Charity, not theft and slavery

It's hard to imagine, but I've read that back during the barbaric era of government, people in need actually relied on government to steal money to pay for the things they needed, or to force people to provide those things at their own expense against their will! Food, housing, and medical care were considered to be legitimate reasons to steal and enslave!

I can't even wrap my head around something so awful!

I suppose when the people have so much of their money stolen in order to support governments, it makes sense that they'd be too broke to be able to afford such basic things, or to be able to support charities to help others. And, if the people already put up with the theft and aggression inherent in government, it's not much of a stretch to push it to the limit.

I can barely imagine the dependency that "system" created in its victims.

The price in self respect and dignity must have been enormous, not to mention the feeling of being at the mercy of bureaucrats and their whims. Who would have wanted to subject needy people to that?

Fortunately, now everything is so much more affordable without governments meddling and stealing, and people have plenty of money to contribute to charities. It's better all around.

It's natural that I want my neighbors to be healthy. Who wants to be surrounded by sickness and injured people who can't get the care they need? Or people so hungry they can't function, and who think about stealing to feed their kids? I guess this means charity is selfish, in a way. It's still better than the alternative.

Whatever the reason, I'm willing to help support the charity fund at my favorite healer's practice. In the same way, I help support food banks and I give away produce from my garden to people I suspect might need help. And such is the case with the vast majority of the population. It's the right thing to do, it is civilized, and it is also self defensive in some ways.

And if someone doesn't feel they can afford to help, or just doesn't want to for some reason, that's their business, not mine. At least if they keep their own money they are less likely to seek charity for their basic needs. It's a win-win, as are all expressions of the economic means.

.

Security services

There is obviously no such thing as a "police force" in Libertopia. We learned our lesson from those last few chaotic years before the collapse of the State. It's a mistake, and body count, we won't repeat!

What we do have, almost everywhere, are security services. What would have been called "private security" back during the government era. Now, since everything is "private", the distinction is meaningless.

Of course, there are many variations in security providing services-- just about any variation you can imagine.

The services they provide vary. The majority are simply there to help train people in defense. Everyone can benefit from expert advice and tips.

A few will actually take on the job of defending their clients; mainly the very old, the crippled, and those whose personal beliefs make them prefer to pay someone for defense rather than doing the job themselves. However, new defensive tools make even those with physical difficulties perfectly capable of defending themselves, if they care to (and most do).

But, of those who take a more active role, the services offered are fairly standardized. Some will help stop attacks and theft. Some will act as bodyguards. Some as night watchmen, for homes or businesses. Sometimes a customer may request something more out of the ordinary-- which, as long as there is no aggression or property violations requested, the sky is the limit. The price may go up depending on the amount of effort the job entails.

The ways security service employees dress vary-- although, as far as I know, none seek to replicate the look of the police uniforms of old. That would be a way to go out of business in a hurry; the negative memory is still too sharp, even after all these years. If you want to be shunned, appear in public (outside of Halloween or a costume party) dressed as "law enforcement" or other type of government extremist.

Most dress in a way which keeps the tools of the job close and handy. Two or three guns, restraints, video recorders, a communication device (to instantly let the customer know of an incident, and call for help of whatever kind might be necessary). Penetration-resistant clothing is common, although rarely necessary. It is so inexpensive there's really no reason to not use it. Generally, bright colors are chosen for the clothing, to identify a person as security services. On the very rare occasions when stealth is prudent, color-changing clothing is preferred so that the identity of the security provider can be known as soon as possible- as soon as dark clothing is no longer necessary. Identity-concealing masks are never worn-- the good guys don't dress like losers.

To get a job with any of the security provider companies, it is necessary to pass a thorough examination to demonstrate a non-aggressive personality, an understanding of non-aggression/Voluntaryism, and to make sure there is no tendency to try to weasel out of accountability if something goes wrong and force or property violations occur during the performance of the job. The bar for accountability is set very high for a reason-- there is no room in security services for cowards/bullies, trigger-happy liars, or anyone else who is seeking an opportunity to use violence against the innocent. If your security provider violates anyone during the course of his employment, you can be held accountable for hiring an unreliable person, and the cost of restitution can be very high. No one wants to risk it.

Security services are available just about anywhere, but they are never very large companies. Most people don't want to pay for something they can do for themselves so easily. It's a niche market, and a decent job opportunity for those who like to feel useful while doing a rather boring and safe job.

.

The fate of the Warlord

Once, years ago, here in Libertopia there was a guy who decided he could use his wealth to his advantage in a way some would once have called becoming a "Warlord".

It didn't turn out well for him.

What happened was that he was a very successful business owner who got a little too ambitious. He hired a large security force and sent them out to intimidate his competitors. He tried to force his will on everyone around him and extort protection fees from everyone he could.

But people who have tasted real liberty aren't so anxious to give it up.

Even though he often got his way, through force, word began to spread. More and more people stopped doing business with him and his profits began to fall. He tried to ramp up his intimidation of his competitors, but that only went so far. Some went out of business, some moved, and other new competition sprung up- started by people not so easily intimidated.

He refused to abide by arbitration, and eventually started ignoring all requests for arbitration at all. He thought he was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted to anyone. He got quite a surprise.

Quietly those he was violating began to pool resources to fund a bounty on him. As word got around, more and more people contributed and pledged their help. After all, this guy wasn't just bluster, but was actually initiating force, fraud, and theft. He was a real and imminent threat to everyone.

It didn't take long until the bounty was large enough that it couldn't be kept secret, and he began to fear his own security forces. He started purging the ranks of anyone he doubted, which backfired and destroyed the loyalty of those who would have otherwise remained loyal. The guy got so paranoid he withdrew to his underground bunker. He wouldn't have contact with anyone, and was trying to check any food, water, and air coming into his bunker for poisons- which consumed his time and energy. His remaining security forces began to feel the pressure of being shunned. What good is money when no one will do business with you? The same went for those who helped keep his bunker running. It was mostly self-contained, but repairs still need to be carried out.

Before long, he didn't have enough supporters to keep going. His life support systems failed and his bunker became uninhabitable. In fact, he couldn't get out and he died there in his secure fortress. No one knows- or cares- if he starved or suffocated. But his life is a warning to all who get the idea to follow in his footsteps.

And the bounty was never even paid out. Some was returned to the original donors, some was used to help those he had harmed, and some- the majority- was rolled over into a fund to pay a bounty on any future would-be warlord.

.

Hired "representatives"

I touched on this a little in the previous post, but most people in Libertopia hire someone, either an individual or a company, who works as their representative. To handle day-to-day business that could affect their reputation rating.

This representative goes by many different names ("reps", "watchers", "negotiators", etc.), none of which is important.

These "reps" will make arrangements for arbitration if needed, but will usually actually negotiate you out of it.

Obviously, if you are really a jerk who can't stay out of trouble, they will either charge you a very large price for the trouble you cause, or they will refuse to represent you anymore. Representing a known troublemaker could damage their reputation, after all.

.

Arbitration

So, how exactly does this "arbitration" thing work here in Libertopia?

Suppose you have a dispute with a neighbor. You can't reach an agreement on your own- each of you thinks he is right and refuses to budge. Do you start beating the neighbor with a rake? Well, hopefully not.

The common solution is to seek arbitration.

Now, there is no "only way" this is done, but there are some fairly consistent trends, and this is what I'll describe to you now.

Either you choose a mutually-satisfactory arbitrator, or you allow your respective representatives (you do have one, right?) to get together to hire one for the case. There are many who offer arbitration services full-time, and even more people who have gained a reputation for fairness and wisdom who are sought out even though it is not their "real job". Any fees are paid up front.

If a person simply refuses to enter arbitration, or will not agree to any arbitrator that is suggested, they have already "lost". I'll discuss the "loser" later.

The arbitrator will hear both sides, and do any investigation he deems necessary (either personally or through investigators employed for that specific purpose).

Rights, and respect for liberty are the top considerations. Contracts and other agreements fall only slightly below those- and it will be considered whether those agreements violate natural rights in any way. That isn't always a deal-breaker, though.

The decision is then rendered, and the parties will have already agreed to abide by the decision as a part of signing on for the arbitration.

Now, there is no "enforcement" of a decision. So how do you make the "loser" follow through? You don't. However, failing to abide by the decision is a huge strike against an individual's reputation, and reputation is very important in Libertopia.

The "winner" who is left holding the bag is perfectly free to spread the word about the failure of the "loser" to live up to his obligation. Most people will choose to avoid entering into deals with people who are known to not be trustworthy. Or, they will charge more due to perceived risk.

And if you think it is getting hard to hide from your past in the early days of the internet, wait til you get here! Sure, it can be done, but it is complicated and inconvenient enough that it will still usually remove the uncooperative fellow from your life so that at least he won't be bothering you anymore. And even if he runs far away, his past will probably still come back to haunt him since a man without an established reputation will find it hard to do business with anyone (without, once again, paying a premium).

Is this perfect? No. Fallible human beings are involved. Is it the best system yet devised? I certainly think so, and so do a lot of others apparently, since it is all completely voluntary and very few choose to opt out.

.

Voting in Libertopia

You may be surprised that voting still goes on in our free society. The "right to vote" applies to everyone. Adult, child, FurLumpz, cat, dog, trout, etc.

No, "the vote" has not been extended. It has been "depoliticized".

Animals have always had exactly the same right to vote that humans have. Everyone can, and does, vote- decide- to do what they want as long as it imposes on no one else of their own species. People have no right to impose their wishes on someone else by a majority [sic] vote. And they never did. This is what political "voting" was all about. And it was wrong.

Instead, if I decide to paint my house purple, by my actions of doing so I have "voted" to live in a purple house. My neighbors have no right to "vote" to force me to paint my house a different color. If my neighbors complain too loudly about my purple house, I can paint it another, possibly more annoying, color- or I can move away, or I can shun my neighbors (even as they may choose to shun me). But no one is forcing anyone to do anything just because they get more people to agree on one side of an issue than the other. Because, simply put, no one has a right to not be offended.

If someone decides it would be a good idea to build a water treatment plant, he must convince people to sign on, and pledge their own money, to the project. If someone doesn't want to participate for some reason, he is not coerced into going along. Maybe he is suspicious of the additives the treatment plant will use, or maybe he prefers his water's taste. Whatever the reason, his choice is no one else's concern. He will not get to hook up to the treated water once the project is finished without paying (just as everyone else did), but if he chooses to rely on his old water source, he is perfectly free to do so.

If my daughter decides not to eat brussels sprouts, she votes with her actions to not do so. I have no right to hold her down and force my will that she eats brussels sprouts, not even if I get her mother to agree to vote with me.

A dog will vote to eat his food or not, or to nap on the porch or under a shade tree.

Everyone gets to vote. No one gets to rule by tyranny of the majority. Not even if it is a "good idea". If the idea is that good, convince everyone to go along.

The clearest description of legitimate voting is through the illustration of the "pizzacracy". You vote for what you want, and if the results are not to your liking you opt out and are not obligated to pay. You are then free to arrange your own group that is more to your liking. Everything is done by unanimous consent.

Voting (and "politics" in general) was a terrible way to "run" a society, and my life is better off without that destructive mythology imposing itself on me and violating my liberty.

Anyway, I vote that it is time to go eat. Adios!

.

Learning to be functional

Education. Humans evolved to be learning machines. Unless you work really hard to prevent learning, people will learn what they need to know in order to live; starting at birth and not ending until death. Most people will even choose to learn more than the minimum just because there is a natural drive to learn. And there isn't any one method that works for everyone.

Here in Libertopia, some people send their kids to a neighborhood school. This is a good method for people who think they don't have the time or competency to be responsible for their kids' education. (In most cases, this is not really the case, but people are free to choose.) These "neighborhood schools" range from something that looks like an old-style "public school" (without the coercive funding and mandatory attendance) to just hanging out in a group with a local curious character. And everything in between.

I suspect that most people, however, self educate. A lot of people choose to home school, with a major fraction of those "unschooling". Unschooling is just living a normal life while learning what you are interested in right at this moment. In most cases this results in the best education possible.

How many people are living each particular method? I don't know. It is nobody's business, so no one has made any study of it, as far as I know. What I do know is that there aren't too many ignorant, illiterate doofuses wandering the streets of Libertopia. And that's in spite of the damage from "public (government) schools" in generations past that can still be seen in some families, even now.

Of all the echoes of the State that are still affecting Libertopians today. only environmental degradation rivals government schooling in magnitude of damage still being felt. The learned stupidity and helplessness that came from the government indoctrination camps called "public schools" will be reverberating for generations. At least the cancer is now gone and the body can get on with the business of healing.

Most people have already moved so far beyond the old ways that there is no stopping them now. It's exciting to see what people with unchained minds have come up with, and will come up with next. These are exciting times- and not in a bad way.

.

Immigration in Libertopia

A little fact about Libertopia that you may not be aware of: it does not encompass the entire planet. Yet. There are still struggling pockets of State here and there.

Most of them have serious immigration and emigration "laws".

The Rulers of these dying States don't want any Libertopians moving in and giving their new neighbors dangerous ideas. Thus the immigration "controls". I doubt it's necessary- who would move to a State? But it was a good justification for putting the infrastructure in place to control the "borders".

Because, even more, they want to keep the residents (the States would call them "citizens") they have from escaping- it's hard to tax people who leave if they go somewhere without a government to help you track and control them. It is also hard to rule when you are alone.

Most of the residents of these States were in favor of the immigration controls. At least at first. What the residents of these States failed to realize was that any policy or agency that can keep "them" out, can be turned around and be used to keep "us" in. Cages and "borders" work both ways.

Libertopians living near these unilaterally-declared "borders" are usually more than willing to help people escape an oppressive State (Yeah, I'm repeating myself there). The more people who are free, the better it is for everyone. It is the new "Underground Railroad", and it is killing the last few States.

It is funny, though. No one in Libertopia worries about immigrants moving in and using up all the welfare. There is no welfare. No one worries about immigrants taking all the jobs- they are just as likely to create jobs. No one worries about what language anyone else speaks. There can be no "official language"- you communicate however you can. No one worries about their culture being destroyed by exposure to another culture. That would be an admission that your culture isn't worth saving. Yet all these excuses, as unbelievable as they sound to me, are actually used in those dying States!

Without a government to co-opt or take over- either by voting or by having more offspring than someone else- people don't seem to worry too much about who is moving where. At least as long as the new neighbors don't initiate force or steal. And if they do, where they came from is the least important piece of information you could possibly worry about.

.

Formerly "public"- Currently thriving

Those of you reading these dispatches from your perspective in the era of government wouldn't believe how some of the traditionally "public" services have thrived since they lost their coercively-stolen funds.

Libraries, some even with actual paper and glue BOOKS, abound. They have innovated in ways you probably can't imagine. I'll bet more people use libraries now than at any other time in history.

The same obviously goes for space travel. It never took off (pun intended) until freed from the burden of being "too big for anyone but government" to do. You'd almost think governments were desperate to keep the tax cows earthbound and within milking distance.

I've talked about roads already. And museums.

Of course, some things did die out. No more police, "public schools", or terrorist recruiting programs (what you called "The War on Terror"). No more EPA, BATFE, DEA, or Department of XYZ. No more jackbooted thugs raiding dairies, houses, businesses or whatever, for doing something perfectly consensual and honest that the government had decided to regulate. No more State.

It seems that "taxation" enslaves the one who is being stolen from and also the one who receives the stolen property. It is obvious once you take off the statist blinders.

.

Libertopian relationships

As far as relationships go, "traditional", one man/one woman, monogamous marriage is still pretty popular in Libertopia. At least as the "ideal".

The reality is probably more similar to the reality during most of human history. It just isn't usually hidden any more.

Nowadays, if you decide to marry someone, anyone, you just do it. The expense is what you make it. So are the ceremony and stipulations. This means that a lot of people are married who probably wouldn't be under more strict guidelines.

In most cases you don't need anyone's permission. Multiple-partner marriages that are adding a spouse being one exception. It must be by unanimous consent, of course. But, if no consent can be had, nothing prevents the unhappy members from leaving to find more suitable arrangements.

Sometimes, because of the age of one of the participants or other circumstances, family members may have objections. If no solution can be worked out privately, arbitors can be hired. If no solution comes from that, elopement seems to be pretty standard. Some things don't change much.

You can have any sort of ceremony you and your Chosen wish to have- or none at all. You can try for "'til death do us part", or have a set expiration date. Divorce is seen as a business arrangement where property is divided and obligations are fulfilled. It usually still hurts, but the hurt isn't magnified by stupid meddlers.

On the whole, I'd say relationships are happier than they have historically been. There are no coercive barriers to entering or leaving a romantic relationship. Since the myth of "one size fits all" has been tossed in the scrap heap of failed delusions, people are free to find the situation that suits them best, even if they are the only people on the planets who have ever tried a particular arrangement.

Someday, maybe even I can find a relationship that adds more to my life than it drains. Hope springs eternal.

.

The death of "One Size Fits All"

If there is one thing that defines Libertopia, it is the realization that one size NEVER fits all.

Sure, there are still a few people out there who insist their way is the only way. But they are pretty rare and getting rarer. And they have no power to enforce their opinions.

There are nudists and prudes living in mutually-embarrassed peace. There are gun owners and pacifists. There are the devoutly religious and atheists. There are even little pockets of communism in Libertopia, for those who just can't bring themselves to be free. The difference is that no one can be coerced to participate against their will in anything here, and no government to take over to force your preferences on anyone else. Even when you are a part of a group, opting out is always one disagreement away.

It all comes down to choices. You have an almost unlimited variety of choices available here. No one even "legally" forbids you from attacking your neighbor, although few who choose that path survive long in a polite (armed) society. Your choice; your consequences. And those who attempt to limit the non-aggressive, non-thieving choices of others quickly find themselves shunned or worse.

Just as it should be.

.

The Cat Lady

Recently a woman here in Libertopia was discovered to have over 100 cats living in her house. Yuck! Conditions were filthy and many of the cats were malnourished. The woman also had some health problems that were probably related to living in a house full of cats and their waste products.

Her house is her property, as are her cats. So no one has the right to interfere unless she wants them to. Your "help" is not help if it isn't wanted.

A person who abuses animals may not be a person I would trust, and may not be a nice person, but they are within their rights. You would also be within your rights to shun an animal abuser, of course. However, in her mind she may have been loving those cats rather than abusing them. And even if she dies due to her choices, that is her right. Your life is yours to do with as you please, even to the point of destroying it. Her neighbors were not even aware of the abundance of cats, so no one claimed she was harming their property in any way. No one had a right to lift a finger to make the woman change her life in any way. Still, people being people, some were concerned for the woman and the cats.

So what happened?

Well, the person who discovered the situation asked the woman if she really wanted that many cats in her house. She said she did. So he asked if she had enough food for them and for herself. She admitted she was having to stretch food to make ends meet and keep everyone fed. He asked if she would like some help providing for the cats. She said she would.

He asked if she would mind if he asked around to see if people might be willing to help her with some food, and she agreed to the suggestion. So word went out. People donated cat food and made meals for the woman. A few even stayed to help her clean up a little, after making sure she didn't object.

As it happens, she has now given away about half of the cats to various willing adopters. People who would come to her home to deliver food they were donating would see a particular cat they really liked, and the woman would usually let them leave with that cat. The extra human interaction seems to be reducing her "need" for so many cats, too. Her house is a lot cleaner, by comparison to what it was before. Her health problems have cleared up, and she is seeing a doctor once a week right now. He comes to her home every Thursday afternoon to check her progress. A local veterinarian even donated feline birth control. The woman's life, and the lives of her cats, looks to be improving.

A couple of concerned neighbors still feel the woman may have mental health problems and are trying to keep in touch with her more than they had been before. If she asks for help, help is there. If she doesn't ask, and if she rejects it if offered, then no one has any right to judge how she lives and what makes her happy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

.