Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Spinny posed a really good question…

…in a comment in this post.

He said

I’ve tried. I’ve written to my MP, I’ve commented on the blogs of councillors, I’ve told my local councillors on the rare occasions that they actually appear in public, I’ve discussed it endlessly with coleagues in work and friends in the pub, but to what effect? Nothing changes, no-one who is in a position to change anything is listening. Perhaps my only option is to start lobbing grenades at the powers that be. I can’t see any other way of getting my message across”

A very fair question and it got me thinking.  So here’s my two cents.  Violence is immoral and you can’t build a non-violent society with a gun.  Also it’s impractical as they have all the guns, so;

Recommendation one ~ Tell people the guy interested in voluntary trade with you is not your enemy.  He is not your controller.  He wants to sell you coca-cola or bananas, buy them or don’t.  Those who counterfeit your money, propagandise your kids, take your cash, murder people, kidnap you for doing stuff they don’t like, demand your fealty and lie, lie and lie again whilst taking your cash to enrich themselves, they are the problem.  It is not voluntary trade that harms you, it is coercive violence or the implied threat thereof.  Tell them it is not criticising war that is the problem, it is the almost psychotic way the media ignore this and refuse to even show footage of dead bodies because that would upset the reality TV audience.  The TV won’t show a picture of one dead kid, yet this is the day to day reality.  Talking about this, criticising this, is not the problem.  Ignoring it is the problem.

Tell ‘em “no matter how peaceful, humanitarian and tolerant you are, no matter how well-meaning and honourable your goals – if you ask for a new government law, program or plan, ultimately that program will be paid for with property taken by force from others and the law will be enforced at the point of a gun”

Get the fundamental point about the violent nature of government across at every opportunity.  Advertisers tell us it takes about seven repetitions of a message for people to get it.  Start repeating.

Recommendation two ~ Ostracise people who work for the state.  This is socially powerful.  Explain why.  Say “sorry, but whether you realise it or not, you are part of a system which relies on violence and coercion, and I cannot tolerate this, you are welcome in my house when you get a job which does not involve the threat of violence and you would probably be happier and more fulfilled”

Recommendation three ~ Minimise your contact with the state.  Not easy I know but so far as possible, ignore them.  I’m not saying don’t pay your taxes, you are just inviting violent retribution.  But ignore their edicts so far as you reasonably and practically can so long as this doesn’t hurt anyone or land you in jail.

Recommendation four ~ Don’t vote for an establishment party and don’t listen to their lies.  Accept that you have no control over the current elite and democracy as practiced in the West is a suggestion box for slaves and a little pantomime you are allowed to watch every few years.

Recommendation five ~ Explain to people why the government is going bust and when the crunch comes, they will blame all and sundry (bankers, greedy capitalists, gold hoarders, foreigners, petrol companies, big supermarkets, you name it) but the fault lays squarely at the door of the government stooge on TV that night trying to explain where the money has gone.  Tell them that merely putting a different sociopath in charge will change nothing and that’s why we debate gay marriage and other utter trivia but not whether it’s okay to take most of your cash at gunpoint.  When the end comes you will have credibility. When they can no longer borrow or effectively print and have to massively reduce spending then it begins.

Recommendation six ~ Be a peaceful parent.  If you smack your kids or scream at them, the lesson they learn is that top-down coercive authority is fine and it’s not.  If the model in your home is top-down, implied threat of violence to ensure compliance, don’t be surprised if they grow up to accept the statist model based on the same principle.  Change what you can change.

Recommendation seven ~ Get some food and precious metal.  Revolutions start and violence kicks off when people are hungry.  You might also be wise to think how to protect yourself as calling 999 won’t do it in those times.  The cops will be busy protecting the politicians; you will be left to fend for yourself.  We saw a tiny snapshot of this in the Tottenham riots.  Expect much more in the coming times.

Recommendation eight ~ You have to get your hands on the reins of power to dismantle the apparatus, so I disagree with many voluntaryists and libertarians in this one last issue.  If a libertarian stands, vote for them.  It’s the only way we will ever abolish tax and the state along with it.  Otherwise, even if the major parties are swept away, the same old faces just re-badge and resume business as usual.

Spinny, I hope that helps and know you are not alone.  When you can rouse people, a great many agree with us.  We will need them all to change things.


  1. PeterT says:

    Ostracising people who work for the state.

    Good idea in principle but in practice the only people we are likely to ostracise are ourselves. At the very least we’d have to form libertarian friend support groups to manage.

    For whatever reason quite a few of my friends and family work in the public sector so I’d find it very difficult myself.

    There is also the difficulty of how to deal with those people who work in jobs that would exist even if they weren’t financed by the state (doctors and nurses etc).

  2. bloke in spain says:

    Well said, SAoT.
    Just like to add something that relates to two through five. All laws & indeed the governments who pass them depend on acquiescence. There are very few of them & a lot of us. If a law or a government is ignored by enough people there’s damned all they can do about it, in the long run. It’s sad to think, all through history, the weak have stood up to their rulers and suffered violence & death to win their freedom. Yet so few in our societies are willing to endure mere inconvenience to do the same.

  3. Mr Ed says:

    The late, great Douglas Adams hit the nail on the head with the Krikkit Wars, as Ford Prefect said “They care, we don’t, they win’. The system is open to seizure by organised groups with a plausible message. If we break down the plausibility, we weaken the hold. But the whole system may collapse first.

  4. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    @ Peter T ~ Indeed it is. For me anyway, council officials (quite the worst) tax officers, civil servants in general or the cops are simply not allowed to come to the house on a social basis. The logic being you can’t hand out pointless edicts, tax demands or futile speeding tickets without thought on Friday but still come to the barbecue on Saturday. They’ve chosen sides whether they realise it or not.

    The heathcare workers are a slightly different kettle of fish as you say since their jobs would mostly still exist. I quite enjoy asking ‘em why they think it is ‘immoral’ to make money from sick people then asking them if they work for free. It’s my small contribution to cracking the edifice from within, since no politician will ever do it.

  5. PeterT says:

    Another aspect of this is that there are private sector workers whose jobs would not exist witout the state. Obviously contractors to the state but also lawyers and the like, of whom there would be many fewer in a free society.

  6. Bod says:


    You make it sound as though a reduction in the number of lawyers is a bad thing!

    In a (somewhat unlikely) environment where laws are clearer, briefer, and more understandable by the average member of a society, surely the demand for lawyers *would* drop.

    Why are lawyers exempt from the same rules as buggy-whip makers, candle-makers and outhouse-fabricators?

  7. John Galt says:

    The problem is not just the lawyers, but the laws themselves. The rise in victimless crime laws under the 1997-2010 Labour administration were astonishing in themselves and not something that the coalition seems to be worried about repealing.

  8. JG, you know why there are victimless crime type laws, Ayn told us.

    “The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”

    and presciently

    “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: