no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Wikileaks: The Only Talking Point You Need

November 29th, 2010

When discussing Wikileaks, there is only one talking point which you absolutely must commit to memory (if you need more than another, it might help to discuss the big picture). This is really the only argument you need. It also works perfectly well as a rebuttal to whatever arguments someone might come up with in order to try and criminalize Wikileaks:

Revealing crimes committed by the State or its agents (under the euphemism of “State secrets”) does not hurt American interests, endanger American lives, nor is it treasonous or otherwise criminal. What hurts American interests, continually endangers Americans both at home and abroad, and is criminal to the highest degree, is committing those crimes in the first place.

wikileaksEver hear that old adage, “don’t shoot the messenger”?  Yeah. Same thing. There are only two reasons why anyone would react with hostility when an organization like Wikileaks makes these secrets public:  Either they are criminals afraid of being brought to justice, or they are in ignorant denial.

For your entire life you’ve been duped in to believing and supporting those crimes. You’ve been told that they weren’t crimes, and with the truth hidden from view it was easy to believe. You’ve been taking that blue pill all your life but when the truth comes out, you snap because you have so much invested in believing in and perpetuating the lie.

Just swallow another pill and when you wake up you can go on believing whatever you want to believe.

It is important to mind the nature of these secrets: They are kept by and between criminals, with criminal intent, to hide the fact that crimes have been committed. Revealing the truth behind these crimes, of course, will further endanger some of their co-conspirators and some unknowing accomplices.  Anyone who is knowingly involved in keeping evidence of those crimes a secret is an enemy to liberty.

If you are concerned about the safety and well-being of friends and family who may be unknowing accomplices, I can understand and sympathize.  A certain number of unknowing accomplices will likely be placed in more danger than they already find themselves, but the genesis of this danger all goes back to the crimes to which they are accomplices.

They are already in danger because of their involvement.

They alone are responsible for the consequences of their actions.   They alone, are ultimately responsible for the moral judgment that leads them down whichever path they’ve chosen in life. And they alone are responsible for their ignorance.

Let them know it. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

It serves no justice to join that conspiracy, to suppress the truth and keep those crimes secret.  Instead, you need to do whatever is justly within your power to get them to take the red pill, instead.

Destroying Wikileaks will not reduce the danger to which Americans and American interests are exposed.  Silencing the whistleblowers does not make the crimes disappear from anywhere except public knowledge, but like the tree falling in the forest when nobody is there to hear it, these crimes still happened.  Burying your head in the sand will not make America safer, it will not make the world safer, it will not end tyranny or spawn liberty. Anywhere.  You can take that to the bank.

In order to end the danger, it is necessary to end the criminal acts which motivate others to threaten “us”:

Stop exploiting the third world’s resources for corporate greed. Stop exploiting the people who were born in to those countries for cheap labor.  Stop installing puppet governments in the banana republic remnants of European colonialism and its aftermath, American Imperial Hegemony and transnational-capitalism. Stop using the most powerfully destructive military in the world to secure and defend corporate interests abroad while despots you put in power (“to keep the world safe for democracy” or some other such nonsense) commit crimes against humanity. Stop blitzkrieging the poorest countries in the world after you fail to reign in the despots that you previously installed.

It’s that simple: to get people to stop hating you, just stop hurting them.

h/t Brad Spangler for the inspiration.

Comments

36 Comments

RSS
    • Kevin says on: December 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm

       

      I agree. Someone should be watching our government and they should be held accountable, as in any other ‘business’. I am a stockholder in this country and I am damn tired of the way it is being run. Tired of ‘contributing’ funds, without ever seeing a receipt, or what my money is being used for. Tired of giving away my hard earned dollar, that is very closely scrutinized, to an entity that has no chaperon, refuses to be accountable for itself, and seems to throw a fit when it is confronted about it’s obvious lack of self control.
      “Of the People, By the People and For the People” have absolutely NO meaning anymore to our government. They are behaving like a corrupt syndicate, with NO moral or legal guidelines they feel they need to follow. Where does it end, I ask?? The train has jumped the track and I can’t lift it back on by my self.

  • Don says on: November 29, 2010 at 4:03 pm

     

    Can you give an example of the *unknowing accomplices* in the 7th paragraph?

  • zam says on: November 29, 2010 at 10:49 pm

     

    But wikileaks isn’t only releasing evidence of crimes, they’re also releasing a bunch of other information along with the incriminating bits. It’s a shotgun approach to transparency – just make everything public and let the chips fall.

    I still think it’s a good approach, mind you, but your “one talking point” doesn’t address the criticism that along with the “good info”, (that is, the part that exposes crimes) there is also “bad info” being released, which has negative impacts on undeserving people/institutions. To address that I think we have to acknowledge that there is such thing as “bad info” when it comes to leaks, but that the value and impact of the “good info” is so overwhelming that it’s worth it.

  • David Z says on: November 30, 2010 at 12:28 am

     

    Don – the “unknowing accomplices” are those ignorant of the consequences of their actions & participation. IMO this is unfortunately the lion’s share of people involved, everyone from the grunt on the front lines to the translators to the operatives etc., whose public skool education succeeded only in indoctrinating them with statist propaganda, causing cerebral atrophy that presently prevents them from fully understanding what’s going on, and how they are involved.

    Zam – point taken, but I’d rebut: Essentially what this argument calls for is some sort of “clearing house” which would evaluate the intel, and disseminate only the “good info”, leaving the “bad info” under lock and key. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Unless all the information is made available, nobody can ever be certain that what remains “secret” isn’t evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

    • Don says on: November 30, 2010 at 5:28 am

       

      I find it difficult to believe that adults can be *unknowing accomplices* to criminal activity, particularly murder and theft.

      • David Z says on: November 30, 2010 at 8:08 am

         

        Don, when nobody has ever told you to the truth, it’s easy to go about believing the lies.

        it’s precisely because they don’t know or believe that the activities in question are criminal, that makes them unknowing and ignorant accomplices to the crimes. When nobody has ever told you the truth, or taught you how to find it for yourself (or even that such a thing as “truth” exists!), when you have been brainwashed, indoctrinated, propagandized since infancy, it doesn’t not surprise me in the least bit to meet adults every day who, although they may fundamentally have an understanding of the difference between right and wrong, they cannot consistently put that understanding in to practice.

        It can be done, of course, but deprogramming these folks is an arduous, time consuming task, usually.

  • Tiggy says on: November 30, 2010 at 4:34 am

     

    Could you please write a less America focused version of this. It’s not only America involved but, as usual, the focus is solely on America and written as though the only people who are online are Americans. (Which is just another version of American Imperialism.)

    • David Z says on: November 30, 2010 at 8:02 am

       

      No, the Americentric theme of this article has nothing to do with “American Imperialism” and everything to do with America’s and Americans’ leading roles in the spread of transnational capitalism, the exploitation of the third world, and the establishment and maintenance of an American Empire.

      It would make very little sense to address Frenchmen or Turks or Malaysians with this grievance, considering the scope of their involvement, not-to-mention what they could conceivably do to put an end to it, is minimal at best.

  • Joe Golowka says on: November 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

     

    Not everything wikileaks publishes is on the U.S. government. Its exposed things in other governments, too. Many of those governments have made similar criticisms.

  • Don says on: November 30, 2010 at 7:51 pm

     

    Imagine a bizzarro world where you work for a company and as an employee of that you are allowed to keep critical business secrets from the business owner. You know, of the people by the people and all that.

    Now, substitute America for company, politican for employee and (enter your name here) for company owner.

    If an employee uses force to harm the company then the company owner must (required) use overwhelming force to kill that employee before he can do further damage.

  • Phlipn Page says on: December 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm

     

    Wiki-leaks gets more attention than it deserves, I suspect. Assange is a
    grand-stander with problematic, even self destructive, psychological
    needs. Mostly wiki-leaks affirms the cesspool of political and
    diplomatic relations of which the informed onlooker is well aware, so
    what…. It’s real worth has been to media outlets, those who
    sensationalize trivial matters of the world and those who might make
    political opportunity from the doldrums of such matters…

    One has to wonder what the “real value” of information that sees the
    wholesale dumping in the public domain and that the USG did not deem so
    valuable as to protect and secure and whose purchase price made it
    freely accessible from an Army Private? Me smells a Rat. Who is to
    believe and Army Private would be in control of such damaging access to
    information.

    Assange has been made to be a champion by some and a demon by others.
    He seems just another vendor of cheap wares afforded by the information
    age, a peddler of gossip and occasionally the sensational. This too
    will vanish into yesterdays news and be long forgotten.

    What I find most disturbing is that would be progressives, the liberal minded ot other outside of the mainstream folks actually think Assange is a “do gooder” and that the information he floats has some great value. There is no smoking gun, conspiracy or anything else to see that in not already obvious. Far worse is the reality that the USG is using Assange in a grand misinformation and misdirection scheme.

    get a grip.

    • David Z says on: December 1, 2010 at 5:13 pm

       

      All i read is “blah blah blah blah” my post was a response to anyone who wants to criticize wikileaks, or call for Assange’s assassination, etc. You’re answering questions here that nobody ever asked and going off on a tangent that’s practically speaking, irrelevant to the rest of the discussion. I don’t particularly care about the value of the data, although I’d like to see something come of it, I know that probably nothing will. Such is life.

      Who is to believe and Army Private would be in control of such damaging access to information.

      The incompetency at all levels of government have been pretty well-documented, I mean the FBI and the CIA could’ve collectively thwarted 9/11 had they not been so butthurt towards one another. Instead due to a bunch of petty and childish politicking these intel organizations just didn’t play well with one another and so we get what we got.

      • Don says on: December 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm

         

        Head on over to Beck’s blog at 2–4 and chase down that current link to Ann somebody and check out the comments section below. Pretty repulsive stuff and most certainly of the NASCAR mentality, if you can stand it. This whole country is in severly deep shit all the way around.

  • Zach S. says on: December 1, 2010 at 2:35 pm

     

    Don: Really? They must kill that employee? Seems like kind of an over reaction. What force is Wiki-leaks using? They simply provide the public owned documents to the public. Does everyone keep forgetting the government works for us? Where do you think all that magical FICA goes too? The fact of the matter is, politicians have never had to answer to the people. They’ve always answered to the money. Now they must answer to the people.

    Maybe the Government should put into place a set of systems and controls that “audit” what the government is actually doing instead of doing whatever the hell they want without the worry of any ill effect. I think Wiki-leaks does a wonderful job at that.

    • Kevin says on: December 16, 2010 at 4:12 pm

       

      A-MEN Zach!!!!!

  • Don says on: December 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm

     

    @Zach, I was drawing an analogy, thus: “by the people, for the people”.

    Supposedly the gov’t exists by our (we, the american citizenry) permission and that necessarily means all of the politicians, etc. They, the politicians, are our, the citizenry, employees. Employees cannot be allowed to keep secrets from the employer. If employees, politicians, use force against the employer, the citizenry, then the citizenry must use overwhelming force to curtail the employees.

    None of this is true, of course, which blows a big gaping hole all the way through the fairy tale called democracy.

    Regarding your statement,”Now they must answer to the people”, look up pictures of Mussolini swinging from that lampost on the street. That is the only justice for most politicians that will satisfy me. Anything short of that is injustice for as David spelled out in a post not too long ago pertaining to depleted uranium, to which I remarked something like this: “These animals have done things that can’t be repaired”, or words to that effect. The only question I have is, are there enough lamposts inside the beltway, or do we have to double stack them?

  • Zach S. says on: December 2, 2010 at 9:48 am

     

    @Don: I apologize. I misunderstood your analogy. Thanks for the clarification! Makes A LOT more sense :)

    Hang them? I think that’s too nice. Let them live as a leper.

  • John says on: December 6, 2010 at 7:55 pm

     

    This is the post a lot of us have wanted to write or wish we had the time/inspiration to write. Thank you. You’ve made your/our points very clearly, and I can’t imagine what reasonable objection there is to them.

    • David Z says on: December 7, 2010 at 12:00 am

       

      Thanks John – always a pleasure to hear from ya. Got a follow up in the works (in my brain) in response to someone calling me a conspiracy theorist re: this post. IMO there’s nothing conspiratorial about my “theory”.

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm

     

    Dave Z,

    In your estimation, is there ever a valid excuse for the State to keep information secret? I don’t disagree (in principle) with your assertion that transparency is only effective when the “whole” truth is exposed..your logic here is sound..but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea in practical terms.

    Case in point- I tend to believe that events like the D-Day invasion could only have been as successful as it was because of its top-secret nature. I won’t go on an on about the merits of our involvement in WWII- I understand that the USA’s war effort wasn’t exactly 100% virtuous like our school teachers would have us believe…but what would have happened had we not successfully invaded the first time around due to a leak like this?

    Does the concept of timing have a role to play in leaking all this? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

    • Matthew Reaume says on: December 7, 2010 at 6:58 pm

       

      And just to clarify- I know your post was meant to provide a talking point to counter the argument that Assange ought to be assassinated.

      What if I were to posit that the D-Day invasion was hypothetically thwarted due to a Wikileak, and thus, Assange should be captured and hanged and/or the person responsible for sharing the information with him be tried for treason? What may be your rebuttal to that?

    • David Z says on: December 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm

       

      “is there ever a valid excuse for the State to keep information secret?”

      A good question made better (and more difficult to answer) by the example you chose.

      Sure, timing might play a role. I.e., there’s some difference between top-secret plans in a bona fide world war, and keeping documents classified which reveal the full scope and breadth of crimes or misdeeds committed by agents – regardless of whether there’s a war going on.

      Really it boils down to a catch-22. Once you establish that informations can be kept “secret” under certain pretenses, without some independent way of auditing and verifying their nature, you’ve essentially also established a means by which the less-than-scrupulous can cover their tracks.

      WWII specifically is a tough nut to crack, the seeds of that conflict were sewn at least 20 years prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland, and some might argue longer than that. Whether nations failed to heed the warnings that the punitive restitutions charged to the German government would ultimately lead to another conflict, or whether we account for other nations’ complicity or failure to act at a time that would’ve more easily thwarted the Third Reich, etc., also need to be taken in to account.

      But if you could rewind the clock not to the moments before D-Day, but as far back as need be to illuminate the genesis of the conflict, I would argue it is probable that more information and more transparency in world politics may have prevented (or at least mitigated) the global conflicts that marred most of the 20th century.

      When asking specifically “What do we do now that it’s already to late to do what we should’ve alreadyy done?” it is a 27 Ninjas argument (i.e., if you find yourself in a dark alley surrounded by 27 uzi-wielding Ninjas, what do you do?).

  • Don says on: December 8, 2010 at 7:02 pm

     

    Matthew Reaume said this:I tend to believe that events like the D-Day invasion could only have been as successful as it was because of its top-secret nature.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    That’s like saying, The bank robbery was only successful because the robbers killed all the security guards, police and witnesses.

    Look, the gov’t is YOUR employee, YOU are their employer.
    It is never permissible for an employee to keep business secrets from her/his employer. If he did, and got caught he would be fired on the spot.

    The end never justifies the means.

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm

     

    @ Don-

    Hell of a point.

    Something to chew on though-

    If my office is a closed space, i.e., a working environment that suppresses creativity, openness, and is subject to rampant gossip and bureaucratic pitfalls; it could be argued that 100% transparency between myself and my boss would not necessarily be conducive to productive output that could in turn benefit the company.

    Case in point- If my boss is a “big-picture” kind of person without the ability to understand the detail-oriented process that is required to get the job done….and if said boss is unapproachable because he/she is subject to respond to legitimate requests with knee-jerk reactions that attack my ideas and ultimately hinder my ability to do my job effectively, then am I not at least tempted by the idea to carry out my duties in a degree of secrecy? What my boss doesn’t know wont hurt him as long as the job gets done right?

    Maybe its best that my boss not micro-manage my daily activities. He may not need to know all the details…all he needs to know is that I am competent enough to produce results. But this takes us back to idea that not every employee is as virtuous as I am. The potential exists for me to raid the supply closet when he isn’t looking, or submit a bogus mileage reimbursement claim- both of which are forms of corruption that could be avoided if the boss were paying closer attention to what his employees were doing. As David Z wrote..it truly is a catch-22. I see both sides.

    Apply this abstract idea to a D-Day invasion and I think you might better understand where I am coming from.

    Or maybe not. I don’t know.

    • Don says on: December 8, 2010 at 10:05 pm

       

      I understand the D-Day point, I just don’t believe it is valid in part because of the bank robbery example I gave above. The US should not have been involved, because of the stolen money, and therefore no secrets should have been kept. Now, if a group of volunteers from the US wanted to arrange their own D-Day with their own non-forced funding then they can hold all the secrets they want. But under no circumstance do they get to steal money from me then go do whatever they want, in secrecy or out in the open, and say they are doing it for my benefit. The same holds for this current Assange deal. The man revealed wrong doings and rather than blame the wrong doers the blame somehow twilight zones onto the message bearer(s). WTF?

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 9, 2010 at 5:25 am

     

    @ Don-

    We essentially agree that the Wikileaks fella…Assange… ought not to be condemned for exposing the truth.

    “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” – Thoreau

    But I am not interested in discussing abstract theory. I am interested in evaluating the practicality of executing a plan. So lets look at the context in which such a plan as D-Day (an analogy you deemed invalid) was formulated.

    What are the ends vs. the means?

    American interests overseas were threatened, so the USA employed military tactics to eliminate a threat funded by YOUR tax dollars without your direct consent.

    OK, in principle I agree that it’s bogus for the State to take money from your pocket in order to fund a military campaign without seeking your consultation. I get that.

    But put yourself in 1941. Nevermind the 6 million Jewish lives at stake. Nevermind the boys in Hawaii. Nevermind Poland.

    Instead, lets think about what could happen if an irrational drugged-out Hitler looked across the pond and saw an opportunity to obtain total world domination. What then?

    Do we as a society raise a volunteer militia? (Nevermind the flood of volunteers that signed up immediately after December 7th)

    If so, how?

    Do you understand the logistics that are involved in something like that?

    Off the top of my head, I can’t remember how many soldiers it took to secure the beachheads in France, but I’d be willing to say that it required more than what any modern volunteer militia could raise. (What was it, a couple hundred thousand?)

    And what would be their weapons? Guns and ammo don’t grow on trees…they need to be paid for. With what money? How do you raise that money as an alternative to taxes? More importantly, how do you raise that money in a timely manner? Or do you just say to hell with it and ask Remington, Winchester, Browning, and Thompson to simply provide the weapons as an in-kind donation? Do you ask the employees of those companies to make those weapons on a volunteer basis? If so, who feeds their families? Do the farmers volunteer their crops? What gives?

    Lets just assume that we CAN raise that money in time to save the day. And for argument’s sake, lets just assume that volunteers…without any formal, structured military training mind you…can solicit such funding through private donor(s) and put that money to work effectively after a massive planning effort. OK.

    That whole process…volunteer or not…would inevitably reflect a system that mirrors a large bureaucracy not unlike the department of defense. But the money is coming from willing donors right? Would those American-based donors happen to be the same ones who went to bed with German defense contractors? (Bush Super-Sr.)

    Would those donors have a vested interest in saving American lives, or would their interest lie in making profits?

    I assume you are an educated man Don, but why in the hell should YOU, as a single U.S. citizen, let alone ALL of America (the stupid people included) be consulted by the State before the State makes a decision to mediate a legitimate threat to your livelihood? (Not to mention that such a consultation in a purely democratic form is impossible to execute in this context).

    Did you hunker down in a basement in London as Nazi bombs destroyed every way of life you once knew? No, you didn’t. But many people did. The war hit home for MILLIONS of people across the globe because Germany was too damn powerful to stop.

    My point is, it’s easy for you to proclaim that it is wrong for a tyrannical and despotic government (USA) to take your money to wage a war. But what if that money was taken from you in order to prevent your child from being crushed by a falling building that was brought down by a German bombing raid? Would you bitch then?

    Based on my limited experience in planning projects and seeing them through, I must say that confidentiality often plays a pivotal role. This idea would apply to the D-Day invasion.

    But perhaps the D-Day example is not relevant to our Wikileaks discussion due in part to the fact that in 1944 there was no such thing as a world wide web. I guess it’s like comparing apples to Facebook pictures. So instead, lets use your bank robbery analogy.

    Remember…it’s about context, so the question here is; can the ends ever justify the means?

    In other words, could a bank robbery ever be morally justified?

    Read the previous sentence again, and think hard.

    Think some more.

    The Great Depression. Folks are hard-up, and in a bad way.

    You invested your money in a bank, and when you need that money most, the bank tells you to get bent. The bank takes your home and the farm that has been in your family for decades- built on the sweat and blood of your grandfather. You’ve been raped of your livelihood, your dignity, and ultimately your humanity. Your child is looking at you and asking why there is no food to eat.

    Are you going to sit there and tell me that you wouldn’t at least CONSIDER taking your rifle down to the Savings and Loan in order to collect what is rightfully yours???

    It’s all about context brother.

    If it’s me and my farm and my child at stake…I’m at least rolling the idea around in my head! Frankly, in this situation, killing the God damned security guards, police and witnesses is not altogether out of the question. Does this make me an asshole? Perhaps, but at that juncture, I don’t know if I really give a damn.

    Just as you would not necessarily give a damn about spending 50 cents of every dollar you own to prevent a Kraut bomb from ripping your life apart in a single second.

    The Nazi’s made their move, and there was nothing that any ordinary United States citizen could do about it.

    I don’t know if you’re a fan of the constitution Don…lord knows it’s an imperfect document. But in a case like this, (and I can only speak for myself) I happen to be a proponent of taxation to provide for the common defence.*

    And if that means executing military tactics that require the utmost confidentiality (secrecy) than so be it- just so long as the citizenry of the United States may one day learn of ALL the details associated with that plan while those who were responsible for implementing such plan may still be alive to reap the consequences (good and/or bad) before they die.

    And as a disclaimer…I wrote this when I was tired and half in the bag. As a result, I did not proofread it- so if my tone has come off as offensive, I apologize. I just got fired up. No disrespect.

    *I understand that “the common defence” premise has been abused to no end in order to commit hellish crimes across the globe in the name of American interests. But bear with me as I am referring solely to the D-Day invasion.

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 11, 2010 at 3:12 am

     

    But if the bank steals money from you…are you not allowed to “steal” it back? You are not addressing my questions.

    • Don says on: December 11, 2010 at 6:39 am

       

      If something is wrong, it is always wrong.
      This is called *principle*, of which there seems to be very little these days. Everybody wants to rationalize their bad behavior.

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 11, 2010 at 3:14 am

     

    Nevermind my last comment.

  • Matthew Reaume says on: December 12, 2010 at 6:50 pm

     

    I take issue with the comment “If something is wrong, it is always wrong.”

    The problem with living one’s life by strict adherence to principle is that such a lifestyle leaves absolutely no room for latitude.

    I agree that there are cases when a wrong can never, EVER, be justified…raping your own mother, for instance.

    However, life is not as black and white as Don seems to believe it is. Without the ability to acknowledge that there are always exceptions to every rule, aren’t we as human beings always vulnerable to succumb to a totalitarian way of thinking?

    And Don…while it may seem like I’m picking on you, all I am trying to do is play devil’s advocate. Isn’t freedom really the opportunity to exercise your ability to question things?

    I think that at the end of the day, Don and I agree on more than we disagree. But I have a very hard time endorsing a school of thought that ignores the question of practicality.

    I happen to believe that people ought to have the right to live their lives free of intrusive governance. But I have yet to come across an argument that can convince me that complete anarchism is a better alternative to collective decision-making.

    I do not support the police state which is America. I do not support the idea that “we know whats best for you better than you do” mentality that the educated elites push down our throats.

    But at the same token, I cannot endorse a philosophy that exclusively criticizes the merits of collective decision-making without offering a legitimate alternative that has practical value.

    Don is not answering my questions.

    Was the D-Day invasion a crime simply because it was funded with money collected by taxes?? If it was indeed a crime, I would be willing to listen to why it was a crime…but that discussion does nothing to offer an alternative action to mediate such an international conflict such as WWII.

    Volunteers could not have defended our country in that situation. And until I hear of a plan or process to the contrary that is completely anarchic…I will refuse to believe that anarchy has a truly valid place in our current world.

    I’m not interested in criticisms…I’m interested in solutions.

  • Don says on: December 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm

     

    Matthew: You’re not happy with the answer because you are asking the wrong question. You are asking about D-Day but you are really asking about theft. You already know the answer. Remove the theft and things become a lot clearer. The state can only exist through theft, thus it is wrong from the beginning and everything after that is just so much piling on.

    A collective is not an entity unto itself.
    There is no such thing as collective decision making.
    Decisions can only be made by individuals.

  • Ferd says on: December 16, 2010 at 8:44 pm

     

    LOL What crimes ?

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics