http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/themes/goodnews47/framework/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/world_war_3-900x450.jpg&h=315&w=599&zc=1

Our world is unfortunately one of property expropriators, called "governments", pretending to represent the best interests of "their" own people, while perfectly operating for the benefit of themselves and their associated cronies. They've convinced the masses that the premise of the State's power is controlled by "We the People"; that the government's moral legitimacy rests upon the "consent of the governed." Sadly, many millions of people have come to consider themselves as part of the government; a stakeholder of sort, obligated to conform, submit, and participate in its coercion and plunder. So much so that it's accepted as a *voluntary* institution of theft, thought to be totally akin to a market institution of exchange. 

To what should be of great dismay to all of humanity, yet is revered as the pinnacle of human success and civilization, is that the world is plagued by statism. In nearly every area of the planet earth, geographical regions are claimed to be owned by various governments, who have no genuine contractual claim to the property, i.e., of having homesteaded it; of *appropriating* it rather than *expropriating* it. 

Sometimes these States war against each other, sometimes they form alliances; sometimes they're content to not expand their jurisdiction, ruling only over their own people. But always are they the original thieves and thugs committing the crimes that they're said to be needed to protect *against*; and therefore the entity which should be of prime concern to those enslaved by "their" own State, not the *foreign* government painted to be an enemy. 

States must create foreign boogeymen to upkeep their own supposed necessity. It's "the Muslims", "the Mexicans", the Ruritanians, whoever. "They're taking our jobs", "they hate us for our freedom." Whatever the excuse may be. But to see through it all, a war between Russia and America would be one between the Russian *government* and the U.S. *government*. It wouldn't be one between Russians and Americans, but two *states* fighting each other. Thus it's necessary to make it appear otherwise so that the people go along with it. 

**How war?**

Unlike private security companies, who would have to directly bear the burden of expenditures resulting in launching a war, states are subject to no such market test of profit and loss, and as such, they can simply *externalize* the costs onto the taxpaying "public", operating essentially indefinitely. Contrary to what is popularly contended of anarchism, war becomes all the more possible and wide in scope ("World Wars") with the introduction of statism. 

As Murray Rothbard put it in *Anatomy of the State*, defining it by its involuntariness:
> "...the State is that organization
> in society which attempts to maintain a
> monopoly of the use of force and violence in a
> given territorial area; in particular, it is the only
> organization in society that obtains its revenue
> not by voluntary contribution or payment for
> services rendered but by coercion."

With the further assistance of a money monopoly, in which they're able to inflate to their heart's desire, circumventing any process of direct-taxation to just be able to spend the money instantly, i.e., to steal resources from the economy anyway, they're able to much more secretly and insidiously finance an extravagant military and endless war far beyond the normal tolerance of the taxed to endure it. As it stands, they're fully in control. What is conceivably possible in anarchism to have small, isolated bandit attacks is turned into total-war with the State. 

**Are there "capitalist states" *and* socialist ones?**

The story of the Cold War is one where we're supposed to believe that, on one side, there was "capitalist America", and on the other there was the socialist Soviet Union. While it's true that America was *more capitalist* than other, *more socialist* countries, it isn't as if America was anything of a truly free-market in the 20th century, or ever. It was one dominated politically by Progressivism and economically by Keynesianism indeed; both calling for more intervention into the private lives of Americans. While other countries had Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, or whoever, we had FDR; who could equally be considered a fascist among the ranks of others. 

It is therefore possible to be comparatively more free, i.e., more capitalist, but the distinguishing factors between the governments are slim. It would seem even that America has adopted all of the ["Ten Planks of Communism"](http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html) anyway. Lord' knows what blind supporters of the U.S. Military even think it's fighting to defend now. 

In truth, statism is statism; they [American Democracy or Soviet Communism] are both identical in their aggression, and so both immoral and unacceptable. It hardly matters if it's Communism or National Socialism or Democratic Socialism, etc. Sure, some governments are "nicer" than others, but they're all inherently mean; bullies of sort. They all rest upon aggression against their people in the name of preventing such a thing. 

Capitalism is a lack of political order then, and not something that exists alongside the State. The contention of anarcho-capitalism, a philosophy which I subscribe to, is that there's no such thing as "state capitalism" anymore than there is "anarcho-statism." It is worth it to me to pound it into heads that *statism is socialism*. 

**Resisting the collectivist urge**

It's all to easy to place people into groups rather than viewing them as individuals. There is the idea of government itself as some special entity, exempt from the moral law. When soldiers go to war, it's said to the "the government" going to war. I suppose the religious somehow come to feel as an exception to God's commandment not the murder since they were doing it for good cause: America; "heaven on Earth." 

There is the idea of this abstraction of "society", something that doesn't actually exist but is again just made up of individuals. This one in particular is what permits the invasions of individual liberty for idea of the "the common good." In economics, this excuse is considered to be a "positive externality" or a "social utility" justifying the expensing of the individual's rights.  

There is the tendency to say *all* "black" people are X, or *all* "white" people do Y. One white person makes a racist comment and "all white people are racist." One black person breaks into your car and "all black people are thieves." You get ripped off by one Zimbabwean e-mail scammer and all Zimbabweans are scammers.  

Perhaps being burned in a relationship, it's all to easy to say "all girls [this]", or "all boys [that]", upon your own experiences. But this can't be true. In fact, I've found an exceptional romantic partner for myself that I once didn't believe existed among the heap of other women who don't meet qualities i'm interested in. Sadly, many become jaded in the search for friendships and such, having a lack of faith in the fact that *everyone* is different from any other person. 

Furthermore, "we" did not fight World War 2; it wasn't *I* that went to Iraq, or Afghanistan; *I* myself did not murder Native Americans; etc. I had nothing to do with any of these atrocities by virtue of being a victim of the people who rob me or a descendant of someone who has caused someone else great pain. 

We must end this collectivist mindset induced by statism that causes us to associate things the government does with things we're personally responsible for. We're placed in a coercive system, and so its theft of our property, and the use thereof, is beyond our own personal accountability. I have no reason to hate "Russians" for what "their" government does; or for Russians to hate Americans for what "our" government does. We're all just people, robbed by various ruling-classes, who would otherwise prefer to trade and voluntarily associate with one another were it not for the barriers erected by statism that prevent us from doing so. 

Resist the urge to classify yourself among "your" government's actions, in saying that "we" need to...(smash foreign-state X). "We" can't do anything. Only individuals act. If "we" could do anything, it's mind our own business and concern ourselves with our own property. We need not be isolationists, but non-interventionists we must be. 

**Why the State?**

The reasoning for the State is that A and B can't get along, and so the State (S) is needed to solve this problem. But this logically results in a *world government* if taken to conclusion. Since now there is S1, S2, S3 and so forth, there is now a need, in their mind, for *WG* to make sure S1, S2, etc., all get along. 

Government's are therefore characterized by a state of being *ungoverned.* And contrary to what representative democracy suggests, that we "elect" representatives and then proceed to keep them in-check and accountable to us, the State has became *ungovernable.* It's completely out of control and cannot be fixed or reigned in. If they *ever* even did have "consent of the governed", which all government power is said to rest upon, well they don't anymore. To be sure, *I don't consent!* 

However, governments being in a state of anarchy is a *good thing.* Ironically, what we want are *more* governments, "micro-states", or whatever you might call them. The better, safer, and richer "America" would be if there were actually fifty-governments, and "states rights", and the central, almighty rule emanating from Washington didn't trump the land. Just as fifty states in "the U.S." is preferable to one federal government, so too would be the two-hundred or so governments in the world versus all legislation coming from the World Government, binding everyone on the the face of the planet to this "law of the land." 

The inner-collusion of government stifles what could be competition between states, such as if one inflated their fiat currency without the other doing it, its loss of value would be more quickly realized. Instead, they get governments to sign onto other agreements that fit and compliment theirs, such as inflating together with them so that the respective values of our government-ran monies do not decline. 

While this is far from ideal, and the lines are becoming blurred anyway, it would be still be better to have the defense monopoly be the U.S. Military rather than the U.N.; or to take our schooling curriculum from the Dept. of Education rather than the World Department of Education; or paying taxes to the IRS versus the World Revenue Service. These are all still government, but at least they haven't been monopolized to include *everyone in the whole world*, yet. 

Of course, what we desire is totally *private*, voluntarily offered goods and services. What we need is radical decentralization, and fast. 

Essentially, it could be said that this is what anarcho-capitalism proposes: break down the State into hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of truly "voluntary governments", where people are actually free to choose who represents them; where everything is decentralized and there is no central concentration of power vested in a territorial monopolist "the State."

**The State is not "us". We're all just individuals** 

Although it has become all the more apparent that the U.S. is an oligarchy, made up of privileged political families, the political formalities are held just because, without them, the people would be less likely to accept the State. You can't just stuff a dictator in there; you have to act as if "the people" really have a say in what goes on. 

As Rothbard says of this:
> "With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with 
> society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments
> expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and 
> commonsense such as, “we are the government.” 

He goes on, in what is surely the moment that turned thousands into anarcho-libertarians in an instant upon seeing through the cover erected by government for the first time, giving conviction to so many that the State is wholly immoral and illegitimate, to explain the involuntary relationship we have with the State. (If you're comfortable remainging a statist, don't proceed!) 
> "The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage 
> to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” 
> then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and 
> untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. 
> If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by 
> taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured 
> by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, 
> or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” 
> and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any
> Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they 
> must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which 
> was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did 
> to them was voluntary on their part."

Likening the State's lethal aggression to "voluntary suicide" under this logic is just the best shit I've ever heard in my life. 

He finishes out this part on what I would like to stress, in the need to awaken the people around the world, i.e., those who are not the government, with a call to unite them against their respective governments:
> "We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are
> not the government; the government is not “us.”
> The government does not in any accurate sense
> “represent” the majority of the people.

**Uniting the people against their State**

Now, this is no collectivist call for the people of the world to unite under the banner of a one-world government, but precisely the opposite: for peoples everywhere to reject and oppose the idea of centralized authority. 

Frankly I believe we have to show them our numbers. They have to see that the Liberty movement is real, alive and well. This threat of war, and of people viewing it as picking the sides of states, had me thinking if only we could start a world-known organization called "We Are Not Our State" (WANOS), where millions and millions of people signed onto it in opposition to the idea of regarding another man their enemy because a domestic government told them to. It could maybe even be equipped with a social-networking platform where we could make actual connections with others around the world; to see their faces and speak to them and agree together that it is us—the people of various nations—united against those who have organized against us: the governments.

It can't be seen that whoever enters office was "the will of the people", or "who the Americans wanted." This is the ruling-class carefully and skillfully organizing to maintain their rule; "the people", while largely accepting the idea and premise of government, scarcely had any say in who would come to control the political means this time around. 

To keep legitimacy, and maintain the illusion it's fighting for "the people", the State needs its subject's patriotic support and attention. It needs you to believe that what it does is just and moral and, as if it's some voluntary private business, operating "for your own good." If there's just one anarchist in America, then, certainly a person being ruled by a foreign state couldn't consider them to a member or supporter of the criminal organization that is just doing business as "the U.S. Government." 

If people the world around could wake up to this fact, opposing their *government* and not another person elsewhere in the world, too ruled by a government, then they couldn't possibly get away with these things. It should not be us against each other, but all the people versus all the the states. They need division. They need fear. They need hate. They need us to fight. So for those who are enslaved by a government in some place on Earth in which i'll likely never set foot in:

Chinese people: I don't hate you. Russian people: I don't hate you. North Korean people: I don't hate you. Whoever else the U.S. Government's enemies might be: I don't hate you. I'll hate your government with you, though. From Americans, to Russians—to Chinese, to Mexicans, to Canadians, to whoever—let it be known that *we are not our State!*; the State is not "us." 

To sound Marxist for a moment: "Citizens" of the world, unite — against statism!

**How will it go down? Who knows**

It pains me to admit, as I'd rather ignore the truth, that the arrival of the President election is here: today, November 8th, 2016, a new person will assume top office of the U.S. Government. When the power-elite has officially and publicly selected their next puppet, which may seal the American fate once and for all, things are bound to never be the same for this country ever again short of an uprising.

It may be nice and comforting to always assume "everything will stay the same no matter what happens [with government], it's no different this time", but I happen to think that this is wrong, and the problems in the world now, while perhaps not never-before-seen, are nonetheless to a magnitude and size that has not been. 

Everyone senses the danger that is statism, ever on the rise. The American Empire is bigger and badder than ever, and everything is poised to give. The markets continue to press on regardless, or in spite, of government's attempt to squash them, but relatively they can be greatly hampered and this has consequences for our standard of living and amount of liberty we enjoy. Those aspiring for more power are opportunists looking for any moment to seize more, and not ashamed to be the very cause, albeit citing it as the solution. A couple scenarios that I find possible, which we should beware of, are:
- the coming President inherits the depression which has been staved off for nearly a decade now with the same policies from the central-bank that first caused it, having made it all worse, and so drastic measures are taken to tame it that expand even further the intervention of government into the private economy. 
- there's a hyper-inflation of the prices of goods in America once the managing of the unprecedented monetary inflation created by central banks over the years can no longer be maintained: as the supply of money has been increased and Dollars are being repatriated, and the demand for that money falls instead to redeem this increasingly worthless paper into goods, prices will then skyrocket uncontrollably.
- the initiation by the governments of the world upon a Dollar crash of a one-world, cashless, fiat currency to inflate indefinitely, finally achieving their long desired goal of imposing their monetary schemes on the whole world without restrictions.
- unilateral decisions (of war, takeovers of industry, invasions, rationing, curfews, price-control, anything anti-freedom) are made by the government in the name of "national security" that will exist entirely outside of our control: executive orders, etc. 
- the U.S. Government criminals will launch preemptive attacks on other countries or threaten war, or make up excuses or provoke wars so as to appear a response to an attack once state-aggression broke out (think NATO and the obligation to defend any treaty-country attacked). 
- there will be an event hailed as a terrorist attack in which government must respond by clamping down on ever more of our freedom, not limited to claiming the need for martial-law, internment camps, the gathering of dissenters, preventing travel, etc.
- increased centralization of power upon the failure of government-created problems into the realm of world-government institutions: World Bank, IMF, UN, etc., i.e., giving away what might be left of national sovereignty to world socialism. 

These are all awful things that are in sight of those who have ruled us for centuries, and just a few of them. They're extreme cases, but we're dealing with sickos and sociopaths. I would hope our collectively consciousness is high enough that they couldn't get away with such things, but i'm not holding my breath. It's time we shake our chains. Governments are the most murderous institutions in recent history, and we should no long accept their place in our society. They need to be found intolerable! What gives, nuclear war? 

Hopefully nothing of this sort happens, and we're just crazy, right? All the economic theory we understand was useless and doesn't apply to America, a country of exceptionalism in every way. Government coercion is a necessary good in the world, and we're just crazy conspiracy theorists when it comes to political philosophy. Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to get into office so she can help me. 

I say put nothing past these people. Be prepared to denounce war, and adamantly oppose aggressive violence by States; to accept secessionist movements as the way out, and to support them and even join them; to engage in production and exchange and resist expropriation anymore; to propel the ideology of liberty into the mainstream so to put an end to statism.