Author: Alex R. Knight III

Alex R. Knight III is originally from Groveland, Massachusetts, where he grew up listening to rock and roll, reading J.R.R. Tolkien, and the comic books of the 1970s.  He today lives in rural southern Vermont where he welds, plays guitar, paints abstracts, reads avidly, and writes.  He is the author of the short fiction collection, Tales From Dark 7, in addition to the novels The Morris Room, and Empty World.  And, he is a Voluntaryist.  Visit his Facebook page here.

America Proved Minarchism is a Myth

Alex R. Knight III

It is beyond any measure of denial to assert that the American experiment in “limited government” – “constitutional” or otherwise – has proven itself an abject failure. The US government is the largest, most expensive, and most powerful cabal on the planet. And it shows no signs of reversing course.

But for the true believers in minarchism, it gets even worse. Consider the original idea behind the “United States”: A loosely confederated group of smaller sovereign governmental entities – all more or less modelled after the overarching federal one, each with a constitution and bill of rights. There are currently 50 of them, in addition to the special federal District of Columbia. Plus two overseas commonwealths, and three semi-autonomous territories.

Notwithstanding a few uninhabited islands and sandbars dotting the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean that the US federal government lays claim to, that equals not just one, but 57 separate experiments in “limited government.” We could also include all various municipalities contained therein too – counties, cities, towns – and then we’d be talking “limited” governmental experiments almost beyond number.

In zero of these cases have governments remained constrained by the pieces of paper ostensibly designed to do so. This is not to say that residing within one of the more egregious cases – such as Commiefornia, New York, or Marxachusetts – is entirely equivalent to living in South Dakota, Alaska, or Wyoming. Only that none of them have refrained from or been immune to their endemic nature: Growth. They have each of them expanded in scope and power over time – and continue to do so. Never contracting or downsizing. And ever at the expense of the individual.

You might, as a dedicated government apologist, try to excuse one, or two, or even half a dozen such failures as unfortunate anomalies plagued by corrupt politicians and judges. Maybe. If you wanted to be charitable. If you were stretching to clutch at straws in a desperate defense of the idea known as political governance.

But 57? Or the countless thousands and thousands of lesser subdivisions within those examples?

If the greater federal historical example of America does not dispel the minarchist “limited government” myth for the fantasy that it is, then all of the smaller examples under its very own rubric surely do.

“Small government” has never worked out. And it never will.

Open This Content

The Art and Science of Physical Removal

Alex R. Knight III

Part 1: Removing Yourself

I have long been of the opinion, as a Voluntaryist, that there are only two legitimate ways of voting: With your money, in terms what products and services you choose to buy (outside of taxation, of course, where you are effectively given no choice), and with your feet – choosing where you prefer to live, all things and circumstances taken into consideration. It follows, then, that most libertarians of whatever stripe gravitate towards locales where, at least, the politics and general presence of government are not as aggressively antithetical to the basic enjoyment of life as others. For example, at present, I am seriously considering getting out of Vermont sometime during the next few years, and taking up residence in Wyoming – where taxes are both less numerous and lower, the cancerous hysteria of gun control has not yet taken root, and where there is still a rural, low-population environment (not to mention one almost certain to contain a higher percentage of like-minded people). In short, all the things Vermont had once upon a time, and no longer does.

There is certainly nothing wrong or immoral about wishing to improve one’s circumstances by choosing to go and live somewhere else – so long as one has every intention of paying one’s own way rather than leeching from whatever Welfare State may exist in one’s new chosen location. There is nothing wrong with wanting to cohabitate amongst one’s own “tribe,” as it were. Having libertarians (and even a couple of conservatives here and there…maybe) as neighbors is always preferable – to me, at least – than being surrounded by roughly 70% Democratic “progressive” lefties who are almost sexually enthralled by Marxism of every conceivable variant. Surely, the former promises a better life. So, I’ll be investigating that – thoroughly and in full – over the next couple of years. You’ll likely hear from me more on that as things unfold. Stay tuned.

Part 2: Removing Others

So now suppose I’m living my new life happily in the Big Sky Country of Wyoming, enjoying that big boost in freedom that was rapidly dying back over my shoulder there in Vermont…and before too long, the same kind of leftist disease begins to take hold within Wyoming’s Forever West political system.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has this rather blunt commentary to make about just such a situation: “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”

Now this is not to say, first off, that Wyoming is a strictly “libertarian social order” to begin with. More accurately, it might be characterized as predominantly conservative Republican in flavor – with some inevitable libertarian blandishments as a consequence. That stated, conservative and libertarian camps both, I would think, have a mutual vested interest in seeing that leftist ideology does not gain serious ground or take root in the Wyoming landscape. Such concern can be quite correctly characterized as nothing more nor less than self-defensive in nature: People who are paying few and low taxes, enjoying virtually unrestrained gun rights, and relishing most or all of the trappings of rural rugged individualism do not want these conditions to be reversed or undone – most especially not at the hands of some Marxist-inspired brigade of self-styled do-gooders who believe with almost religious fervor that they’ve come to the unwashed lands to teach the heathens how to live a better, more civilized life under full-on socialism.

So for the conservatives, the solution to this equation is very easy: Out come the pitchforks, and away we go. For the libertarian camp though, there’s a bit of a problem.

Unlike all forms of statism, libertarian ethics demand tolerance. Unlike libertarianism, however, statism requires force. I think you can see the quandary this seems to present.

And I’ll repeat a line from above: Such concern can be quite correctly characterized as nothing more nor less than self-defensive in nature.

Ever since my awakening as a libertarian some 25 years ago now, I have spoken with probably a couple of thousand leftists – from garden-variety Democrats, to hardcore Marxists. Out of all of them, I have come across maybe two who I sincerely believed when they told me that they did not wish their views or economic system to be imposed on others by force. One of them even used the term “libertarian socialist” – which made me laugh derisively at the time. But I’m older now, and no longer laughing. I think that’s a valid term to describe such a philosophical position. I also think, through experience, that scarcely one in a thousand leftists possess a viewpoint of such benign integrity. The overwhelming majority of them are more than willing to use whatever level of violence and brute force they feel is necessary to bend you to their will – to force you to be subjugated to their ideas whether you agree with them or not.

And I will say unequivocally that these are the leftist elements about whom Hoppe is spot-on correct. Those who would agitate and proselytize for the dismantling of a libertarian socio-economic environment – which, no doubt, would have likely taken tremendous efforts and sacrifice in order to build in the first place – in favor of mandatory economic regulations, taxation, gun control, redistribution of wealth, etc. – such individuals must indeed be “physically separated and removed” from the midst of a region or territory which has managed to construct a libertarian society.

As would, for that matter, anyone from any ideology that sought to reinstitute involuntary political governance in any form.

Legitimate self-defense, after all, should never require apologism.

That said, it is the even smallest potential for “libertarian socialism” that causes me to distance myself somewhat from Hoppe. That one-in-a-thousand leftie who just wants to live peacefully in a commune with his or her buddies down the road – so long as their chosen lifestyle and preferred economic models are kept among themselves and other willing participants who are free to leave at any time – is not and should not be considered a problem. So long as, being the phrase of paramount import here. Hoppe’s absolutism lends itself too readily to a total witch-hunt mentality otherwise. Thus, allow me to offer a revision of his above maxim, more in line with purist libertarian sentiment:

“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists who agitate for political and economic control over others in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”

Liberty, sovereignty, and autonomy are key elements of my own personal vision. Not living as a slave to a bunch of parasitic politicians and soul-sick bureaucrats, as the Left would have us do – all the better to control, manipulate, and dominate us to death. It is a vision worth both projecting and fighting for, I think, especially in the face of a world bent on ever-increasing authoritarianism and control.

I’m thinking I may be able to do that more effectively by physically removing myself to a different geographical locale, surrounded by a different culture. We’ll see. Life is strange, and can take many unexpected twists and turns.

Should I get there, however, when I do, I’ll then be prepared to defend my place, person, and property in it. Not with indiscriminate prejudice against others whose philosophies I find abhorrent, but with a more finely targeted and focused sense of just what is absolutely necessary in order to do so.

Open This Content

The Cost of Everything

Alex R. Knight III

One thing most people overlook in the course of day to day life is the degree to which governments make everything we purchase far more expensive than it would otherwise be. Consider that every company that manufactures a product needs to first procure raw materials, shape those materials to their specific needs and combine those parts into the finished product, then distribute (transport) them to buyers/vendors who will then sell them to consumers.

At every step in this process, massive taxation is present – varying based upon the type of company, and/or product(s) being produced: corporate and personal income taxes, FICA taxes on employees, property taxes, licensing fees (taxes), fuel taxes, various excise taxes (even telephone bills are brimming with several different “fees” and taxes). And of course, any outside businesses the initial company contracts with to provide various essential goods or services (such as trucking companies, IT firms, etc.) are subject to much the same array of taxation, and hence, must pass these artificially imposed costs along to their clients – who then must build these further costs into their own already escalated bottom line.

Once the finished product reaches consumers for retail sale, all of these government-imposed expenses have already been factored in to its offered price – but of course, things don’t end there. Most governments in America will still then place a sales tax upon the item which the retailer must collect under threat of force.

Finally, the currency being used to pay for all of this is nothing more than paper representing entries in a computer database. Government mandates we accept it as “legal tender,” and whatever “value” it has is simply based on public perception in response to that threat of state coercion. In order to finance their own operations and ever-ballooning debt (with interest), those in government authorize the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve of much except paper and ink) to simply print more and more of these notes as if they were Parker Brothers churning out Monopoly sets. This then invariably lowers the perceived “value” of the currency overall, which then leads to the ongoing phenomenon known as inflation – thus even further elevating the cost of everything, all and sundry, right across the board. Until, ultimately, of course, the currency itself is thereby reduced to its actual value…which is, at day’s end, nothing at all.

I know I’m a dreamer. But imagine how much more productive and prosperous virtually everyone’s life would be without taxes – indeed, without government.

Open This Content

The Power of Positive is Not Always Possible (But Neither Does it Have to Be)

Alex R. Knight III

We always hear a lot about being positive in one’s outlook – the “power of positive thinking,” we’re told, is all important. Keep a bright outlook, and wonders will occur in your life.

I want to begin by clearing the obvious out of the way: When things are going well and the sun is shining on your particular little microcosm, then there is no need for this advice in the first place. Bask in those blessings and enjoy.

But when things take a turn for the worse, as they do so often in the course of any average person’s life, I want to ask how it is even possible to expect anyone to be bright, sunny, and cheery when all around them dark and negative things are occurring? How do you keep a chipper smile and a joyous outlook when nothing is going your way, when things are collapsing all around you?

The realistic answer is that, in all likelihood, it isn’t. And neither can you. There are certain conditions (and sets of them) in life through which no one can be reasonably expected to keep an optimistic outlook. Quite simply, it just runs counter to human instinct and human nature. Any other perspective is just not realistic.

For years I’ve heard people regale me with all kinds of advice about positive thinking. I’ve read several books on the subject. And all of it has seemed to me to end up with the same characteristic flaw I’ve illustrated above. To me, being positive means feeling positive too. But there’s this:

I have come to believe that in every given situation it comes down to a simple choice: You can look at what’s occurring with cynicism and negativity and have a virtual guarantee of getting nowhere — or, without having to like it at all you can at least acknowledge it as merely another obstacle which will test your determination to not become frozen by fear, or anger, or pessimism. Your will to keep moving, regardless of circumstances.

History is filled with tales of success involving the latter — people who pulled off the seemingly impossible, who turned events around in the face of all adversity, even in situations where there seemed to be no hope at all (just as, no doubt, there are also some number of tales concerning those with glowing outlooks who still failed).

Conversely, history is filled every day with failures who followed negativity to its natural conclusion (just as, I’m sure, there exists an aberrant minority of cases in which the most pessimistic and dejected persons still prevailed, nevertheless).

So the question always and ever is: Which view do you choose to adopt? Which one is more likely to prove helpful or useful?

The choice is always yours — albeit you may certainly detest and hate the circumstances at present. This doesn’t mean singing and dancing with cheer through the darkness and the mire. It does mean continuing to put one foot in front of the other. It does mean considering the possibility that someday, someway, there is a better place ahead full of greater fortune. It does mean adopting a work ethic, if you will, of grit, grim determination, and the will to self-improvement. If you can keep just those things in your view, then to hell with “positivity.” That’s a fairy-tale for dilettantes for the most part anyway. The real work that needs to be done, the strength that needs to be built and flexed, the character that needs to be displayed – these are the things of importance; the nuts and bolts of both survival and success. Hang on to that, and you’re already halfway there. The rest will come – odds are, anyway – with time and perseverance.

Positivity is not always possible during the cloudier and stormier periods of life. In fact, the suggestion that it should be is even somewhat foolish. The will to not be defeated by its polar opposite is the only consideration which is ultimately of any importance.

Open This Content

A Voluntaryist 7-Point Plan

Alex R. Knight III

As advocates of a truly free society, we voluntaryists, unlike the statists who outnumber us, do not engage in traditional political activism. This simple fact got me thinking about a habitual plan or checklist each of us might form or follow quite naturally, in the course of our daily lives, in order to promote the kind of stateless socioeconomic order we envision. In doing so I arrived at seven core essentials, listed here in what I believe to be a descending order of import, from most to least effectual:

1.) Spreading our ideas. As most of us already know, comparitively few people will listen to or agree to seriously learn about voluntarist philosophy. But a few will. Introducing the uninitiated and fellow-travellers from less “radical” camps to voluntaryist literature, videos, websites, and other media is key to deprogramming statist prejudices and misconceptions about governments.

2.) Agorism, barter, metals, cryptocurrencies. Finding ways to avoid and subvert use of government-issued fiat currencies – and the taxation associated with such use – deprives those calling themselves the State of a great deal of power they otherwise have over us. Indeed, even the head of the International Monetary Fund made a very recent and open admission about the future of cryptocurrencies and the potential threat it poses to centralized banking and governmental control of traditional “money.” Every transaction made, in any form, which utilizes a non-State medium that insures privacy and insulation against inflation, potential seizure, and taxation is a victory for liberty.

3.) Homeschooling/Unschooling. Allowing young people (or any person!) to seek an education outside of state-sanctioned mechanisms is absolutely critical to breaking the government-centered society paradigm that permeates such stultifying tax-financed institutions. If the future is to be one of freedom, the current newest generation and all those that follow must have the widest possible opportunity to learn about the real benefits of liberty, free markets, and sovereign autonomy. These are personal values and elements of knowledge no governmental forces will or can condone or withstand. Freeing students from the moral and intellectual prison of state brainwashing is a must.

4.) Avoiding government employ. In all forms. From cop to postal worker, from schoolteacher to CIA agent, government institutions require willing manpower even more than they require tax revenues. When people are unwilling to work for government – both directly, or as outside contractors who provide supplemental goods and services – the State simply cannot function. Then the free market must take over. And that end result is the goal of every voluntaryist.

5.) Non-voting. This should be self-explanatory. The only “vote” possible for a voluntary society is a non-vote in all political elections. In fact, non-registration sends an even clearer message to those who wish to control us, and it means you end up on one less government list too.

6). Guns and prepping. While I would think most would want a wholly peaceful transition from a coercive state-centric society to a free one, to ignore what history has shown us regarding governments would be tragic and naive, if not in fact suicidal. It is imperative we provide for our own defense with weapons. It is equally important to be able to provide for our own sustenance in case of any number of conceivable future contingencies (war, social upheaval, economic collapse, etc.). Stockpiling food and drink in cans and jugs, freeze dried comestibles, MREs, personal hygiene products and medicines, and growing and raising crops and livestock are all ways of making ourselves far less dependent on outside entities for our basic survival. Solar panels, windmills, and generators can all make us less energy dependent, as well.

7.) Living life. This might actually also be most fitting in the #1 position itself. Life is finite and precious. We all only have so much of it, and how much, we know not. None of the above is to suggest squandering it with obsessive activism (unless that’s what most floats your particular boat). Rather, these are all suggestions that, once implemented, can more or less become part of a passive routine, requiring little to no effort beyond certain initial threshholds. It is important to recognize at all times, I think, that even under the increasingly intolerable yoke of the State, our existence still contains many pleasures and wonders to enjoy to the fullest: Travel, hobbies, intellectual stimulation, music, food, the outdoors, relationships, sex…you get the picture. Have many of those moments. Delve deep into them. Cherish and relish them to the fullest. Be you.

And as much and often as possible, in spite of present circumstances, be free.

Open This Content

Voting in Prison

Alex R. Knight III

It’s an irony to the point of obscenity that prison inmates of certain tax farms within the legal fiction known as the USA are permitted to vote in political elections.

If I plan on being in prison for the rest of my life (whether I am being held there for that duration against my will is another matter entirely), perhaps it matters to me who the warden, guards, and other members of the prison staff are at any given time.

If I desire freedom, however, and am thus actively seeking a way or ways to get out of prison, what possible interest have I in who’s running the place?

Such is the difference between advocates of freedom and voters.

Open This Content