The Facts on Government

“One Voluntaryist’s Perspective” is an original column by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins.

People who call themselves “government” are Group A. Everyone else is Group B, in any given society.

Group A claims jurisdiction over Group B, meaning, they claim the legal right to use force against Group B for disobeying their rules.

There is no hard, factual evidence to support Group A’s claim of jurisdiction over Group B, nor for the applicability of Group A’s rules to Group B.

Group A’s claim of jurisdiction exists not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion.

Group A’s rules apply to Group B because Group A says so. That is the extent of their legitimacy.

Group A’s primary activity is to force Group B to pay them, and then proceed to return a portion of the ill-gotten gains back to Group B in various ways in order to keep them from realizing the long con, and revolting.

One component of Group A’s long con is maintaining the public perception that its activities are in accordance with the public good, that without Group A’s activities, Group B would be constantly at each others’ throats, an existence nasty, brutish, and short. This is a major reason why Group A organizes and maintains centers of indoctrination education for the children of Group B.

Another component of Group A’s long con is maintaining the public perception that it always and everywhere protects Group B’s right to due process. This means Group A promises not to accuse anyone in Group B of  breaking its rules without first supplying hard, factual evidence as to the guilt of the member(s) of Group B.

Group A breaks this promise when it fails to supply hard, factual evidence as to the applicability of its rules to Group B. Where the crime is one of disobeying a rule, in contrast to committing a tort (causing damage to another person), Group A’s predatory nature is revealed when it arbitrarily assumes jurisdiction and the applicability of its rules without supplying hard, factual evidence to support such claims.

In other words, Group A is by its nature in relation to Group B a criminal organization. As such, its officers are criminals and predators and behave criminally and predatory as a matter of course.

Question: How far can a member of Group B go in willingly supporting Group A before they become complicit in their crimes?

Save as PDFPrint

Written by 

Founder and editor of and, Skyler is a husband and unschooling father of three beautiful children. His writings include the column series “One Voluntaryist’s Perspective” and “One Improved Unit,” and blog series “Two Cents“. Skyler also wrote the books No Hitting! and Toward a Free Society, and edited the books Everything Voluntary and Unschooling Dads. You can hear Skyler chatting away on his podcasts, Everything Voluntary and Thinking & Doing.

Notify of

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H. Rearden
H. Rearden
5 years ago

Perhaps when a member of group B becomes a member of group A. Perhaps when they are committing crimes in the name of group A. An example of that is the men who were tried at Nuremberg. They were criminals and committed crimes for the state of Germany. They were agents of the state of Germany and guilty of the state’s crimes which were also their personal crimes.


[…] Every voluntaryist knows that most people who comprise government are actively committing acts of aggression, directly or indirectly, against innocent people. Government, the state, would not be what we know it to be if this were not the case. Monopolizing the provision of law and order, and stealing from people, are crimes in the voluntaryist sense. Most governments go far beyond this, however, and so they are rightfully considered criminal organizations of varying size and scope. […]


[…] should decide which entitlements should be enforced? The current model says that for a given arbitrarily-derived geographical area, one entity should decide, even when a party to the dispute and that entity may […]


[…] already know that government laws are just a bunch of opinions. Factually, that’s what they are. But that’s not all they are. They’re the opinions of lawyers and politicians backed […]


[…] First, I don’t actually owe the IRS anything. Factually, nobody does. […]


[…] There’s nothing wrong with forming groups and creating rules and procedures for how the group will operate and handle disputes. But I do take issue with forming groups and creating rules and procedures for how other people will operate and handle disputes. The latter is called “government.” […]