Does the Government Actually Keep You Safe?

By Manuel Martin | United States

Government is commonly believed necessary to restrain men with conquering ambitions. However, the state is the essential mechanism which men use to execute said ambitions. Think you’re free? Try building a house without paying extortion money first via permit fees. Try keeping your income, for that matter. The state will quickly send men with guns to secure your compliance and your income. Don’t like going to war to kill? Now, you’re a “draft dodger” and will go into a cage for your crime of non-murder.

The discomforting truth is governments don’t keep you safe. On the contrary, one’s obedience to the government directly threatens your safety and security. How many millions of human beings have died because of society’s willingness to follow murderous orders? How many more need to perish before something changes? Individuals must come to realize that governments alone have promoted and funded mass murder, spinning it into the socially acceptable jargon of “war”.

Politicians brand mass murder “war” to hide reality. The state does not keep you safe; it divides the world into lethal, warring tribes. The government has marketed their murders so well that countless young men across the world line up to take part. With the soothing excuse of democracy, these groups have slaughtered, mutilated and starved hundreds of millions. Politicians will always use war to enslave the masses so long as the masses accept their legitimacy.

We live in a terrifying, fantasy-like dichotomy. In order to secure our safety from people with power, we elect people to positions of power. Then, these people use their positions to monopolize violence, plunder resources, and start wars, often to the great disbelief of the nominally peaceful citizen. Finally, the people in power boldly assert they are necessary to prevent war, and people buy it. Is it really surprising that politicians, who we elect to maintain order and safety, create wars? When the wars threaten order and safety, there is a greater demand for the politician to restore order and safety.

Politicians use the money they steal (tax) from you to fund aggressions that put your life in danger. You are supplying the funds for the wars you fear! Humanity directly takes those who desire control and gives them million-man armies and warships. This is painful to think about, and one of the most regressive ideas in human history.

If one person should not have access to instruments of mass destruction, it is the politician. Politicians campaign on the promise of using the state’s gun to control society. One should never give guns and armies to a person who wishes to use them to control humanity.

If you want peace, and I think nearly all do, the first step is to not give guns to politicians; they are the very individuals who promise to use them against you.

Our culture needs to evolve past this regressive idea of electing politicians for protection. Government-created wars and famines purposefully murdered over 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone. How many individuals did free market actors like Walmart, Chevron, Ford or Microsoft kill in that time? I’m going to guess: around 262,000,000 fewer.

To be safe, we must rid our culture of government, taking the power away from those who move men like chess pieces on a board covered in blood and bombs.

Politicians and their hired guns can’t keep you safe. The government simply cannot prevent a person from walking out of their house and committing murder. The state cannot stop someone who suddenly snaps, points their vehicle to the sidewalk and murders innocents.

The best defense you have against another human being is that his or her ethics and culture have taught him or her to act peacefully. A culture that reinforces the use of persuasion over coercion in all aspects of life will be far more peaceful than a culture that uses violence (taxes) to prevent violence.

Without a doubt, we need to end government and usher in a culture of persuasion over coercion. In this new culture, freedom and self-determination unite all in pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. Already, we are halfway there; the overwhelming majority of Americans currently use persuasion in their everyday lives. How many people walk into Starbucks, point a gun at the barista and coerce them for some coffee? Almost no one does, because our culture will not reward this form of violence with happiness and abundance. Unfortunately, it still does reward the same violence when the perpetrator represents the flag.

Free market interactions promote peace and prosperity, as everyone must interact voluntarily to maintain productive and beneficial relationships.  The government, on the other hand, is the systematization of mass coercion. They enforce every tax, fee, regulation and law with the implicit threat and ultimate use of violence.

Many state officials use disruptive coercion backed by gun violence as the basis for human interactions. Outside of government, though, the vast majority use peaceful, voluntary interactions as the foundation for relations. Government is a cancer: stagnating mankind’s ability to live in peace and prosperity.

So long as the state exists, humanity will divide into factions and war to exercise power. Forever disturbing peace and prosperity, they will use the power of the state to coerce the masses. I want to end government because I’m a true progressive. It is time, at last, to move our culture towards more voluntary interactions, not fewer. By doing so, we may finally progress as humans and expand the human experience, seeking peace. Attempting to centralize human autonomy away from the individual and into the hand of distant politicians is the most regressive policy imaginable.

Lives and prosperity are going to waste because the ability to control lives is at stake. If you want peace, reality demands that you end coercive societal structures like government. Government is orderly subjugation enforced by violence; safety, harmony and prosperity cannot spring from violence.

Democratic government is that great hypocrisy of history. Attempting to prevent pilferage by organizing plunder, secure justice by monopolizing inequality, and establish peace by promoting division, it thus has no place in a peaceful, just society.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Scott Horton Talks Patriotism, Israel and Palestine, and Hope

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Scott Horton is the author of Fool’s Errand and managing director of The Libertarian Institute. 71 Republic’s Mason Mohon sits down with him to talk about the wars.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Interview With Brent DeRidder of the Liberty Coalition for Disaster Relief

By Indri Schaelicke | United States

71 Republic’s Indri Schaelicke had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Brent DeRidder, the founder of the Liberty Coalition for Disaster Relief. He discussed the organization, its accomplishments, and how the people can help it meet its goals.

Continue reading “Interview With Brent DeRidder of the Liberty Coalition for Disaster Relief”

Kavanaugh Confirmed to Supreme Court

By Atilla Sulker | United States

On Saturday, the Senate finally voted on and confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. The confirmation marks a historic turning point in the decision. The vote had been delayed since the Senate Judiciary Committee initially set September 20th as the date on which its members would vote. President Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9th, earlier this year.

The Senate was nearly equally divided on the vote, with 48 senators voting against Kavanaugh and 50 voting in his favor. This is certainly tighter than the 54–45 vote which occurred during Neil Gorsuch’s nomination.

Only one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, voted for Kavanaugh. Three Democrats joined the Republicans last year in voting for then-Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch’s confirmation. Senator Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican who did not vote in favor of Kavanaugh, instead voting “present”.

Around the beginning of the nomination process, Senator Rand Paul was seen as a possible swing vote among the other senators mentioned. Paul was concerned over Kavanaugh’s views on the Fourth Amendment but had later assured that after meeting with Kavanaugh, he had no more worries.

Trump immediately took to Twitter, stating: “I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court.”

The nomination process exemplifies a polarizing political landscape in America in which both sides no longer debate over ideology, but instead sling mud at each other. Personal attacks have become imminent, gradually undermining productive political discourse.


Get awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

A Good Patriot Is Nothing More than a Good Killer

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

A man stands tall, clothed in a faded T-shirt bearing an American flag. With each beer he downs, the less he realizes that his garb violates U.S. flag code. Because he loves the beacon of independence and freedom that is the United States of America, the good patriot vehemently supports the troops and parrots the national anthem.

All of a sudden, a record scratches, and the screen freezes. You may be wondering how he got here. More importantly, you may want to know the implications of this terrible position. Ultimately, as a good patriot, it is the job of that man to die or even kill for his country at the whim of its leaders. Patriotism, both in the abstract and applied to the United States, leaves much to be desired.

Patriotism and the Good Patriot

Patriotism, on the surface, is a love for one’s country. Upon first consideration, this may appear to be an admirable quality, or even one to strive for. However, further inspection reveals that unyielding love has no place on the national stage.

In defense of patriotism, several key arguments exist. First, many, such as Leonard Niemand in his essay, “Defending the American Patriot”, claim that the United States offers preferable condition to any other place in the world. Thus, we owe some sort of reverence and gratitude due to our favorable birthright. Arguably, this is true. Yet, there is nothing that this suggests that there is any gratitude necessary.

The Best Option Available

As a parallel matter, consider the following hypothetical. Two friends walk down an alleyway, and all of a sudden, a third man approaches with a gun. One of the two victims tries to flee, and he shoots him down. But, the other man willingly gives him $1000, so the killer simply walks away from the situation, now $1000 richer. By the logic of the good patriot, the living victim should bow towards the murderer, singing great praise and kissing his boots. After all, out of every possible outcome, he got the one with the most freedom! Clearly, this logic does not hold true, as when a man kills a friend and steals from a survivor, praise is simply not an acceptable reaction. Why not? Essentially, because the lesser of evils is still evil. An option being the best available does not mean it is right or just.

Does this principle work any differently with the idea of patriotism? Not in any meaningful sense, anyway. The United States government, with every law it passes, threatens to kill those who disobey. They often imprison the survivors and steal from even those not guilty of any fines on a daily basis via taxation. Time and time again, bombs fly overseas and strike innocent children while even the most dovish politicians merely fiddle slightly with the military budget. The United States is not a beacon of freedom, and should not be treated as such. Though it may oppress less than North Korea or Russia, it is not without deep, inherent flaws.

Unfortunately, every country acts in most, if not all, of the same coercive ways. Given this frightful reality, it is entirely unrealistic to propose that anybody should show love for their own brand of murder.

A Lack of Choice

It is also worth noting the simple fact that in the history of humanity, not a single individual has ever chosen where they were born. So, what reason is there to feel pride in a particular region? States, ultimately, are nothing more than lines in the dirt that the government uses to control the people. They are nothing more than an abstract set of norms that groups coincidentally share. This brings me to, without a doubt, the most dangerous element of patriotism: the willingness to kill and die for such an abstract idea.

The Familial Discrepancy

When a man loves his wife, and she loves him, they are creating meaning. Many, including Niemand, claim that there is a parallel between familial love and patriotism. But in their situation, they are not creating any inherent competition or negativity towards others. The personal sphere is not inherently a violent one. Hence, it is safe to say one can love their spouse without having any dislike for anyone else in the world. The same, though, is not true for a country. The good patriot, in this sense, becomes a good killer, as the good patriot loves and supports his country over all others. The underlying issue is that the political sphere is inherently violent.

When one country receives favorable treatment, another receives unfavorable treatment. This is nearly always true in times of peace, and inherent in times of war. When a country goes to war, the good patriot is willing to go fight the good fight, or at the very least, show strong support the troops back at home. Why should the individual give up his life for an abstraction that mistreats them? And worse, why should the individual kill others who are only guilty of wearing the wrong color on the battlefield? Beneath the guise of national superiority, each human being is equal. Thus, every death on the battlefield is no better than a murder, and the good patriot that supports the country when it acts is no better than a good killer.

Treatment of Oppressors

In every other realm of life, when a victim treats his or her oppressor well, we aptly deem this as a dangerous mental hurdle to get over. Why, then, do we ignore this in the realm of the country and patriotism? The state asks much and gives much, but what does it not give? Choice and free will. There is no legitimate reason to feel an obligation or emotion, as a free adult, to an organization that robs the fundamental right to self-ownership.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source