement that was imposed on you at birth.  Did you personally vote for ratification of the 16th amendment?  Did you personally approve the late-December 1913 passage of the Banking Bill, as the media referred to the Federal Reserve Act?  For that matter, did you personally ratify the U.S. Constitution?  Since you didn’t do any of these things, why is it incumbent on you to live under them?  Why, in other words, are you complicit in your own enslavement?  Were you not born free, to make your own choices?  If you’re a Believer, do you think God is in the business of recruiting masters and slaves for monopoly government?

The usual comeback is to say voters can change government if they don’t like it.  Try finding a politician who will vigorously support repeal of government’s theft machines, the income tax and the Fed.  The uber-heroic Ron Paul did try.  He couldn’t do it.  

What about the prospects for the 2020 government election?  Are any of the candidates raising the flag of liberty?

And since none of them are, what will you do?  Vote anyway, knowing you’re underwriting government as it exists?  When will we see monopoly government respect the rights of individual citizens?

If you think the answer is never, I agree.

If you vote in monopoly government’s elections you’re implicitly endorsing it, though admittedly some choices look better than others.

So how can you get your cry for liberty heard?

Trying voting outside the voting booth. 

***

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, father of twin daughters, and grandfather of an active grandson.  He's also a filmmaker whose short movies are available on Amazon Prime.  His latest book is Do Not Consent: think OUTSIDE the voting booth.

The one person qualified to govern you

The route to a free society will vary according to the history of a region, and consequently no single description will do. The path taken by North Korean market anarchists will no doubt differ from the course of similarly minded individuals in the United States. In the former, violent overthrow of unjust regimes may occur, while in the latter, 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. [emphasis in original] — Chaos Theory, Robert P. Murphy

Most people don’t vote in government elections, and the ones who do regard that fact as shameful, disgusting, deplorable, and downright unAmerican.  They accuse nonvoters as too lazy to care about “their country.”  How can we make government the voice of the people if most of them stay home on Election Day?  Maybe the US should follow Australia and make Americans vote at the point of a gun.  When people don’t do what everyone knows they’re supposed to do, make them pay.  Force them to be moral.  Give voting the power of the law, or more precisely, threaten the slackers with fines and incarceration if they don’t vote.

No doubt there are a lot of people who care little or nothing about the government we have.  I am not one of them.  

We need government but not one built on a scheme of monopoly and coercion. Such a government wrings the life out of its citizens before collapsing completely.  Common sense tells us that monopoly and coercion provide a bad foundation for a peaceful, productive society. 

I have written a book that explains how the “gradual and orderly erosion of the State” can come about.  It requires “voting.”  The only requirement for voting is access to YouTube and the ability to understand English.  

Unlike the State’s elections you won’t be voting for a person some political gang has put on the ballot.  You won’t be voting for a candidate you hope is the least likely to make your life miserable with higher taxes, increased regulations, and war — along with lies to cover it all.  You won’t be voting on one day only as specified by the State.  Once the voting booth opens it will stay open indefinitely, unless YouTube shuts it down.

In a real sense you will be voting for the only person qualified to govern you — the guy you see in the mirror.  Without the State standing over you, you’re on your own.  You will be taking full responsibility for your life.

Scary?  If you’re looking for scary check this out.  Robert Higgs:

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. 

Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

And it wasn’t anarchists who shut down countless businesses and churches during this overblown pandemic.

The YouTube “voting booth” will open at the end of July when my movie is released.  Voting is simple. If you agree with the presentation in the movie (which follows my book), give it a thumb’s up.  If not, don’t.  That’s it.

In the meantime, those interested in the arguments for ending the state can consult my book, Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the voting booth.

***

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, father of twin daughters, and grandfather of an active grandson.  He's also a filmmaker whose short movies are available on Amazon Prime.

Three red flags and a fourth

Libertarians harbor massive guilt, especially Christian libertarians.  The pillars of their worldview are certain ideas the rest of the world condemns.  Their guilt is revealed in their words.  They never write or speak about these ideas without apologies, if they’re even mentioned at all.  It’s the time-worn attitude of make concessions to be accepted.  Not all libertarians suffer thus, but almost all.  

Is there something innately wrong with a person of libertarian views?  Do biological wirings get crossed as the person matures and moves from something resembling mainstream views to positions that shove him to the brink of insanity?

Or is it possible libertarian opponents never broke free from the indoctrination of childhood?

I’ll leave that question to the reader.  What I would like to do, with a minimum of guilt, is examine four ideas that most of world rejects as absurd, evil, naive, criminal, or offensive.  Or all of the foregoing.

But wait.  For those assuming I’m a ranting malcontent, let me tick off a brief resume:  Raised by mainstream parents. College graduate with honors.  Father of loving twin girls in their mid-thirties.  Enjoy living in a middle-class and racially diverse neighborhood.  Last I checked found no chips on my shoulder.

And perhaps most importantly: Optimistic about the future — the future of most people alive today.  

Okay, let’s take a look at those shameful ideas.

Profit

Are you reading this on a Mac or PC?  Or perhaps a mobile device?  You probably paid someone for your digital unit, and the payment in part flowed into the coffers of Apple or Microsoft.  These guys experience a lot of inflow.  Apple’s gross profit for the 12 months ending March 31, 2020 was over $102 billion.  Microsoft’s for the same period, $94.5 billion.  Are these earnings violations of common morality?  Heck, you only got a computing device out of the deal, whereas these companies are swimming in money.  How dare they get so rich.  Turn them over to the Democrats.  Summon the antitrust gang.  Break them up.  

But you know damn well they wouldn’t be swimming at all if you and millions of others didn’t want them swimming.  You and your fellow consumers are in control.  You profit from their profits.

Consider what the federal government raked in recently.  For FY 2019, total revenue was $3.422 trillion and would have been more if Trump hadn’t cut corporate and estate taxes.  Revenue is used instead of gross profit because government is grossly in the red financially, besides which the concepts of “profit and loss” are lost on the state.  Apple’s gross profits amount to a mere 3% of the federal government’s haul.  You could argue that the government “serves” all US residents and therefore its revenue should be larger, whereas the tech giants serve only a part of the economy.  

Apple, Microsoft and other companies, large and small, bend over backwards to serve you, whereas the state forces you to bend over as it extracts your wealth without asking —and for what?  9/11, Katrina, the “this time it’s different” financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Forever Wars, the depreciating dollar, an educational system that amounts to obedience training, alphabet agencies that spy on and incarcerate people for victimless crimes.  The list is endless.  Because government as it exists is not founded on profit and loss, you (and me) lose.

You can stop dealing with Apple or Microsoft.  Try stopping doing “business” with the state.

You still think profit is an unholy word?

Selfishness

A selfless action is usually understood to mean action taken for the benefit of others.  In common parlance, being selfless is good, regardless of the outcome.  Thus, selfless people have “good intentions” even if they reduce the world to ashes.  Gun controllers love this.  If repealing gun rights saves one life, they say repeal is justified.  Sounds good until you notice all the lives lost because the victims had been legally disarmed.  

But the intentions were noble.

When Muhammed Ali refused to be forced to kill foreigners he knew nothing about — “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong”  — he was acting for his own selfish benefit.  “I know where Vietnam is,” he replied to a reporter, “it’s on television.”  That’s where it was — and all it was — to most Americans.  Few voices dared criticize the state for trying to conscript him for its “noble” purpose.  War has always been a sacred state activity that just happens to make a few people very rich.  But those people aren’t “selfish.”  No, no, they’re patriots.  The selfish ones are those with a backbone like Ali who refused to be pawns in the state’s plans.  Never mind that the war killed millions of people, civilians and soldiers.  It’s the intentions that count, and the state had only the best intentions: stop the spread of communism.  Ali, though, he was acting selfishly, the dog.

If young American men had stood up to the state and refused to join the crusade, thereby not only acting in their self-interest but in the interest of millions of others who were killed, we might’ve had one less nightmare in our history.

“The pioneers of a warless world are the young men (and women) who refuse military service.” — attributed to Albert Einstein.

Capitalism

We’ve never had pure capitalism because the state has always existed.  With the state you get corruption and distortions enforced at gunpoint:  Lucrative “partnerships” for some firms, anti-trust persecution for others; protection from foreign competition, protection from market solutions that threaten the profits of state cartels, thick volumes of regulations that often favor lawyer-rich large companies at the expense of smaller ones, and lately counterfeit money stuffed into the hands of consumers to keep them from rioting.

This is not capitalism.  It is corruption and theft on a large scale.  

Capitalism is an economic system that recognizes the “right to unrestricted private property and free exchange,” as Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty.  

Capitalism as it is used by its enemies is a straw man.

The beauty of stateless capitalism is that it incorporates the moral ideals of profit and selfishness that brings the bounty of the market to people, while keeping violence to a minimum.  The closer an economy gets to pure capitalism, the better off we all are.  Make that far better off when the state is eliminated.

State capitalism makes wars, but it is capitalism in any form that takes the blame.

And the fourth

This one is singled out because almost no one mentions it except to condemn it by implication.  Anarchy in libertarian theory is government without the state.  It means the free market can and should provide all the products and services needed for a peaceful, productive society.  It forbids legal coercion, which is why it excludes the state.    

Lately, President Trump and others have described as anarchy certain urban areas in which police have yielded control to violent protesters.  Anarchy and chaos are used synonymously. 

Robert P. Murphy’s engaging introductory book on market anarchism, Chaos Theory, cleverly adopts the common understanding of anarchy in its title.  Is anarchy really chaos?  Read his book.

Murphy:

[Advocates of laissez-faire such as Friedman and Mises] focused on the necessity of law itself. They simply assumed that the market is incapable of defining and protecting property rights. They were wrong. . . . 

It took no king to produce language, money, or science, and it takes no government to produce a just legal system.

Is anarchy or the state the true champion of mayhem?  Economist Robert Higgs offers some insight:

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

One way libertarians can get ahead in the world is to stand up for their ideas and their ideals, rather than try to smuggle them past their audience..  

For a proposal to reject the state and claim our right to be free, see my recent book, Do Not Consent, soon to be a short movie.  Be sure to check out my brief interview with Libby, the star of the upcoming film.

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, all of which can be found on Amazon.   

Rock the boat? Hell, yes!

Below is the preface of my new book, Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the Voting Booth, in which I argue that the first step in removing state depredations from your life is to approve the removal of the state from your life.   

For those who think freedom can only exist in the privacy of their thoughts and has no chance in the real world consider that a voice for freedom was elected to the governor’s office in South Dakota in 2018.  In many respects Governor Noem reminds one of Ron Paul, and as with anyone opposing the narrative of state supremacy she’s routinely pilloried in the media.  

Keep in mind the voters who elected Dr. Paul and Ms. Noem didn’t have the option to “vote” outside the state’s elections, where they could publicly express their wish for government by market forces only, with the state relegated to political history.  Even the rare appearance of freedom candidates such as Paul and Noem exist at the state’s discretion.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
--  Emma Goldman

Preface

This is not a book promoting armed revolution or even peaceful secession.

It’s a book urging people to stand up for their right to be free, free from legal coercion — free from government depredation.

If you don’t want to be bossed around any longer, say so.  Say so publicly.  Make it known in a poll.

Civilization does not depend on rule by “guns and badges.”

Civilization does not depend on voting the “right” politicians into office.

Civilization does not depend on high or low taxes.

Civilization depends on whether some people have the legal authority to coerce others.

Today’s governments claim the right to coerce us.  They do so by passing and enforcing coercive laws — such as high or low taxes.

Did you personally give someone this right?  If you’re a voter in government elections, you did.

By voting, you also gave government permission to conscript men into the armed forces, many of whom were not allowed to vote because of their age.

By voting, you give government permission to continue kidnapping and imprisoning foreigners without charging them with specific crimes, as it does at the Pentagon’s and CIA’s torture center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

By voting, you give political candidates the right to renege on their campaign promises, something you would never do in your business affairs.

By voting, you keep alive the war and kidnapping machine established by the National Security Act after World War II.

By voting, you authorize the creation of secretive and oppressive federal agencies such as the FBI, IRS, CIA, NSA, and DHS.

By voting, you raise no objections to the “monetary policies” of the central bank called the Federal Reserve, an absolutely essential institution for a welfare/warfare state, given its monopoly status as a creator of money out of thin air, a defining trait of counterfeiting.

By voting, you continue to fund public schooling, the government’s indoctrination program for the young.

And through your best intentions as voters, you raise no challenge to an organization, the state itself, that has an exclusive monopoly on legal coercion and which has used that power in defiance of written law to increase its control over your life — using your money.

Do you get the feeling something’s not right?  I hope so.

What if we could dump government as it exists by telling it to go away?  Shoo!  Go away, get lost!  Get out of the war racket.  Quit trying to run the economy.  Quit stealing.  Quit supporting special interests.  Drop your bankrupt welfare programs.  Give private charity a chance to breathe.  Get a real job, start a business.

And I’m not talking about putting “none of the above” on ballots.

Even if government allowed “none of the above” you would still be voting inside the box of government authority.

But what if we could vote outside the box?  What if we could express our wish to dump government (as it exists) in a poll?

What if that same poll gave people the opportunity to give a thumbs-up for market-based government, with security provided by private protection agencies governed by the forces of competition and profit and loss?

What if more than a handful of people wanted this?

What if a large percentage of people wanted this?

What if their “votes” out-tallied the votes for the winning presidential candidate?

Do you think we would be closer to getting rid of coercive government?

Right now it’s just a dream.  And some of you would say it’s only a dream.  No reality to it.  We live in a great country, why risk radical change?  Let’s stay the course.  Vote in the government’s elections.  Hope for the best.

Don’t rock the boat.

The rest of this book will argue that the course is a bad one that will get worse.

Staying the course is staying on a sinking ship with no lifeboats aboard.

Give me your attention for a few pages.   You might agree.  You might want to rock the hell out of the boat.

--
George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, all of which can be found on Amazon.  Do Not Consent is his latest book and will be the basis of a movie under the same title, available on Amazon Prime and his YouTube channel in late July.

How to make your vote count

The following is from my recently released book,

Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the voting booth

In 2020, the panicked and tyrannical reaction of governments to the coronavirus has created a major crisis in governing.  Some libertarian pundits see it as a big step toward totalitarian rule, another instance where the state “never lets a crisis go to waste.”  

Clearly, if we sit back and wait for more decrees and restrictions we will get them.  If we surrender our freedom without putting up a fight, we cannot claim to have lost something we value, and we can resign ourselves to the status of ciphers.

How do we fight for our freedom?

In this book I’m assuming “the land of the free and home of the brave” are more than just words.  We can make this our fight.  We have an opportunity to use this crisis for the cause of freedom.  For once we can declare that we — each of us — will make the decisions that affect our lives.  Let’s show the state we want to step outside its controlled elections — and outside its control — and govern ourselves without coercion, without the threat of violence.  The free market is our ally.  We can live free and prosper if we have the courage to remove the state from our great country.

If you agree that we need a government based on market principles rather than coercion, let your conviction be known.  When the movie expounding the views herein is released in late July on my YouTube channel, GFS543, give it a thumbs up.  

That will be your voting booth.  That will be your means of letting your voice be heard.

The movie will bear the same title as this book, Do Not Consent.  I hope you find the movie entertaining, but that’s not what you should primarily consider.  If it gets across the main point I’ve made in this book, that we can live and prosper without a coercive government — without a state, without the threat of violence — that’s what you should be voting for.  And just to be clear, you are voting to remove the state from our lives, not to remove government as such.  

The message I’m delivering is pro-government-in-the-market sense only, anti-state.  

To sum up, my advice is:

Do not consent to the coercive agencies that are currently installed at all levels of our current system of government, from federal to local.  At the federal level they include the usual enemies such as the DEA, NSA, IRS, and the Federal Reserve.

Do not consent to what’s called taxation, to the right of some people to confiscate your wealth, however great or modest your wealth may be.  

Do not consent to the current institutions that thrive on “wars” of all kinds, whether it’s a war on a bug, a drug, or an unfortunate condition of human existence, most of which the state created and intensify the problems they’re alleged to fix, that are done in your name and with your expropriated money.  

Do not consent to the vast military - industrial - congressional - media - educational complex that claims to be a defender of your liberty as it murders families overseas and destroys their society’s infrastructures — again, with your expropriated wealth.

Do not consent to the idea that you need to surrender your right to self-defense, including defense against the state.  

Do not consent to the criminal invasions of your privacy that the state has made legal.  

Do not consent to the state’s educational system as it attempts to train obedient servants of the state while continually dumbing-down the requirements for advancement.

Do not consent to any government that claims the right to enlist your sons or daughters in a war or project against their will.  

Do not consent to the state’s war on market giants that achieved their status because consumers voluntarily traded their money for the products or services the businesses offered.  Remember, consumers can and have shut down market giants by taking their business elsewhere.

Do not consent to the practice of state - business “partnerships” that create unfair competitive advantages for the business or industry, while cheating consumers with higher prices and/or inferior products or services — a practice best described as crony capitalism but which for anti-market purposes is usually called capitalism.   

Do not consent to any state institution that attempts to dictate how we should live, what we can or cannot consume, read, watch, say, or listen to.

Do not consent to any government that does not secure your property rights, including your right to life.

Voting in the state’s elections continues the racket.  And it will continue.  Your vote would consent to it.   Don’t do it.   Would you vote for new leaders in the Mafia or Ku Klux Klan while believing that doing so will encourage those organizations to play nice?  

Don’t let the enemies of freedom get away with equating the state with government.  Government can and should exist without the state.  

In this book I’m speaking to adults who wish to take full responsibility for their lives, regardless of their age, medical condition, race, sex, or anything else, who are fighters not wimps, who want to lay the foundation for a better life not just for themselves but for their families and the generations to come, who want to end the acrimonious fighting over the levers of power that would force the winner’s agenda on the rest of us.  If you are in agreement then express your conviction with a thumbs-up to the movie Do Not Consent, coming in late July, on my YouTube channel, GFS543.  

In the meantime, I hope this book will convey the message the movie will dramatize. 

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, including The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, and the most recent, Do Not Consent.  He is also a filmmaker whose latest work is a whimsical tale about the threat of nuclear annihilation, Last Day.