Tolstoy: On Anarchy

Tolstoy: On Anarchy

Leo Tolstoy, one of the most revered personalities of his era, author of classics like War and Peace and Anna Karenina, inspiration to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., was a dedicated pacifist and anarchist who advocated non-violent resistance to all governments. In his collection of essays entitled "Government is Violence" he wrote an excellent piece called "On Anarchy" which I've posted below in it's entirety:

The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.

Marxist: “The capitalistic organization will pass into the hands of workers, and then there will be no more oppression of these workers, and no unequal distribution of earnings.”

Anarchist: “But who will establish the works; who will administer them?”

Marxist: “It will go on of its own accord; the workmen themselves will arrange everything.”

Anarchist: “But the capitalistic organization was established just because, for every practical affair, there is need for administrators furnished with power. If there be work, there will be leadership, administrators with power. And when there is power, there will be abuse of it — the very thing against which you are now striving.”

To the question, how to be without a State, without courts, armies, and so on, an answer cannot be given, because the question is badly formulated. The problem is not how to arrange a State after the pattern of today, or after a new pattern. Neither I, nor any of us, is appointed to settle that question.

But, though voluntarily, yet inevitably must we answer the question, how shall I act faced with the problem which ever arises before me? Am I to submit my conscience to the acts taking place around me, am I to proclaim myself in agreement with the Government, which hangs erring men, sends soldiers to murder, demoralizes nations with opium and spirits, and so on, or am I to submit my actions to conscience, i.e., not participate in Government, the actions of which are contrary to reason?

What will be the outcome of this, what kind of a Government there will be — of all this I know nothing; not that I don’t wish to know; but that I cannot. I only know that nothing evil can result from my following the higher guidance of wisdom and love, or wise love, which is implanted in me, just as nothing evil comes of the bee following the instinct implanted in her, and flying out of the hive with the swarm, we should say, to ruin. But, I repeat, I do not wish to and cannot judge about this.

In this precisely consists the power of Christ’s teaching and that not because Christ is God or a great man, but because His teaching is irrefutable. The merit of His teaching consists in the fact that it transferred the matter from the domain of eternal doubt and conjecture on to the ground of certainty. You are a man, a being rational and kind, and you know that today or tomorrow you will die, disappear. If there be a God then you will go to Him and He will ask of you an account of your actions, whether you have acted in accordance with His law, or, at least, with the higher qualities implanted in you. If there be no God, you regard reason and love as the highest qualities, and must submit to them your other inclinations, and not let them submit to your animal nature — to the cares about the commodities of life, to the fear of annoyance and material calamities.

The question is not, I repeat, which community will be the more secure, the better — the one which is defended by arms, cannons, gallows or the one that is not so safeguarded. But there is only one question for a man, and on it is impossible to evade: “Will you, a rational and good being, having for a moment appeared in this world, and at any moment liable to disappear — will you take part in the murder of erring men or men of a different race, will you participate in the extermination of whole nations of so-called savages, will you participate in the artificial deterioration of generations of men by means of opium and spirits for the sake of profit, will you participate in all these actions, or even be in agreement with those who permit them, or will you not?”

And there can be but one answer to this question for those to whom it has presented itself. As to what the outcome will be of it, I don’t know, because it is not given to me to know. But what should be done, I do unmistakably know. And if you ask: “What will happen?”, then I reply that good will certainly happen; because, acting in the way indicated by reason and love, I am acting in accordance with the highest law known to me. The situation of the majority of men, enlightened by true brotherly enlightenment, at present crushed by the deceit and cunning of usurpers, who are forcing them to ruin their own lives — this situation is terrible and appears hopeless.

Only two issues present themselves, and both are closed. One is to destroy violence by violence, by terrorism, dynamite bombs and daggers as our Nihilists and Anarchists have attempted to do, to destroy this conspiracy of Governments against nations, from without; the other is to come to an agreement with the Government, making concessions to it, participating in it, in order gradually to disentangle the net which is binding the people, and to set them free. Both these issues are closed. Dynamite and the dagger, as experience has already shown, only cause reaction, and destroy the most valuable power, the only one at our command, that of public opinion.

The other issue is closed, because Governments have already learnt how far they may allow the participation of men wishing to reform them. They admit only that which does not infringe, which is non-essential; and they are very sensitive concerning things harmful to them — sensitive because the matter concerns their own existence. They admit men who do not share their views, and who desire reform, not only in order to satisfy the demands of these men, but also in their own interest, in that of the Government. These men are dangerous to the Governments if they remain outside them and revolt against them — opposing to the Governments the only effective instrument the Governments possess — public opinion; they must therefore render these men harmless, attracting them by means of concessions, in order to render them innocuous (like cultivated microbes), and then make them serve the aims of the Governments, i.e., oppress and exploit the masses.

Both these issues being firmly closed and impregnable, what remains to be done? To use violence is impossible; it would only cause reaction. To join the ranks of the Government is also impossible — one would only become its instrument. One course therefore remains — to fight the Government by means of thought, speech, actions, life, neither yielding to Government nor joining its ranks and thereby increasing its power. This alone is needed, will certainly be successful. And this is the will of God, the teaching of Christ. There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

~Leo Tolstoy (1900)

On Immigration

Immigration seems to be the brightest blip on the map right now, and it seems it is the most popular topic among people. Immigration by itself doesn't seem to be the real issue, at the heart of it is the economics of Immigration. That is what needs to be addressed. Together and separately, the economics aspect, at least for some, can resolve these issues in a mutually beneficial way. This is not to say that other aspects of the issue are not important, the supposed health risks for example cannot be simply eradicated by economics, but addressing the issue at the root helps us to get past the emotional reactions and allows us to clearly define and resolve the issue completely.

Immigration is nothing new. The moving of people from one place to another for various reasons has been a mainstay of human life since the beginning. A chance to increase the quality of life or to advance knowledge or social rank have been the previous reasons for migration of people from homelands. For centuries this was the way cities and towns, and eventually states and countries grew. From the dust of the immigrant workers, nations grew to their current levels. But now it seems, this belief has been replaced with fear, misunderstanding, ignorance, nationalism and hate. Could the solutions to what some call a crisis be found in economics?

While the media portray a rising tide in illegal immigration, statistics shows another story.

According to statistics from Pew Hispanic Research and the Department of Homeland Security the estimates of Unauthorized or "Illegal" immigrants has remained roughly unchanged from the past year but has seen a relative decline since the recession began in 2008. Looking over the graphs provided on that page we can also see that the rise in Immigration happened between 2002 and 2007, adding almost 4 million more immigrants between those years. Fig 1.

While the current fuss is being made during the Obama Presidential administration the real blame should go to the prior administration. Under President George W. Bush an average of 4 million immigrants found their way to the US. But where was the outrage then?

There wasn't one. Why? The economy seemed stronger under Bush due in part due to the Housing Market Bubble that eventually, in late 2007, burst. This false prosperity brought in a higher demand and a need for more workers. Immigrants filled the void of low-skilled workers as native born citizens took over higher skilled positions. In 2007 unauthorized immigrants made up a total of 5.5% of the labor force in the US. And very few minded having these immigrants come here at the time, because a financial strain was not being put onto American workers, and jobs were plentiful and expanding. These points will not be made in the current discussion on Immigration.

The additional production gave way for American and Legal immigrants to take up higher skilled jobs while "illegals" took in the lower skilled jobs. Immigrants play a large part in the unskilled and low skilled workforce, in part to the barrier in language and education or experience. These "illegals" will take lower paying jobs due to these shortcomings, where citizens and legal immigrants will tend to be drawn to higher skilled jobs with higher pay ranges.

After the "They Took Our Jobs" line the next line will be "They took our Government Handouts"

Another issue in the immigration debate is that "illegal" immigrants use government programs more than they put into them through taxation, since most believe illegals are not taxed this would make sense. Next we can look at the claim that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. This claim has been around for years, I even at one time believed it. First the point should be noted that ALL Federal, State, and Local "Welfare Programs" are funded by taxation, it is a redistribution of wealth.

Are they really costing more than they put in?

According to Shikha Dalmia in her 2006 article at Reason Foundation more than 8 million of the then 11 million immigrants actually paid into social security, medicaid and other taxes. But how is that you say...


In 1996 a welfare reform bill was passed. In this bill were "restrictions on benefits for noncitizens accounted for 44% of this total, and food stamp revisions for 43%. The 105th Congress rescinded and modified some 1996 budget cuts, restoring SSI, Medicaid and food stamp benefits to many aliens at an estimated 5-year cost of $12.3 billion. Further, Congress in 1997 created Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants ($2.7 billion in estimated outlays for 2 years) to help states move severely disadvantaged TANF recipients into jobs, and it boosted funding for food stamp employment and training."

Another thing that happened is a bill that allowed the IRS to issue identification numbers for those illegal aliens that did not have social security numbers. This reform does two things, it allows those aliens to pay into the system to be in accordance to what citizens do in a hope it is seen as favorable if and when they file for legal statuses. Number two, it adds those tax monies into a system that because they do not have an official Social Security number, they cannot benefit from. This adds millions of dollars into the federal coffers. Damlia writing, "Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Her statement is pointing to the 2005 numbers. 

This data points to the fact that overall immigrants are not a drain on any programs but actually contribute. Add to this that even illegal immigrants pay sales taxes, adding millions more to their local community coffers. Roads, Schools and other services in and around their homes are partially contributed to through this tax. More info on taxes paid by illegal immigrants click here.

So how can we solve the Issue through Economics?

Can we simply abolish the Welfare State?

In order to tackle this we have to look at the statistics of those receiving this assistance and address it properly. Many have been saying for decades that the welfare state needs to be completely dissolved and regulations restricting voluntary aid programs given their chance to return. Prior to the 1930's the welfare state did not exist, it was before this that private organizations were the main source for any form of welfare or aid. Donations given by Individuals and Businesses alike kept Americans fed and housed on a larger scale than today. So where did this go? After government aid programs began the amount of funds used in voluntary donations were extracted by taxation and those who gave some were able to give less. This caused the great plethora of charities, to be replaced by bureaus and departments, each getting larger and larger, taking more and more to run their offices, less and less aid actually made it to those that needed it.

Where does that lead us to today?

Spending on largest Welfare Programs Federal Spending 2003-2013*[33]
Federal Programs	Spending 2003*	Spending 2013*
Medicaid Grants to States	$201,389	$266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP)	61,717	82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)	40,027	55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)	38,315	50,544
Housing assistance	37,205	49,739
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP)	13,558	20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF	28,980	20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP)	5,695	6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance	2,542	3,704
Notes: * Spending in millions of dollars

Would abolishing the Welfare State actually have any effect on the economic issue of Immigration? It could, in a way, rid the system of an incentive to the minority that use the system without contributing. Taking away that incentive could cause many to rethink the opportunity costs of coming in illegally.

Benjamin W. Powell writes "Before, immigrants assimilated into a culture of hard work and self-reliance. Those who failed here often had to go home. Few go home today because of failure today. Instead, they are taught to assimilate into a system of government reliance where failure and laziness are not punished. The post-1965 immigration wave is the first that has come once we had a welfare state in place. Unfortunately, that welfare state not only makes them less productive, it also teaches them to undermine our old culture that made America successful."

Since there would be no guaranteed way for them to live off of the state, many may just decide to go the legal route or choose another place to move to.

Getting the Government out of businesses and allowing the markets to work properly could be the greatest and most needed change in policies. Deregulation, Getting rid of barriers to work, Abolishing minimum wage laws, stop with the corporate welfare programs, price controls, sending false signals and creating bubbles and busts in markets would easily give everyone, Immigrant or Natural Citizen, a better chance at building wealth and prosperity. Add along with this the ability for all people to keep 100% of their earned wages and abolish taxation, all taxation. Leading us into a voluntary state, a way for the preferences, wants and needs of everyone to be met by competitive businesses and entrepreneurs. 

Speaking of legal immigration, one way to reduce the amount of illegal migrations is to make the legalization process easier to navigate and less costly. Those persons not willing to wait months on end and pay in thousands of dollars usually opt for the illegal route knowing the risk of deportation is lower than shelling out money and time. Reducing the time it takes to get through the legalization system and the amount of money put into legalization could drastically reduce the amount of people who enter illegally. 

The real issue of the Illegal Immigration debate isn't at all about the moving of people into a certain geographical area, but rather the implications and effects those people have in current models of operation. Looking at the issue form a reasonable economic standpoint can lead to real sustainable answer rather than the tug of war political party lines being offered now. Turning America into a thriving economy can give incentive to those wishing to better themselves, their families and their new homes as well.

Here is another post I wrote dealing with Borders and US Marine Tahmoorsi being held in a Mexican Jail.

More reading on this issue.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2013/tear-down-wall-immigration-versus-welfare

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/immigration-friend-or-foe

http://www.fee.org/files/docLib/547_24.pdf


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me on Liberty.Me @BeardedLibertyGuy
And remember to like the FaceBook page HERE

Fixing Detroit

I was watching a show Forgotten Planet and one particular episode caught my attention. It was an episode on Detroit, its heyday and its demise. For a long time Detroit was seen as the industrial mecca in the US, turning out automobiles, steel works, mining operations and one of the country's best school systems. But all of this was to come to an end in the wake of economic policies and disastrous government programs. Detroit now sits in ruin. So what would it take to return this city to the forefront of production and the ability for its citizens to prosper? Is the answer to just get government out of the way?

In an article written in 2013 Patrick Barron makes his case for a "Free Detroit".  His idea is to rid the city of all regulations and all taxation. Barron asks, "What if Detroit became a free city in which government provided for public safety, honest courts, protection of property rights, and little else? Might not unabated free enterprise take hold as it always has in America?" adding next, "All that Detroit really needs is economic freedom and secure property rights. Give Detroit its freedom from all manner of government, including the federal government. Declare Detroit a free city. (You can rest assured, Detroit, that America will come to your rescue if those bloodthirsty Canadians attack!) In other words, no one would pay any federal taxes whatsoever or be subject to any federal regulations whatsoever. Wouldn’t it be nice not to pay federal taxes, not even Social Security and Medicare taxes? Do the same with Michigan taxes. No taxes BUT also no federal or state aid either."

How can they have it both ways? You cannot allow zero taxation and have a funded government, even miniscule government compared to the current model.

The rest of the article reads pretty much how one can envision any free marketer article going. Cooperative experiences between citizens without the need for bureaucratic red tape, restrictions licenses, regulations and of course the end to the state sponsored welfare state.

All of these things are in line with the thinking of most Laissez Faire proponents, and of course with most who are familiar with the great Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises.

What Detroit has become is, in large part, due to the enormity of its city government, the State Government and helped along by the Federal Government. Programs that were meant to help the poor or working poor were in fact reducing them down to a life of dependency, and of course when the government finally runs out of other people money to give away, catastrophe ensues. The lesson to be learned from its fall is that there is such a thing as too much government.

But what is the answer to get it going again?

As Mr. Barron states it may lie in doing the complete opposite of the cause.

In response to Barron's writings on Detroit Chief Investment Officer of Universa Investments LP Mark Spitznagle writes, "Detroit can correct its past public-sector ineptitude and abuses by unleashing the private sector’s vast potential, rooted in the metropolitan region’s vibrant entrepreneurial and manufacturing culture, skilled workforce, and a robust technology base nurtured by world-class institutions like the University of Michigan. The city’s position on an important border crossing and access to an enormous fresh-water supply from the Great Lakes, not to mention the business community’s unrelenting support, enhance its prospects further."

Echoing the late Murray Rothbard, such a collapse “is the ‘recovery’ process, and far from being an evil scourge, is the necessary and beneficial return, says Spitznagle.

I think Detroit can be the greatest study of if and how free market and Austrian economic principles and policies can work. Whether it succeeds or fails will be the greatest milestone in the sake of accepted economic means to ends.

On The Non-Aggression Principle

A main point that most libertarians agree on is the principle of Non-Aggression, better yet stated as a belief of not initiating violence or harm against others. It is at its core one of the strongest moral principles that one can have and also one of the most misunderstood principles and the ability to not cross into hypocrisy defending it. Those people who advocate violence as a means to peace are in conflict of natural tendencies to remain at peace, voluntary cohabitation, mutual cooperation and the moral philosophy of most practiced religions.


There are a growing number of people taking up this principle and as more and more people are confronted with the idea that peace does not require force it becomes needed to put into words what that principle is and what it is not. To differentiate the peaceful alternative to violent means is sometimes a hard pill to swallow and is not the easiest path to take. It does require the utmost character and conviction to handle new ways of dealing with other people in non -violent ways. Too many times to count I have been labeled a pacifist and weak for my belief in this principle, of course most of these times it was in debate of government actions and policies. Let it be said now the idea of not initiating force against another being to obtain ends is not pacifism, it is not a weakness but rather a strength and a moral value worth defending.


Many different religions around the world preach and teach this principle in different words. For Christians it is the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have done unto you. So why do so many reject this principle outside of the walls of their religious temples and buildings? Understanding that religion for many stands as a moral basis and a philosophical groundwork one would think the act of aggression would be slight if any in the religious sects of the world. As we have seen this is not the case. From the beginnings of established religions, present and long forgotten, acts which would kill, maim or hurt others have been a central theme. From the Holy wars, Crusades and even into present day Jihads we see this very clearly, the moral basis of religious belief doesn’t connect to the belief in non-aggression.


One prevalent argument against Non-Aggression advocates is that the idea is pacifist, weak and ultimately utopian. Those that say the non-aggression principle is pacifist in nature are the most in need of this clarification. If an attack is made against someone who advocates the Non-Aggression principle, that person will defend themselves and their property. It is not pacifism but rather a respect for the rights and property of others that leads in the non-aggression principle. As self-defense is not the initiation of force but the protection from aggression it is in the interest and in accordance with most philosophies of proponents of this belief. Those that lack this respect and induce aggression should be dealt with according to the individual dictates of the victim.





What would the world be like without violence, without theft or rape or war? It may be dreaming to imagine a world without these things in it, but why should this be seen as a bad thing. It is those that do not believe in a principled stance against all acts of aggression and violence that have made it necessary for us to dream about this instead of living it. The Non-Aggression principle is a philosophy that respects the rights and property of others. It is a stance to do whatever possible to avoid using violence as a means to ends and rejects the act of initiation of force against all others.

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.


Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.


But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. That’s not what this is about. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?



Ask yourself these questions.
Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?


Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so?


How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?


Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?


Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply?


When is Enough Enough?
This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.


Why is this so important a question?


The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.
So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.


Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?
Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?



Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy
Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page