http://i.imgsafe.org/85d0f86ae1.jpeg

**Fighting the Fires with Gasoline.**

It's recently coming to my attention that, ironically, many of the so-called "objections" to the philosophies of anarchism or voluntaryism people tend to hold, are actually, in light of closer examination, actually objections to statism and government itself--the very "ideals" being "defended" by the objector in the first place.

Take, for example, a claim that, without the state, children without parents, or children from abusive homes, or homes where drug abuse occurs, would "fall through the cracks" and be lost, with no one to care for them or see to it that their needs be met. Never mind for a moment that this is happening on a massive scale already, under the control of the state, and really look below the surface of this argument.

Why are children put into these compromising situations in the first place? There are lots of reasons, and these reasons can often be directly tied to the so-called tenets, practices, and all-around legislative "fist" of a centralized, coercive nation-state. Let's use the United States as an example:

**1. The Drug War.**

Aside from the fact that the "War on Drugs" is both statistically and practically speaking, an abysmal failure, it is also readily and demonstrably linked to the further incapacitation of individuals, families, and communities already compromised socioeconomically.

The "drug war" perpetuates the toxic cycle of poverty, drug trade, and subsequent incarceration, over and over again, by putting individuals desperately attempting to stay afloat financially through a legal ringer. A ringer which can cost thousands upon thousands of dollars that said individuals do not even have in the first place.

We can look at the totally decriminalized (in regard to substance abuse) Portugal to see how these individuals could be dealt with more as humans than as violent or "dangerous" offenders. This would also lessen the burden on organizations like child protective services, as parents would be much, much more likely to be rehabilitated faster, and much less likely to fall into cyclical substance addiction/drug trade pattern in the first place.

Of course, in exactly the same fashion as the liquor prohibition of the 1920's and 30's, the "drug war" also succeeds magnificently in making the drug trade in these communities extremely lucrative.

**2. The Abolition of Communities, Families, and Individual Responsibility.**

Statism is a vast and abstract mechanism that works in similar fashion. When concrete, individual and highly specific needs arise, it often shows itself to be a bumbling monster, deaf, blind, and speechless, and incapable of offering any real help or protection. As government expands, tight-knit, and truly interdependent community dies, and is replaced by bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all templates for society, as the burden of responsibility is passed from "you and I" to "they" and "them." "They" and "them" being the "nanny state" or centralized government.

Should we cut out the centralized monopoly on violence known as "government," how could people not thusly become more acutely aware of, and empowered to take on, personal responsibility within their own respective lives and communities? There would be no more abstraction known as "government" on which to lay praise or blame--only the individual.

In example:

Bob's child is alone because of Bob's drug addiction? Don't worry about that. We cannot help. CPS will handle it. Please call the police.

VS.

Hey! Isn't that Bob's kid playing by that drainage ditch over there? That's dangerous. We better go see if we can help. Come to think of it, I haven't seen Bob around in a few days...

Of course, nobody would, can, or should be "forced" to help. I find it strange though, as an aside, that so many people tend to think if there were no "laws" and police, that nobody would help each other. I feel inclined to ask these individuals if they would not want to help somebody else in need unless a gun was pointed at their head.

**3. The Strangled Market.**

This is perhaps the biggest reason for most of the problems that "government," as we understand it in the contemporary sense, causes.

As an anarchist I am often accused of espousing "utopian" ideals that are not in touch with "reality." I find this both amusing and ironic, as the philosophy espoused by the individuals making this claim is about as fantastic as they come, and is basically this:

"People are bad so we need a small group of people with extra power to regulate other people. They will do this with guns that only they can use against other people. People are bad but these people are good because they are not bad. See!"

Certainly a head-spinner. If one really takes the time to examine this line of thinking it is seen for the farce it is.

What if instead of endless red tape, armed government agents, and reams upon reams of paper filled with the scribbles of parasitic politicians, i.e. legislation, the market was allowed to function freely?

Would we not immediately see businesses and organizations all over begin to pop-up which would attempt to meet and fill needs for individuals in all kinds of very specific situations which were previously unmet?

Child Protective Services, instead of forcing a monopoly via state violence on the market in the field of "child protection," would now be forced by default to provide exemplary services and care, or close and go "out of business," as a result of fierce, non-violent market competition, allowing better equipped companies with better ideas and services, better facilities, philosophies, and business models, to fill the niche and meet the ever-changing and very specific demands of the local communities.

All of this is also not to rule out volunteer organizations and charities which could function much more effectively absent the heavy blanket of government regulation. Take for example the 90-year-old man who was recently arrested twice in a row in Florida, for the heinous crime of, yes, trying to feed the homeless.

**4. The Legal System.**

Another violence-backed monopoly that disempowers the individual by forcing said individual, outside of any contractual agreement, to only "contract" with one party, and one party only (the state), when and where arbitration may be required. Clearly this sort of system could never deliver any sort of true justice on a massive scale, as each individual, each family, and each situation is different from the next. This is why we see a non-violent " Bob Jones" go to jail for years (separated, say, from his wife and growing children) for possessing a plant leaf that somebody didn't like, sentenced by the same system that may parole a murderer after a relatively short period of time.

There is only one available system, and it is non-contractual, and non-voluntary. In any other area of business people readily recognize this business model as criminal in nature. In the field of criminal justice, people call it "government."

**4. Overzealous Cops.**

This goes hand-in-hand with the above section on the "war on drugs." Give communities back to the individuals that live therein. Stop breaking into their homes at night. Stop burning kids and babies with flashbang grenades. Stop shooting adults and children in their own homes. That's a good example of a "child protective service." Learn to be respectful of private property. Let the individuals in a community choose how they wish, or do not wish, to protect themselves. If we cannot trust parents to look after their own children, how shall we trust armed federal agents ?

Private police forces. Conflict resolution. Dispute resolution organizations. Use of lethal force only as an absolute last resort in self-defense. In essence, the "golden rule."

Love.

Yes, people will continue to abuse their children. Yes, there will still be many of the problems now extant under the statist model. But how much better not to institutionalize these problems and put a stamp of government approval on them!

.......

**In closing,**

**If the individual cannot handle all of these things listed above, then, please tell me, how can the masses?**

If the individual is evil, then why give him a gun and a badge, or power to make "laws?"

If the individual is hopelessly corruptible, why, then, give him power over others who shall then certainly suffer under him?

If, however, you as an individual believe you own yourself, and believe yourself to be responsible for your own life---that is, believe that you can best choose for yourself how you wish to live and conduct your own personal affairs, whether private, professional, or otherwise--if you feel you are capable of this as a responsible, non-violent, peaceful adult human being, maybe others might not be so bad at it, either.

Just some food for thought.