Government as Violence - Misc Notes

Teaching Kids to Respect Government


This may be tough to swallow, but…. If one must "teach" (indoctrinate?) your kid to respect police, is it possible that police do not naturally deserve respect?

When ignoring euphemisms, public "education," and media… when face-to-face with a "police officer" they appear to be exactly what they are. They are armed men who performs services of intimidation, arrest, and enforcing mandates of these people who claim authority over our lives.

The primary purpose of these mandate enforcement mercenaries ("police") is to *protect and serve* this centralized authority's *(government)* interests. And yes, for OWS protestors, that includes the interest of those who have bought (bribed, etc), joined, or infiltrated government.

I realize everyone runs to government for comfort in fear of monopolies and mafias, but the BIGGEST monopoly and mafia is the "Government." Who protects you from the biggest monopoly and mafia the world has ever seen? Because surely this monopoly doesn't protect you from itself, or the monopolies it has subsidized, legalized, protected, and created.. The constitution; that magical little document which they do not follow, and [which has no legitimate authority to grant any person to be your master, and you their servant] (add Lysander Spooner link)? And no, YOU are not the government, it is not for-the-people, or by-the-people or any other bullshit in your text-books…. you all know it on some level which is why you all are at, or supporting these protests.

When a little kid can see the world for what it is, more clearly than "us adults," perhaps it is time to take a step back and reconsider the world around us.

Don't talk to Police:

Police State

I'm going to let you in on a little secret:

The police state exists primarily as a state of mind - implied, subconscious, and trained into you through public schools. Want to start a business? Every one of you knows that there's a mile-long trail of paper-work needed to start most businesses. Don't want to give government money? Enjoy your long prison sentence and other punishments by government. Even the police, who think they protect and serve say stupid shit like "I don't write the laws, I just enforce them."

There's a reason that eighty-six percent of all federal inmates were punished for what are called “victimless crimes.” It is known as social engineering, and you are the lab-rat. You are probably thinking *"we need to fix government!!!"* because that's exactly what you've been trained to do and how does one fix government? Protests, political action, voting, elections…. you know, the same shit that hasn't worked since the United State's was founded. You've been trained to participate in political action, and to play by the rules of a system that does not give a shit about you. Political action is chasing a carrot on a stick.

What was that little secret I mentioned earlier?

State is a Police State by definition.

Thought experiment: Name one government program that does not rely on the use of coercion against innocent people. Other than a few obscure self-funded programs *(which run over budget & have 'legal' monopolies)*, everything government does is reliant on coercion.

  • The basis for 99% of government programs is "taxes," which is taking rightful property and resources from innocent individuals under the threats, or actual caging and violence, so that it can be redirected to pet projects.
  • The basis for 99% of government "regulation" (doublespeak) is the use of coercion against those who break arbitrary edicts from politicians *(who we all know are liars, crooks, and thieves)*, and whose enforcement is reliant on threats or use of violence and coercion.
  • A "police officer" is an individual hired by the government, and whose purpose is to enforce government mandates with the use of coercive force. The resources for hiring this individual again come from the previously mentioned theft.

A few things government does not want you to know:


See those green pieces of paper in your wallet. Think they are actually worth something? Why do you think you were educated that Fractional Reserve Banking is benevolent and necessary for keeping your money safe? Why do you think you were educated about the benevolence of the Federal Reserve system, and never heard anything about the opposition to central banks that ran throughout most of this country's history. Why do you think you were told in public schools that World War 2, a massive destruction of life and property, got us out of the great depression?

You think your vote means something? You think you can become president or a congressman? It's all an elaborately designed fraud, and you are the victim. All this bullshit about *"Consent of the governed, checks and Balances, will of the people, to protect and serve, constitution, independence day"* and all of those flowery phrases they drill into your head in government indoctrination camps don't mean anything. It is a distraction, a wolf in sheep clothing, tyranny disguised as freedom.

The worst is when someone says *"I'm a good tax paying citizen"* like it's something to be proud of. Everyone knows politicians are a bunch of crooks, thieves, and liars…. and I am supposed to be impressed that you send tends of thousands of dollars to these criminals, and follow their orders?

It is always ironic when someone says, *"Ohh, without government we'd have chaos, warlords, and thieves,"* when government steals half your resources, beats you over the head when you question it, blows up brown people at will.

Story of the Car Thief

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing? Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million? How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

Violence Discredits Movements?

The Declaration of Independence was extremely violent, and yet, it is not discredited today.

Government is a monopoly on the use of violence and coercion within a geographical region. Why do people treat government with legitimacy in one breath, while claiming in the next that violence discredits movements?

Let me introduce you to another concept:

  • [The Non-Aggression Principle]( is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.

Love or hate it all you want, but it's the best thing I've found so far *(show me something better)* as a basis for mutually beneficial human interaction. I respect your rights to the same extend that you respect my rights, simple enough right? Golden rule?

I'm allowed to rob you

Again, if you can't steal, if you can't hit me, and if you can't cage me for doing something you don't like….. how the hell can you grant that power to someone else? If it is criminal for you to steal, and criminal for me to steal, then it is also criminal for a man in a uniform to steal, and criminal for you to tell a man to steal for you. I do not advocate the INITIATION of violence, however I consider SELF DEFENSE an honest and ethical principle.

Government Worship

"Checks and balances" and all of the other flowery phrases drilled into your head have been broken since the very founding of this country. Ever hear of the [Alien and Sedition Acts]( The FIRST thing government did was violate the FIRST AMENDMENT of what was supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the limit of government power. Move onto the Second Amendment, and then ask yourself *"[was the second amendment designed so I could go duck hunting?]("* Spoiler Alert: No, it's there so you can violently resist intrusions by government.

Revolution… how?

Before anyone "jumps the gun," I am not calling for any violent revolution, and to be direct, a lot of people have thought this out in detail long before OWS came along. Make up your own mind, but here's a little spoiler…

It is really quite simple really. Stop supporting government voluntarily. If they point a gun at you, sure, I understand self preservation, but NEVER voluntarily give them any support. Never pretend government has the least bit of legitimacy. Abandon your worship of patriotism, symbolism, and flowery phrases drilled into your heads in government ~~schools~~ indoctrination camps. Why the hell do you think you are incapable of starting a business, and completely dependent on the latest employment statistics…. if for any reason by these horrible excuses for "education."

Government is a bunch of criminal thugs, who through the use of rituals *(like courts & elections)* and propaganda deceive populations into 'voluntarily' submitting themselves as willing slaves. It doesn't matter if these criminals work for the 1%, work for themselves, work for religion, or work for you. THEY ARE STILL CRIMINALS.

*"Violence will discredit the movement?"* I don't like violence any more than you, but think, where did that idea come from?

What is Crime?

Government is a fraud, and when one starts revealing the fraud, and revealing that government is not "for the people or by the people" nor does government have "consent of the governed," it should be of little surprise that government will break its own rules to perpetuate its existence.

Government is not a means for protecting us from criminals, but rather is itself criminal. Please note that I am not using the state's definition of crime, despite the fact that it consistently breaks its own rules. Obviously the government's definition of crime includes tax evasion, resisting arrest, disobeying orders, non-compliance with government mandates, and self-defense from the initiation of violence by members of government.

According to governmental standards of crime, those who wrote the declaration of independence were in fact criminals, even cop-killers according to the standards of the existing government at the time of the American Revolution. I will say it again: The Founding Fathers were criminals according to the British Crown, and yet are praised as heroes today. Therefore one must conclude that the state's definition of criminal is either arbitrary, useless, or does NOT indicate acts of evil.

Instead I will use the following definitions:

  • Coercion: "The use of force, fraud, threats, violence, imposing, and theft against the desires"*
  • Crime: "The initiation of acts of coercion against innocent individuals"

Every government (social engineering) program requires taxes, and these taxes are taken from non-consenting and innocent individuals, and enforced with threats, violent, jail, and seizure of property. Every government mandate or regulation must similarly be enforced with acts of coercion as well. If taxation or regulation were in fact desirable, no coercion would be necessary, afterall children eat candy without coercion.

Further, coercive acts are destructive. While I do not expect to convince you in a mere paragraph, I would like to refer you to the [Austrian School of Economics](; which a major theme of their research and theory recognizes that acts of coercion result in the missallocation of resources and result in a net-loss of wealth. There are certainly those who dissagree, however this is a well researched and understood phenomenon that is worthy of consideration.

One must therefore conclude that Government is a criminal organization, whose primary means of human interaction is through the use of coercion, fraud, threats, violence, imposing, and theft. Further, government corruption should be of no surprise, nor should it be surprising that government attracts those who have little apprehension using coercion (as defined) against innocent individuals.

Government is not a means of preventing crime or "protecting and serving" humanity, but rather a tool for the commission of large scale criminal activity. Afterall, no common criminal organization could ever hope to compete with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bush, Obama, or even that city council.

Government Rituals

It's a useless protest. Don't you understand that what government does is….

  • There are these people called politicians. They are a special breed of human known for their lies, corruption, theft, and generally hated by nearly everyone.
  • A group of these scumbags get together, say a few magic lines, participate in a few rituals, and then you have the Legislative branch. *(Still a bunch of politicans, we just changed their names)*
  • These ~~legislators~~ then sell their services to the highest bidder, and then write on pieces of paper random narcissistic nonsense like *"I can do whatever the #$%# I want"*
  • These pieces of paper similarly need a few rituals and magical spells in order to transform them into a special magical piece of paper which carries the legitimate authority to tell you to bend over and take it.
  • Unfortunately, there are a few people who find this magic unconvincing, or who dare to defy these narcissistic assholes, and must be put in line. Enter the thugs.
  • As with the politicans, and pieces of paper, it is not merely enough for them to be thugs.
  • These thugs are sent through a variety of rituals, propagandized with mantras like *"I don't write the laws I just enforce them,"* given a blue costume, a fancy symbol, and a gun… and had their name changed to *"police officer"* *(still thugs, just sounds better)*
  • These "police" then go around beating people up, caging people, and stealing their property for defying the magical pieces of paper.
  • If for any reason you found the prior magical rituals unconvincing, enter the last group of men, the priests.
  • The priests are a group of highly knowledgeable men who speak in strange tongues, and have mastered the art of distorting reality and language into having completely new meaning. It takes many years of study to learn their special brand of Latin known as legalese, and even if you think you understand the language, you must still hire an interpreter to ensure the meaning and language isn't subject to opposite day.
  • These priests specialize then perform a variety of rituals from the magical pieces of paper, slowly distorting reality, defense becomes assault, fraud becomes fractional reserve banking, and various acts of abuse, pollution, and property destruction are made invisible if not specifically written about in their religious texts.
  • These priests then direct fancy and carefully performed rituals in languages you cannot understand, donning their magic robes and waving their magic gavels, shouting incomprehensible phrases, and demanding worship.
  • Out the other side, these actions of the police "legitimate authoritative actions" while anyone who dares defend themselves or their property, or act as a free intelligent person is branded a "criminal"

You don't think that is all a superstition? What happens if 12 armed men (we'll call them police) break into a home and another man, a commoner, defends himself and his family with his own arms? Isn't that man treated as the aggressor? What about when a man dares to keep a greater portion of his labor than the master allows him? Isn't he branded a fraud, a criminal, a cheat, and sent to prison?

So, why don't I care that some assholes wrote on pieces of paper that it is a "felony" *(a.k.a. second class citizen who can't VOTE, a useless activity anyway)* to protest near an established politician? The whole thing is a joke. It's all a joke, and not a very funny joke at that. NDAA? SOPA? Who gives a shit. The mafia is going to do what the mafia is going to do…. but when are YOU going to stop voluntarily supporting the mafia?

Government Defined

Au contraire. The onus is on you guys to demonstrate that you have a definition of government - or absence of government - that is not incoherent. It's us - the 99% who don't believe in anarchocapitalism or haven't heard of it - that need convincing, if you are to win

This is entirely appropriate. No one should expect another to be convinced of something without some reasonable explanation.

It's not up to me to come up with a definition of government.

While I am not an AnCap, per se, I do find various AnCap arguments persuasive. Thus, take the following definition with a grain of salt when analyzing AnCap-ism:

Government - noun - Any formal organization by which humans organize the usage of aggression to achieve certain ends.

I am constantly refining my definition of government, but that is what I prefer to use most recently. Let me analyze it, so that you can understand what I mean by each part:

  • "any" - this allows for more than one government.
  • "formal" - this excludes common criminals, though it may or may not include organized crime. (I need to tweak this part a bit)
  • "organization" - this is to keep my definition more in line with the common understanding that government involves a decision-making process.
  • "by which humans organize" - this is to make is obvious that humans are doing the organization, and not the government. That is, without humans, there would be no government. Its a bit needless, but I like to cover as many bases as I perceive. Also, this would allow my definition to include everything from Congress to the FDA as a part of a government.
  • "the usage of aggression" - This is to point out that government is organized to use aggressive means. However, this is not to say that government uses only aggression, nor that government is constantly aggressive. Rather, this is meant to exclude any organization that does not formally employ aggression to achieve its ends, and to understand that government sometimes avoids aggression. This is probably the most contentious part of my definition; I can explain it more, if you like.
  • "to achieve certain ends" - This is meant to explain that government is not blindly organized; humans have goals that they want to achieve, and they happen to choose government as their preferred organized means to achieve those ends. Further, this allows government to be organized for any purpose, whether to fight crime or to give out money to the poor (in both cases, both governments and non-governments fight crime and give out money, thus the goals are not dependnet upon the type of organization).

I hope the above analysis makes sense.

Note: I am not saying that my definition proves anything. Rather, I use it to help me understand the world around me.

Fixing Democracy?

*"With electronic voting machines, Elections can be rigged,"* that is true. However what is also true is that elections can be rigged WITHOUT electronic voting machines as well.

Nobe Intentions

I fully understand that this extreme corruption is not the "democracy," and I see OWS making large and noble efforts. What if all this time and effort are being burned away on pursuits that are ultimately not in your self interest, or in the interests of humanity as a whole? What if democracy is itself corruption and immoral, and what if government is a criminal organization? What if you are servants (even slaves) to government, and your vote, if even counted, merely chooses the next parasitic abuser and exploiter?


The criminal and evil nature of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are easily understood, but since you've been trained to attach your identity to government, it takes a lot more intellectual fortitude to apply these standards closer to home. What if the criminal nature of dictatorships and the worst governments does not disappear when it becomes a democracy, and even with every ~~bandaid~~ check and balance you can possibly put on the system?

Criminal Employers

What if democracy is nothing more than an attempt to make the criminal tugs work for YOU. What if you all your complaints and protests are merely a form of denial, and what you are really protesting is that the criminals have found it more lucrative to work for the 1%, rather than use their violence, coercion, extortion, theft, and other criminal activities FOR YOUR BENEFIT. If you proactively hire a murderer, or follow the orders to murder, aren't you also a murderer? It's a nice little trick, you vote between 2 murderers, they murder, and the blood is on your hands, and consent of the governed, etc.

The reality is of course that Democracy and Political Action is like a giant placebo soundboard where none of the buttons or dials do anything, and voters are little more than a bunch of 5-year old fighing amongst themselves over who gets to play with it.

Looking Forward?

Rather than trying to make this criminal enterprise work for us, it would be wiser to abandon the romanticized notions of legitimacy. Abandon the symbols, the flags, the anthems, pledges, rituals, and the borderline religious worship of the state. Afterall, it is this mentality that allowed the likes of Stalin to murder millions of humans, rather than leaving him a powerless raving lunatic that no one pays attention to.

Without the horizontal support and enforcement of this criminal organization, it would disappear tomorrow.

Self Defense Against Government & the NAP?

In short? As an act of self defense, yes. Even the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was written for this very purpose. You might find this article by Larken Rose to be of interest, as well as his followup video.

You will find most Voluntarists NOT advocating violence under present conditions for a few reasons:

  • Government and it's enforcers currently outnumber us
  • The many of the individuals on the receiving end of the violence will likely be completely ignorant *(brainwashed, propagandized)* of their own acts of aggression. Many of us have been 'statist' at some point, and unknowingly supported evil.
  • Violence risks blowback, unintended consequences, and externalities.
  • If for any reason we are mistaken, it would be horrible to use violence against an innocent person.
  • If there is a strategic alternative to violence, that may be worth pursuing.

An important piece of history worth NOT forgetting is the civil war. The South issued their own "declaration of independence" and the centralized government issued orders to beat the south back into submission. The South also lost.

Maybe - some of this could be classified as fraud. If you look here, I developed a logical structure for analyzing and defining coercion and fraud. In short, I found the "logical definition" of fraud to be….

  • Fraud: Actively misinforming another individual as to influence an individual into a relationship, whereby that individual would not have participated otherwise.

There is also a matter of degree, as I believe that even within the Non-Aggression Principle, the concept of a PROPORTIONAL response is immensely important for minimizing damage caused to humans and society.


Also agreed, and I also don't have any perfect answers. One thing I will say is that it is far more important that their initation of coercion is stopped. I would love restitution for all the tax-dollars stolen from me, and years of my life stolen by public schools….. but that's not going to happen. Even worse, whatever agency redistributes "state property" will likely have enough resources and influence to create another mini-state.

My conclusion has been to look forward, rather than look back.

  • End the subsidies
  • End the violence
  • End the restriction of freedom

Once we remove the state from the business of crime, any business that wants "subsidies" will have to go steal those subsidies themselves. If they want to try that, then they're next on my list. As of yet, I can't necessarily blame walmart or welfare recipients for taking handouts from a nebulous entity who would steal regardless and give the handouts to someone else.

Most voluntarism have come to a similar conclusion that educating the masses is far more valuable, important, and effective than violence.

More Comments:

Violence is a failure of reason

I'll play downvote magnet. I've often said "violence is the failure of reason" - it's what happens when people shut off their brains and turn on their (impulsive, instinctual, irrational) anger.

What's worse is that most proposed "anarchist" violence is variations of the "smash the machinery of state" theme. That's fine philosophically, but in reality the state is not much affected by broken windows or burning trash cans. If one could "smash" America's strategic nuclear arsenal that'd be one thing, but that doesn't happen, and I'd like to see a few Guy Fawkes masks attempt to "smash" Wright-Patt AFB. So "violence", as proposed by most "anarchists", is almost always self-glorifying theatrics with virtually no power to alter the behaviors of the intended "victims". Starbucks just pays for the broken window by charging you more for a cup of coffee, and the world turns on.

Instead, the things that made you an anarchist were ideas and information. It is the comprehension of the causes and effects of statism that changed your mind - why would you expect the public, the CEO, or the President to be any different?

The State is a "legitimate force monopoly". Call it anything else you want, but what it does is purport to be the one guy with all the guns that makes the final decisions on who to beat up, under a claim of legitimacy (whether divine, or consent of the governed, etc). Violence is their game, and it's what they do best. Assassinations, wars, genocides, suppressing dissent, disappearing activists - these are historically all tools of the state, not individuals. And they're just looking for an excuse to make your head the piñata. As soon as they see a fire or destruction of property, you invoke their public mandate to exist and act. Gotta "stop the criminals", and you are proposing what they call crimes. You create the public perception that endorses their existence, and they will act immediately because it's what they do and they want to look good doing it.

Or you can work to change the perceptions that cause the delegation of violence to the arbiter of last resort. As long as people want daddy to decide for them (instead of growing up and learning equanimity and restraint) any perceived disruption of their patriarchy strengthens their belief in its necessity.

Fighting them where they are strongest is bad tactics in any arena. Wiser is to flank them at their weak points, such as encryption, sousveillance, boycotting, etc. Otherwise you're just putting on your dragon costume and scaring the peasants and expecting the king and his knights to proactively concede that there is no danger.

Which is why it never works, and the media love to take pictures of it.

Now ifn you want to have a war, that's different. That's violence that actually destroys the "machinery of state", i.e.: its weapons. But it's still a failure of reason, attacking them where they're strongest, and fails to address the cause of the public mandate.


[Rothbardgroupie's Comment](

I'd argue that there are several strategies that are viable:

  • Peaceful parenting
  • Education
  • Shunning of violent people
  • Agorism (Black and Grey Markets)
  • Civil disobedience (cheating on taxes, avoiding government services, avoiding the draft, non-voting, breaking non-NAP oriented laws, etc.)

If austrian economics is correct, then all governments will fail and reset (historically this is true, and I think all western governments will undergo another reset soon once the masses become aware of the current bankruptcy). So, the overall strategy is to have a larger population of voluntarists present at each and every reset, until the state takes its well-deserved place on the trash heap of history.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License