Good for the Socialist Goose, Not good for Capitalist Gander

August 11, 2011

Did you know that the enviro-statists have successfully changed the definition what “normal” is?
Well, here is my truth claim. They have.

Recently, I happened to be lucky enough to try out a tap that was installed in the early 1970s. It was an amazing experience for me.. eye opening if you will. I highly recommend trying it. Here is I found out. The rate of flow of water will be quite high, the stream will be steady and the feel of the water would not be piercing as low-flow showers and sinks are, but it will be forceful. Turning the tap on, will not cause the ruckus of low flow taps but will instead provide more than enough water in just a few seconds.
Being a rational conservationists, or rather not being wasteful, I would prefer to have such taps as they save time, are efficient at what they are supposed to do and leave the choice of water conservation measures up to me. I suspect their are “guidelines” and regulations to prohibit anyone from selling me such taps, but I will have to check on that.
The experience reminded me of another thing that collectivists hypocritically complain about. If a private water company had installed taps with seemingly high rate of flows, the collectivists would have screamed “bad profiteer”. Had the private water companies installed the low flow rate, they would be accused of trying to cheat the customer out of water.
After all, a well-known toothpaste manufacturer had improved its sale by widening the nozzle on the toothpaste tube. It seemed and was portrayed as such a deceptive trick. Beverage companies are routinely accused of trying to make lesser quantity seem more with packaging gimmicks like hollow bottoms, especially on wine and alcohol, etc. Somehow, despite the fact that content volume is clearly marked on the packaging, this is a unscrupulous business at work.
Now, water is considered a public resource and most use today of water is reckless. The same drinking quality water is used to flush the toilets, washing clothes and even washing your car tires! Had it been a private system, using water as recklessly as it is done today would have been considered as evil as burning gasoline in heavy fuel-inefficient SUVs. Water companies would be just as demonized as oil companies are. The conspiracy theorists would blame the heavy water usage on water companies stamping out conservatory processes and technology. On the other hand, they would always be screaming about running out of water.
But, water is in the “public” sector and has been in “public” sector for decades if not centuries – no such protests exist. Instead the slam is against the consumers of water. “Why don’t you use less water?”.. screams the watermelon conservationists.
Well, since you don’t, they will feel justified in sneaking in controls on your life so you are made “efficient” whether you like it or not. Never mind that by making it public and obscuring the costs of clean water, most definitely subsidizing it.. they are actually encouraging excess and reckless use of it. After all the upfront costs are cheap. How many people really know the cost of a gallon of drinking quality water? If the numbers are really crunched they might end up being many times the price charged to the end consumer. The rest is being footed by the taxpayer in the name of “public” goodiness. As much as the upfront price of water is reduced, the incentive to use it wisely is reduced. Say you have to pay 1/100th of the price of beer. Would you be inclined to drink more of it? Maybe splash it around on your friends, just for fun? How about forgetting to close the beer tap? Is it really so hard to understand that it is a bad idea to artificially remove disincentives to unwise use of scarce resources?

It is quite an spectacle to see that the average water conservationist does not mind flushing his own toilet with drinking quality water, but is terribly worried about the pollution of rivers and streams and will run out of breath blowing hard about evil corporations ruining the environment. Not once will he notice that public sector has facilitated, subsidized and even forced the abuse and waste of water. He will feel confident that his favorite alphabet soup public sector agency will be able to stop the pollution and waste, and bring about conservation and rational use, if only it is given enough power over you and me, and our taps and our lives.

And that my friend is the real game… Power. It is the panacea in the minds of the watermelons and totalitarians in general. No other peaceful solution like convincing others or letting a market price system manage the rationing of resources will be good enough. Even if they would work or are proven to work more towards the goal of conservation, it simply is not something watermelons will agree to.

The only resistance you have against falling to their trickery and to their power mongering madness is your definition of normal. Hold on to it, as hard as you can. Until we are able to bring back the natural, rational, market-based conservationist forces to bear on precious resources, we will have to vehemently deny these sneaky pests in their attempts to pollute our understanding of the world, to suit their goal, and that is to gain power over you.

Environmentalism is just an excuse for it.


If use or promotion of misandry matters to you, here are entities you should avoid.

August 3, 2011

I plan to keep a running list of things on this post of misandric advertisements. Feel free to provide more links to more such advertisements.

1. iRobot vacuum cleaner – for its advertise where the husband is portrayed as horse’s ass, the children as pigs.

2. Salvation army – for its declared “Code of conduct for men”. Its ignoring of violence against men, its implicit denial of violence perpetrated by women, its tacit assertion of the misandric value set “Men = Bad, Women = Good”, and the stated demand to be a slave-protector to every woman (be a mangina!). It is important to note that Salvation army has no “Code of conduct for women” at all. Apparently, women don’t need any change/improvement at all

Observations on totalitarian morons

July 28, 2011

It should not really be a surprise that the totalitarians of today of the “left” call themselves “Progressives”, deny being socialists and often insist on democracy or “social good” or “maximization of well-being for the majority” as their primary concern. I would like to point out that the self-congratulatory term “Progressive” is enough to make anyone’s skin crawl. “But wait, there is more!”, as they say in late night commercials. These “progressives” really are socialists. Once in a while, they will come out in favor of social democracy or democracy or majority rule, even an absolute dictator (if he is “progressive” enough). What they will never come out for is getting off their high-horse and letting ‘others’ live as they like.

I have recently experienced such a conversation with a donkey (socialist democrat, hence forth identified by and referred to by the party sign). No offense intended to the relatively intelligent Equus africanus asinus. The old saying is “You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it”. In a trend of donkeyism – “You can take a donkey to water, but good luck keeping him from trying to shit in it”. The defining characteristic of a donkey is that despite adequate amount of availed opportunity to understand the follies of his favorite system, which he will keep harboring a quiet veiled secretive insistence/loyalty or fetish for it. Once in a while, you will come across any such donkeys in your lifetime. You will not know at first glance that he is a donkey, because they have the external appearance of a human being. I am sharing this so you are better informed on the nature of arguing with such donkeys and not wasting your time on them.

Sign 1: Scientism.
The average run-of-the-mill donkey is very eager to be value free, to be scientific, not only while explaining theories (like real scientists do), but also when setting goals for a certain system. While proclaiming to be scientific, the real creed of donkeyism is “all contrary evidence aside, what I feel/think is right”. It is ‘Feeling’ not logic that dominates everything a donkey does. But in a grand experiment of self-delusion, the donkey parades around as if it is logic that matters most to him. If you try to change his feeling based on evidence and logic, you become a prop in his game, because his feelings are not going to change even faced with reality and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While eager to appear deliberative, donkeys simply do not think, or do not consider whatever it is you are telling them. It is just as productive as flapping your arms in an effort to fly or having a deep conversation with a stone.

Sign 2: Liberality
By liberality, I do not mean (classical) liberalism. I mean the general notion that there is nothing wrong or nothing right. The ‘liberality’ folks will argue that there is no moral difference between robbery and bargaining. Sometimes they will be “generous” and argue that it is only a matter of degree. In the view of donkeys and donkeyism, there is no such thing as right or wrong and the two are interchangeable as and when needed. All this time, one is supposed to argue with them, treating them in “good faith” and it is “oh! So horrible!” if you point out that they are either liars and evil or simply retards and morons. One very clear sign of liberality, is donkeys will falsely claim to have understood any evidence or material you have presented to them. It is only when they start revealing their preposterous distorted view of what you presented earlier, that you will ever find out that they never actually learned anything from it. One early (but hard to see) secondary sign of a donkey is that a donkey will never experience an epiphany on being presented novel ideas and be excited enough by it to share it with other people. Another sign of donkeyism is their rejection of extremism (partly based on the fluid conception of right or wrong), and taking pride in the mythical “bias-free thinking”(not to be confused with free thinking)/moderation.

Sign 3: Argumentative Opportunism
Donkeys will argue obviously contradictory positions as and when it suits them. Notice the patterns of these and point it out. If the donkey is unphased by it, you have positive confirmation of donkeyism. Sometimes, having cheap clean energy and cheap goods have good effects on human beings, because it allows poor people to purchase it, and use it to improve their productivity and live better lives. Other times the same cheap clean energy and cheap goods are bad, because the “rich get richer” and “capital displaces the poor”. In some arguments, the free rider is a problem. In others, it is the right of every human being, simply by existing. In some arguments, perfect cannot exist. In others, perfect can exist if we just let donkeys decide everything for everyone else. Sometimes (token) competition is good, at others it is really, really bad. Sometimes, “not efficiency enough” for “my liking” is a slam dunk, at others “efficiency” can be sacrificed in favor of “my liking”. Sometimes, evidence (or absence thereof) is slam dunk. In others, evidence (or absence thereof) does not prove anything. Sometimes, even in the evidence presented, the degree of purity (or the lack thereof) explains everything, in others, the same cannot explain anything. Beware, that donkeys will claim that their acceptance (or rejection) of anything is not a claimed slam-dunk (see Sign 2). Once in a while they will insist that lone individuals are robbing entire societies/system by withholding their products. In others, they will claim the society/system is forcing the individual to do a job. In some cases, they will insist on doing what majority wants, even at the expense of the minority. In others they insist on doing what minority “needs”, even at the expense of the majority. To these idiots, these things are not self-contradictory at all. “Why? I, as an expert, will decide when things turn from being absolutely essential to absolute unacceptable” seems to be the donkey position. Also the veracity of “evidence” they present is assumed. In the other direction, veracity of “evidence” you present is never certain, and don’t you try to defend it with your pesky facts and figures. Donkeys don’t care about minutia like that. They are grand system designers, purveyors of logic and calculation without numbers.

Sign 4: Hatred of “The Rich”.

This is accompanied with fluid definitions of what “Rich” is (see previous signs for explanation). “The Rich” regardless of what they do, as long as they are “not working” (also to be defined schizophrenically by the donkey), they are worthy targets for expropriation. There is also a mythical class of the “deserving poor” in the donkey’s imagination. I say mythical, because when donkeys say deserving poor, they mean something radically different from what a common person would imagine. “Deserving poor” is that group of hardworking people who are skilled at something, but tautologically defined as unemployable anywhere (by that he means absolutely anywhere). Mysteriously these people do not want to sit idly by and our donkey “knows this”, but are incapable of learning ANY new skills. Come to think of it, the donkey curiously knows a lot of things. When it comes to “Deserving poor” he knows exactly every single employment/entreprenuerial opportunity there is or is not. He knows exactly what every single “deserving poor” intends to do or not do. He knows every single capability of the “deserving poor”. Curiously, in his most generous mood, the donkey also has no idea of what “The Rich” might be thinking, needing, doing or wanting. It is as if he has an almost divine insight into “Deserving Poor”, but is at best fallibly human when it comes to “The Rich” but that is only in his generous moods. In his not-so-generous mood, he knows what the “The Rich” want, think and do too, and it is always bad, inhuman, unkind and sinister towards the “Deserving poor” while being good, non-competitive, very cooperative, kind and mutualistic with his fellows – “The Rich”. In a way, donkeys here repeat the delusions of Marx where “The Rich” are sub-human, while only the “Deserving poor” are truly human. In this way, donkeys regurgitate Marx while simultaneously also disowning him.

Eventually you will be frustrated trying to educate and encourage a donkey to learn about reality. Here, I recommend getting frustrated a little bit earlier, because it will cause you to rethink who you are arguing with. It will save you the embarrassment of being the prop in the mental masturbation experiment of a donkey, not to mention your valuable time. It will also save you from being more inclined to lumping generally uninformed people with donkeys. If you come across a person who is uninformed, give it time. Most of the times, they just don’t know any better. If he is not a donkey, he will change his mind. If you find that he is a donkey, simply move on.

Personal defense and libertarian ethic

August 24, 2010

A libertarian should always attempt to avoid violence where ever possible. This does not mean he should be a pacifist. But it is really a question that individuals should decide beforehand and think over what constitutes clear and present danger? When you should act? and with what force? All bearers of force – in a free society are not devoid of responsibilities. And due to the current setup, one does not have the kind of environment where to think and deliberate about things.
So I think, it would be a good idea to engage in thought. Debate and argue with yourself to find out where your “line in the sand” are. Train for such, talk and consult with experts and generate a guideline. You don’t need a written guideline.. chances are you wont get time to read them in the real event, so rather not write it down. But if you have friends/spouse etc to talk to such things – probably a good idea to cover such topics in conversation.. although be careful not to incriminate yourself given all the force restrictions in current society.

Voluntaryist FAQ

February 2, 2010

I am attempting to create a succinct article that can be browsed through by curious minds to understand the positions of extreme libertarianism also known as Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Voluntaryism .. and probably a few more names I have not yet come across.

The fundamental position of this ideology is based on two principles

1. Non-Aggression Principle (or Axiom).. referred in shorthand as NAP.

2. Use of Private property allocations to determine what is .. and what is not right.

Before going further, I must point out that a detailed understanding of these is HIGHLY CRUCIAL to understanding libertarianism – and quite often non-libertarians do not have the same understanding of these principles as libertarians.. and this is a common source of misunderstandings about libertarianism.

For detail understanding of these – please read Dr. Murray N. Rothbard’s numerous scholarly works, or talk to any one of the intellectual giants of libertarianism.  At this moment, I would caution against referring to libertarian party or that of any “libertarian” think-tank’s position as libertarian principles.  A rule of thumb, make no exceptions, make no concessions while you think of principles and/or their implementation.  This rule will help you identify true libertarians and those that are libertarians only in name.  Dr. Rothbard is my reference standard, although there are many others who continue in the tradition and are quite eloquent spokespersons for the idea.  Glenn Beck, fortunately or unfortunately, .. is NOT one of them – that is not a knock on Glenn, just the status of his positions as it is right now.

So lets get to the FAQ.

Who will protect you from those that wish to do you harm in a stateless society?

This question has an implied assumption built into it.  That a state will protect you from those that wish to do you harm, or at least is obligated to.  This is simply not true – there is violent crime within the protection of the state.. even sometimes perpetrated by state’s employees against otherwise peaceful people.  Clearly this is a failure of the state to protect you from harm!  As to the obligation part, explicit court rulings have made it clear that the state funded police are NOT obligated to protect you and will suffer no significant consequences for failing to protect you.   It is a common illusion that a state is protecting you – and is quite dangerous an idea to hold, especially as it makes you vulnerable to actual crimes by lowering your guard against them.

How will people in stateless society go to work, and be assured that their families are safe at home?

There is no such thing as an absolute “safe”.  It is a comforting thought that you are safe.. but how smart is it to live in this comfortable illusion until the point it is shattered by being victimized by violent crime?  Not very.. I would say.  As to the logistics of it, I advice you to look at your finances and figure out how much you spend and what portion of it goes to taxes.. directly, indirectly and even more indirectly through price inflation for favored industries e.g. corn growers.  Whatever income strata you belong to.. please consider the kind of safety you can purchase for the kind of money you spend  towards taxes!  If you need a trusted armed guard to patrol your neighborhood constantly, this too is considerably cheaper than what you currently pay in taxes.  It is very hard to figure out what exact price you pay and for what product/service in tax based system.. and that is not some accident.  If people can really figure this out, without going through the goobly gook of accounting of the state, and compare it to.. it will really put a huge dent in the fiction on which the state operates.

If we get rid of government, as you extreme libertarians argue for, who will provide national defense?

The first thing to consider here is that there is no such thing as national defense, much less that a state has or can provide for it.  Indeed people living in a particular geographical area might choose to overthrow domination of their lives by a foreign entity/people/govt.. and that is quite justified.  However, it is noteworthy that in most of these wars, the fight waged by a wellarmed populace is far more effective than a collectivized/nationalized defense infrastructure.  Throughout history – there is not a single instance where a well armed society was invaded, defeated or occupied by a foreign power – which is quite a telling statistic.  This is because, if a well armed people decide to resist an occupation force, they can inflict terrible damage on the occupying forces as evident in the American war of Independence from the British rule.  It is therefore, essential that a populace maintains all the means and equipment to defend itself.   It is quite an evidence that EVERY single state.. including the US of A has actively prohibited its people from maintaining such means, which begs the question – Why?  Why does an entity that claims to provide national defense, actively degrades the voluntarily organized efforts of its the people to defend themselves?

Also the same states also maintain an outrageously expensive standing armies, armed to their teeth.  It cannot be that these states can magically transform the nature of human beings, just because they join the state military from fallible sometimes evil human beings to infallible, decent and virtuous people.  So what can account for the difference between the risks of armament levels of the populace and that of the standing army?  The state would like to claim it is the training these military personnel receive.. which is ironic, because many of the good training and tactics that are used in the armies of today were developed by private persons while they were engaged in defending themselves.  Had it not been for these courageous and innovative folks, the military would still use a standing line – shooting a cloud of lead towards each other, resulting in far worse casualty rates..  It took a priest .. not a military scientist to develop body armor that has ever since saved a whole lot of lives!  What could be more enlightening than that?

For all my libertarian and non-libertarian brothers and sisters, please post questions – I will try to incorporate them into this FAQ.  Lets grow this into a good resource for thinking minds.

How Ron Paul changed my life..

January 17, 2010

All I know is that I happened to come across the now famous Ron Paul -Giuliani interaction one fine day .. the interaction that is credited to have kicked off the Ron Paul Revolution.  Being an non-American, and from a particularly “terror” infested region of the world, I knew a few things about terrorism already.  The things Dr. Paul said, I knew were what I had believed to be true long before I moved to the US of A – again, this was from hearsay more than any type of scholarship.  But probably what got me really into the whole thing was that he kept talking about this thing “the constitution”, and how the Americans should follow it.  It was the first time in my life that I realized that laws are not legal just because a legislature declared them to be.. there has to be a reference standard to measure the legality of any law.  In just hours of discovering Ron Paul, I had read through the US constitution and was blown away by the Declaration of Independence, and the things it said and stood for.  I wish there was a way to express how enlightening the experience was..  its as if one finds himself to be alive one day.

Then on, I was a strong constitutionalist.  It did not matter one bit that I had not pledged my allegiance to the flag of the US of America, or gained citizenship of it.. I declared my common cause and fraternity with everyone who stood for the constitution and the principles stated within the declaration of Independence.  Next few months, were spent chasing searching and savoring all the news and flurry of the Ron Paul revolution.. cheering the “young people” on, encouraging their quite enthusiastic attempts to sway the minds of people who already had made up their minds despite not being aware of much of the political positions of any candidates of any party.  And as hopeful, joyous and stimulating all that exercise was – it did not do what I, then, expected it to do.  Interestingly, it did exactly what Dr. Paul wanted to do.. i.e. spread the message of liberty.

Well, I, like many others are forever indebted to Dr. Paul for his kind gift to us all.  More importantly, I must thank all those people who tried to smear him, based on the old Ron Paul newsletters and their racist content.  Had they not ever raised that, I would probably not investigated Dr. Paul even more deeply, just to verify that he was not actually a racist and talking in “code” as these fellows alleged.  Going back into his history, I came across a few more of his friends – Murray N Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and pretty much everyone in the Mises University gang.

In another instance, I happened to come across a bald guy talking bad about Dr. Paul, about how he cannot change the system etc.  It was not something I was willing to accept despite how logically true they were – and pretty sure a lot of Ron Paul people posted angry comments on his videos.  Stefan Molyneux has the distinct honor of fighting for the free market from a ideological puritan position and although he sometimes takes anti-theism a bit too far, he still has contributed to my intellectual development.

Indeed, once I got Rothbard.. there was really no turning back.

Thanks to Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul,  I am an anarcho-capitalist, and I advocate anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism.  So here is to the “crazy” old man who thought he could change the world.. and then he did.

Help poor people in 3rd world nations

November 19, 2009

Please favor the following vendors while you make purchases.

Abercrombie and Fitch, Gymboree ,Hanes, Ikea, Kohl’s, LL Bean, Pier 1 Imports, Propper International, Walmart, American Apparel and Footwear Association.  Basically any business that employees people from the 3rd world are under attack for not employing comparatively rich, high priced, unionized 1st world labor.  Help these businesses thrive and bring better living standards to the poor in the third world.  Walmart already is single handedly responsible for making better the lives of more than 38,000 poor Chinese workers.  Give them a hand.. let us all contribute to eradicate poverty where it strikes the deepest.

Special thanks to International Labor Rights Forum for bringing the benevolence of these firms.

October 29, 2009

War! What is it good for?

“Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.”.. said the king who impoverished his subjects merely a few years later.

Is there such a thing as a good war? And who should decide if a war at hand is good or not?  What is the best way to fight a war?

A few days ago, I was arguing with a conservative friend who claimed that a draft for a defensive war is justified. Indeed a draft for a war is akin to taxation. I have given quite a bit of thought to the topic of war. It was once a complex topic to me – because on one hand it involved defense of everything you hold near, dear and precious, on the other – millions have been slaughtered in these acts of collective violence. Thanks to the perspectives offered by Hindu philosophy, Christian/Catholic scholastic tradition, Islamic fundamentals (not fundamentalism), Dr. Rothbard and Dr. Hoppe, along with many others I cannot list here – I have come to the conclusion that it is not so complex after all. An ethical approach to war is far superior to a “pragmatic” approach – in achieving all the goals the “pragmatic” approach apologists establish.


Not only is the voluntary fighting force far superior in fighting wars, winning them and at a much lower cost, it is also reduces wars, violence, death and injury – offers the least possible risk that wars pose to the liberty of free people. If the following arguments make sense to you – I urge you to consider the abolition of standing armies, in favor of fully voluntary fighting force.

Ethical arguments

  1. There are wars that must be fought and others that must not be waged. Wars as a whole are never good to common people, and soldiers on either side. The only people who benefit from wars are the nutjob leaders who either solidify their personal power (some thrust their people into war just to gain personal glory and a name in history books) and those who sell weapons (also called merchants of death) to the warring nations/factions at exorbitant prices. A soldier always looses the war – regardless of the outcome of the war as a whole. The people on both sides always loose the war, by loosing generation of young men who otherwise would have been happy contributors to the wellbeing of others and destroying homes, industry and infrastructure that took years to build up prior to the war itself.
  2. The only person capable of deciding whether a war is good or not – must be the individual. I do not oppose those that seek to sway/convince the individual to join a war – however any compulsion/coercion levied upon the person to be highly unethical and must never be tolerated.
  3. An individual is responsible for his own safety – he may follow orders of leaders he deems capable, but any such interaction must be voluntary. To the extent the interaction is non-voluntary or is imposed through threats of court-martial or other types of punishments – is the precise extent unto which the interaction is unethical.
  4. Taxation for funding of military organization is unethical. All contributions towards raising and sustaining armies must be voluntary. To the extent these are not voluntary – the collection and hence the armies sustained on such collections are unethical. (To Mr. Harry Reid- Despite your insistence, Taxes are not voluntary in the USA or any other nation-state for that matter).
  5. There exist cases where surrender is better than fighting the war (the think of Saddam’s Iraq)- and this too would work out much better in a society resorting to voluntary fighting force than in a system which assumes and enforces national loyalty and obligations.  The soldiers that dropped their weapons and went home, took the risk of their lives in doing so – for if Saddam had not been toppled – they could have faced execution for their desertion.

Political arguments

  1. Given that a voluntary military is not provided for with taxes – it must disband soon after it has served its purpose. Thus a free society does not have to guard against the “military-industrial-congressional-complex” as Eisenhower famously warned about. Cost for upkeep of the army is reduced, while enthusiasts can keep developing weaponry.
  2. Because there is no standing army – the adventure fantasies of political elites cannot be fulfilled by waging wars in foreign lands. This in-turn reduces enmity with foreign peoples – thus following the advice of Washington, Jefferson and John Quincy Adams – trade and friendship with all, entangling alliances with none. The political elite can have as many alliances as they want – when it comes to sending help – they cannot send any – apart from expending their personal fortunes(and wouldn’t that be a blessing to impoverish a bellicose fool?).
  3. In a territory that depends solely on the voluntary soldiers for its defense – the right to keep and bear arms is safe and will be virtually unchallenged. No commie gun control nut can advocate the abolishing of gun ownership, no more than he can advocate a unilateral and total disarmament.  Plus, there would be no arms to enforce any such Arms control.

Military arguments

  1. History has multiple evident instances that armies populated by volunteers and sustained on voluntary contributions tend to be small, very effective, friendly to the local population and fight defensive terms only. I am not suggesting here that this is a black and white situation – all armies are gray in this regard – however the degree to which an army adheres to voluntary organization clearly indicates its higher success rate, compared to similarly armed/disadvantaged non-voluntary armies. Even the US military establishment acknowledges the importance of voluntary organization when it claims to be an “all-volunteer” fighting force.
  2. Because voluntary fighters will purchase military equipment directly on the market place, the weapons manufacturing market becomes wide open to free competition, thus leading to cheaper and better weaponry, munitions and armor. Bad or expensive weapons manufacturers will be weeded out through market mechanisms. For a voluntary soldier, his life is much more precious and hence the weaponry balance, specifically defensive & armor vs offensive weaponry would be balanced.
  3. Because there will be no fixed military installations in a voluntary society, an invading army cannot identify targets to destroy – a task rendered quite easy in the day of stealth bombers, long range cruise missiles, and GPS guided munitions. Hence the defending army has much more time to reorganize and fight effectively as compared to statist armies heavily depending on fixed infrastructures (including GPS satellites). One of the key factors of modern warfare is – Planning. An enemy cannot plan effectively, as it cannot estimate the size of resistance army it will face, the types and quantities of weapons the resistance holds, etc. When an attack is thus mounted – it will be almost completely blind – and carries a high risk of breaking the morale of its leadership and invading soldiers as soon as they realize their superiors have no idea who/what they are fighting.
  4. Because the value of life of a soldier now is directly in the hands of the soldier – a risk value of disability/death of each soldier could and would be much more rationally allocated (as opposed to being decided by distant generals and commanders). Battlefield doctors (also volunteers) could compete to gain be hired by soldiers to aid them with injuries, thus fostering the best ways to avoid, fix and deal with battlefield injuries. Just as with armor and weaponry, the service of battlefield wounded would also be open to the market (possibly with soldiers hiring doctors to operate upon them, directly), thus overtime improving the quality of care for wounded soldiers.
  5. The hierarchy within the volunteer army would have to be established through good conduct and leadership, not based on who salutes the best(rhetorical) or who has been pushing paperwork in the “system” the longest. Thus “the charge of the light brigade” or “waist deep in the big muddy” could be avoided. Although, all good armies try to inculcate this culture – they obviously have not succeeded in such. Also because, soldiers will enter each battlefield on their own choice, they will fight much more courageously, selflessly and yet carefully – and much like the Spartans fighting the Persians – will be able to defeat significantly larger armies if comparably armed (and this almost never would be the case – the volunteer troops will be armed much better than their statist opponents)
  6. Almost, all offensive wars can be avoided. A warmonger will not be able to muster as many volunteers to risk their lives in order to facilitate the plunder from which they themselves cannot benefit. Obviously there will always be those that choose to risk their lives and limbs to try and invade foreign lands, but a situation where sensible persons can simply ignore a call to arms by a lunatic warmonger is much preferable to one where a soldier risks being thrown in prison for disobeying orders.

Socio-cultural arguments

  1. Historically, men and especially young men have been treated as cannon fodder to fulfill the expansionist ambitions of the old and the elite. Yet, men as a gender are often blamed for all wars (along with everything that is evil around the world). Once wars were outsourced to professional armies, the value of the man – in society as a whole has definitely declined. Young women no longer grow up looking upon men as valuable and necessary members of society whose self-less sacrifice they would need in case of an invasion, nor do they rise up to the occasion and pick up a rifle when need arises. Despite feminist fantasies, men still fulfill this part in statist armies in disproportionately higher percentages than women do. What has changed is that men overall have been robbed of the social credit, instead allocating them to those wearing the uniforms. Nevermind, that the boy next door will be drafted and whisked off to war if need be.. This has paved the way for some feminist man-haters to start talking in terms of “Do we really need men?” – a trend I personally deem to be anti-human.
  2. Participation in a fully voluntary fighting force, being voluntary – means that pacifists or those people who deem the war as unethical or not beneficial to themselves, can refrain from participating in the war.  Thus those participating in the war cannot be blamed for forcing unwilling to fight on their behalf.

Authors notes: I submit to you all the above from the top of my head. I will keep updating this blog post as ideas come to me, so please post your questions, comments and suggestions to add to it. The only comment I will not take seriously are declarative accusations of “utopianism”. If you think I am being utopian – PLEASE be explicit as to why it will fail. I would also suggest gaining some familiarity of the history of asymmetric warfare throughout history, the economics of warfare (prosperous cultures are capable of supporting better well equipped armies), specifically the cases where the right to keep and bear arms was respected to a higher degree. If you cannot explain/reason it – maybe you don’t have any basis for your accusation – on the other hand, if you do, I am willing to admit that I could be 100% wrong and would appreciate your wise contribution. I will also post a list of books for those interested in this subject soon.

Any suggestions to this list are also welcome.

Hello world!

October 29, 2009

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!