Democide: Understanding the State’s Monopoly on Violence and the Second Amendment

Gun control is predicated on the belief that private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. That the state should have a “monopoly on violence” because it is less violent than individuals. And that firearms should be taken away from private citizens because only the state is responsible enough to handle them.

There is, however, a major problem with this: States are statistically far more violent than individuals. After all, in the 20th century alone, 262 MILLION people died at the hands of their own governments.

The term for this sort of atrocity is “democide.” It is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution – to allow citizens some form of protection against agents of a tyrannical government meaning to do them harm, as the Founders were forcibly disarmed as colonists by the British prior to the American Revolution.

You can read the full article “Democide: Understanding the State’s Monopoly on Violence and the Second Amendment” at Ammo.com.

Open This Content

On Police Brutality II

Society needs antitrust enforcement against the police and their bosses, the state. At some point this monopoly goes too far and ends up shooting itself in the foot, but make no mistake, the police are not your friend, nor are they your protector. Even their courts agree that the police have no duty to be anyone’s friend or protector. Their number one duty is law enforcement. And who writes the laws? Not you or the class to which you belong, the plebeian class. They, the ruling class, write the laws and hire criminal gangs to enforce them. Legal mafias are what they are, and it’s what they do. Providing quality customer service isn’t even in their manual of priorities, because they don’t have customers. They have targets of expropriation. And that’s today’s two cents.

Open This Content

On Billionaires

Assuming that billionaires are any sort of “problem” (I don’t), the solution is not to take their wealth and redistribute it to others. No, the solution is to remove any and all barriers to compete with them entrepreneurially. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos became billionaires because they provide or have provided goods and services to willing customers, but some of their wealth was all but guaranteed by the monopoly protections afforded by software patents and trademarks. To the extent that competition was coercively prohibited by the state in the issue and protection of these patents and trademarks, their gains were ill-gotten. Abolish intellectual monopoly, and every other form of protectionism, and the economy will redistribute their wealth by redistributing their market share. “Problem” solved, and that’s today’s two cents.

Open This Content

Grateful I Don’t Live in California

Sometimes it’s hard to remember to be thankful for life’s little blessings. Recently I was reminded to be grateful I don’t live in California.

My electricity went out for a little while a few days ago, but the power company was on the ball and power was restored in no time; long before it could have become inconvenient for anyone but the least prepared among us.

By contrast, the electric utility in California plans to shut off power to hundreds of thousands of its paying customers. On purpose. For hours or days or however long they feel is necessary — without much warning or a chance to properly prepare — to prevent their substandard system from starting wildfires.

Do you think this will cause many Californians — both those personally affected and those who aren’t — to start taking the idea of “prepping” seriously? I have my doubts, but I’ll hope.

For most of my life, people have either joked about those who prepared for emergencies, calling them paranoid, or they quipped “If society collapses, I’ll just come to your house.” Showing up empty-handed at the house of someone who has spent years of planning and piles of money for just such a crisis will only be welcomed if the residents of the house are out of meat and hungry enough to consider adding you to the menu.

If you don’t value your own life enough to plan for emergencies and put those plans into action, why should anyone risk their own life and the lives of their children to save you?

Anyone should be able to see the value of preparing for natural disasters, and political disasters — like the one playing out in California — may become more common in the coming years. “It’s not political,” you say? Sure it is. When political deals grant a power utility a monopoly over an area, and state laws and “green energy” policies prevent proper infrastructure, capacity, and maintenance, then the problem is political, no matter who you would rather blame.

It’s even more directly political when laws require a prepper to handicap himself by staying hooked to the electrical grid and shut off his system in the event of a blackout so as to not have an advantage over his less-prepared neighbors — as is the case in California.

Any real solution begins with barring politics from the discussion. Then, plan for what happens if politicians interfere anyway. And take a moment to be grateful you don’t live in California.

Open This Content

Glad to See Space Escape Government

I admit it: I’ve always been a bit of a space geek. Or, would that be “space nerd?”

Whatever the term, I love space flight, and am especially excited to see it beginning to escape the stagnant, innovation-crushing monopoly of government.

I’ve enjoyed watching the recent rocket launches and the tests of the experimental vehicles. I am pulling for humans to walk on Mars in my lifetime; thinking it’s looking more likely all the time.

I resent government agencies pretending to have some political authority over space flight and the companies practicing it, but the nature of government is to get in the way. Government offices are filled with hordes of people unqualified to do anything but issue or deny permits, and they are going to keep asserting control — fighting the future — as long as they can get away with it.

I also realize when people move to another world — whether a planet or a moon — they’ll probably pollute the place with some sort of government.

I wish they’d establish a society instead, but since most people mistakenly conflate society and government they’ll probably make the wrong choice.

The most foolish thing they might do would be to accept an Earth government’s attempt to govern a colony on another world. And you know they’ll try. Gotta keep milking those “tax cows” and make sure the Earth laws are being enforced. Can’t allow liberty to get a foot-hold anywhere, or it might give Earth inhabitants dangerous ideas.

I’ve thought for decades that unless a new, attainable frontier opens up soon, the human race is doomed. Some people are fine with being jammed together in a politically controlled environment, but some of us aren’t. This is why humans have always journeyed over the horizon.

The first church steeple or courthouse was enough to make some frontiersmen decide it was time to pack up and move to freer spaces. This option has been closed off for too long now, and it’s having dangerous consequences.

I doubt I’d go to Mars or the Moon, even if I had the opportunity. Especially not for a one-way trip. I like uncultivated plants, wild animals and free air too much.

Will space, “the final frontier,” open soon enough to salvage humanity? Will it be a place of liberty or oppression? I don’t know for sure, but it’s finally looking a little hopeful for the first time in decades. We aren’t there yet, but we’re going. It’s just a matter of time.

Open This Content

The Disadvantages of Being a Government Monopolist

I don’t mean being the dominant player in a market. I mean here a much tighter definition of monopoly: legal monopoly.

Governments suck.

The reason they suck is because they are monopolists. The good news is, this means opportunity to outcompete governments for all the stuff they do badly. (At least the parts that anyone actually wants done).

The challenge of competing with governments is of course that they can kill anyone who doesn’t want to be a paying customer. This gives them a huge customer base.

It turns out, people don’t like to be killed. So they pay government to avoid it. They take the services since they had to pay for them anyway to avoid being caged (or killed if they resisted being caged).

But this provides the opening for competitors.

It also turns out, you don’t get good information about how to make your product valuable when everyone is buying it out of fear you will kill them if they don’t. So governments plod along delivering unimaginably stupid services in unimaginably backward ways with terribly high costs and the worst employees in history.

It’s so bad, in fact, and so hopelessly, systematically deaf to information on how to improve, that people clamor to pay even more money to service providers who can do better, even though they are forced to pay government for their services already.

A customer willing to double pay for your service is a great customer!

Companies that deliver services to compete with government get quick feedback from the market on how to do it well. If they don’t act on it, they don’t survive. It’s very tough out there when your customers don’t have the looming fear that you might kill them. But that’s also what makes real value creation possible.

I am bullish on competing governance services. I love them.

Yes, governments can come threaten to kill such service providers if they don’t stop. But luckily governments move slow, are always trying to figure out the laziest way to maintain power, and often lack the foresight to realize a competitive threat before it’s too late.

The real bear case against competing upstarts is that they will succeed, get tired of competing, and morph into one of the many fat sloppy formerly-private rent-seeking appendages of the government. Yuck.

Open This Content