I think it’s important to remember exactly what the State is. It’s so easy to be tricked into thinking it’s something that it’s really not. It’s easy to be fooled into thinking that the coercive monopoly of the State is somehow a force for good.

Murray Rothbard’s defined the State in his amazing essay entitled War, Peace, and the State.

The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense. The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called “taxation”) is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.

Albert Jay Nock defined the state as well:

The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime…. It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants.

I just love this quote from J.D. Tuccille :

Red and blue tribal loyalists shriek about each other’s perfidy because they have conspired to intrude the state into virtually every area of human life. Having created a government so powerful that it tells them what size toilet they can install in their homes, steals the lion’s share of the average shmoe’s gross play, and kicks in people’s doors for smoking the wrong plant (weed or tobacco—your choice) or playing poker without a permit, they’ve suddenly discovered that who’s in charge is really important.

Also enjoyed this:

Here’s a small suggestion for both lefties and righties, for whatever it’s worth. You know that nasty, slobbering beast you’ve created out of the government? Take it out and shoot it. We’ll start over again with something that minds its manners and leaves us all alone.

Republicans and Democrats take turns “leading”. Nothing really changes though. Government gets bigger and more powerful, and they take more of our freedom and money. And for all of you fans of Reagan out there – he grew government too.

I think that government throughout the world is fundamentally broken. I don’t see how the current governments out there can possibly be fixed or refined. I think they’re too far gone. They’re not really competing with each other primarily because it’s too difficult for individuals (the customers of government) to switch governments. They’re also too big for individuals to really have a significant impact. Put a few million people together and you get a government that no one is really happy with. Government becomes the legal way for people to take other people’s money and to force others to act the way they’d like.

In America today, there are a ton of groups who think they can do a better job but have very little hope of America ever really reflecting their values. There are libertarians, environmentalists, Christians, Muslims, liberals, neo-conservatives, and anarcho-capitalists. That’s just naming a few of the groups who will never really see their ideas for government really enacted.

So if you’re in a hopeless group and you’d actually like to implement your ideas, what are you to do? At this point, all people can do is whine, complain, and dream. They never really do anything. Only talk about it, write about it, and hope for a different future. Sure, some do become activists and have some slight impact.

I’ve been one of those whiners by having this blog. One could write a blog entry about each of the laws in this country explaining why it shouldn’t be the way that it is. Many whiners, complainers, and dreamers eventually resort to contemplating about creating their own nation in some way. It’s been tried many many times by many people. All of the attempts have had one important thing in common. They’ve all failed. Miserably.

That’s about to change.

I think that Seasteading will become a reality. I think it’ll be the first nation creation idea that will actually work. I’ve read their book. I’ve read every entry on their blog. They have an impressive plan. I didn’t know that it was possible to create a floating structure that doesn’t rock with the waves. I’d really like to see this in action. If this works, it changes everything.

I love that they’ve learned from all of the failed attempts. I love their incremental approach. It’s the same approach I use to create software and websites. I think they’re brilliant and I plan on investing large quantities of cash in this new way of life.

UPDATE: This multi-page summary of seasteading could be a good place to get some more background.

Looks like BJ Lawson has been raising some serious campaign funds. I’m wondering if the Bucks for BJ site is having an impact.

I’m seeking some investment capital for a new project. I’d like to make a man-made island in the center of an ocean somewhere. I’m thinking it could start out maybe the size of Rhode Island. Maybe smaller. It will of course grow over time. It will be a sovereign nation tentatively named Libertonya. The citizens of Libertonya will be truly free. It will be a self sufficient nation.

For you investor types reading this blog, I’m looking for about $25 billion to start out.

Let’s just think things through for a second. The federal government takes money from some to buy analog tv converter boxes for others. It’ll only cost $1.5 billion. Coupons will be sent soon.

Perhaps this program will help to distract the populace from all of the other unconstitutional activities the federal government is involved in.

I found two excerpts in Ilana Mercer’s article to be particularly interesting.

Henry Hazlitt said that “government has nothing to give to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else.”

This writer holds that the sole role of a legitimate government is to protect only the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness. Why life, liberty, and property, and not housing, food, education, health care, child benefits, emotional well-being, enriching employment, adequate vacations, ad infinitum, as promised variously by the remaining (viable) presidential contenders? Because the former impose no obligations on other free individuals; the latter enslave some in the service of others.

Is government by its very nature coercive? I personally think a government can be established in which the people are truly free. Is there currently a place on this earth where people can live without others imposing their will on them?

J.D. Tuccille makes an excellent point that “Unfortunately, visibility measures passion, but winning isn’t about passion”.

I’d also say that straw polls measure passion but often don’t translate into actual votes on election day. It takes passion for the 112 Ron Paul supporters in a town to show up at a straw poll. But then on election day, there are thousands of people voting who don’t care much and who probably can’t identify a policy difference between the candidates. Ron Paul often crushes the competition in straw polls. It hasn’t translated into victories in an actual primary yet.

The only signs and bumper stickers we see here in North Carolina are Ron Paul signs. They’re everywhere. Will it translate into votes?

I’m starting to think that the funding of the candidates also measures passion but doesn’t necessarily translate into votes. In the final quarter of 2007 over 200,000 people contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign. Those passionate people will vote. But their passionate votes won’t count for more than the lukewarm votes of millions.

For the final 3 months of 2007, the Republican candidates raised the following:

• Ron Paul: $19.95 million
• McCain: $9.9 million
• Romney : $9.2 million
• Huckabee: $6.7 million

So Ron Paul more than doubled the other candidates.

Cash on hand at then end of the quarter:

• Ron Paul: $7.8 million
• McCain: $2.9 million
• Romney : $2.4 million
• Huckabee: $651 thousand

Romney did chip in an extra $18 million of his own dough during the quarter.

Ron Paul is crushing the competition in terms of raising money. So far, that hasn’t translated into crushing the competition at the voting booth. Will it ever?

From the United States Declaration of Independence :

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

From George Bush’s Final State of the Union :

On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance and empower parents to demand results from our schools.

The federal government “empowering” parents? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Doesn’t the federal government become empowered by the consent of the governed? The president used the word “empower” at least 11 times in the State of the Union address. Where did the federal government get the authority to “empower” the people? Wasn’t the power already in the people at the start?

Republican and conservative politicians talk ad nauseam about getting government off our backs and making government smaller. Then in their next breath they refer to new government programs they’d like to introduce. The cognitive dissonance can be quite disturbing.

BJ Lawson is an outstanding candidate for US Congress. He has tremendous potential to improve this nation. I’m quite excited about his campaign.

I’ve been friends with BJ for many years now. He’s a man of integrity and he’s just who we need to bring some sense back to Washington.

This article makes me wonder. It’s another case of government “officials” overriding the wishes of parents.

Should I be surprised? We have compulsory education laws saying that our children must be in school for X number of days. Where did government get the right to tell us what our children ought to be doing?

I found this video to be hilarious. I would think the other candidates are getting more and more concerned about the revolution.

I think it will be!. I’m pretty excited to see if more money is raised in a single day tomorrow than has ever been raised before in the history of the universe. :) I’ll be celebrating with some locals in North Carolina.

UPDATE: It was a historical day. Over $6 million in a 24 hour period. It was in fact the largest single donation day in the history of the universe.

Jim Rogers is a quite successful international investor who clearly understands economics and how to make money. I find it quite interesting that he refers to Ron Paul as “the only candidate who has a clue what’s going on in the world.” Ron Paul is the only candidate Jim Rogers has given money to this election cycle. Rogers also says that Ron Paul is the only candidate he’ll vote for. He refers to the other candidates as clowns who are contributing to the problem.