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.

.

Theft in Libertopia

If I remember correctly, April 15 used to be a day to celebrate thieves or something. We don't do that anymore.

It's not that there is no theft in Libertopia- the thieves just no longer have the luxury of calling theft "taxation". And, "taxation" was always the most common excuse for theft back during the "Age of Authority".

How is theft dealt with in Libertopia? Quite handily, thank you.

In fact, there are lots of people who get their inspiration from the Robin Hood of legend. He's the guy who retrieved stolen property and returned it to its rightful owner- even though I have heard that truth was perverted into "he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" for a time. But not anymore.

Our robinhoods retrieve stolen property and return it to its rightful owner, and only ask for a small percentage of the value of that which is returned. And they only ask for that in cases where the owner can afford it. Although most people are so grateful to get their stuff back that they'd pay the robinhood even if he didn't ask.

The way this usually works is that arbitrators will put out a list of those who have refused to abide by the outcome of arbitration- or have refused arbitration at all. This list is used to inform others of people who they may want to shun, or publicize as untrustworthy. Some, such as the robinhoods, take a more active approach.

Robinhoods will look at the list and decide if any of the cases would be something they'd like to pursue. Most robinhoods limit themselves to stolen property cases, but some will take on other types of damage that resulted in a monetary judgement- that's just up to the individual.

In cases of stolen property, the robinhood will try to get the actual property back. If that's not possible, he will try to get something from the thief of equal value. This is then turned over to an arbitrator- preferably the one who oversaw the original dispute. The arbitrator then contacts the interested parties and facilitates an arrangement between them. The property may be sold and the theft victim paid, with any amount above that going back to the thief. Robinhoods try to be very careful to not go too far, lest they find themselves on the wrong side.

Sometimes the robinhoods will still find themselves called into arbitration on accusations of theft or trespassing, but unless the robinhood was unusually "zealous" in carrying out his job, the case doesn't normally go far.

As you may see, theft doesn't pay here unless you can hide what you have done so well that even people with expertise in solving the case can't find you. And that is extremely rare.

-

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.

.

Child Abuse resolution in Libertopia

My suggestion that readers ask about specific concerns has brought forth fruit.

Christopher asks: "How does the free society of the future deal with the very complex problem of parents who willfully do harm to their children?"

Good question. One such possible case, with tragic results, has been discussed before. But, what about "in general"?

First of all, a few explanations.

• Society doesn't deal with anything in Libertopia (or anywhere else); individuals do.

• Initiation of force is no one's right, regardless of relationship or age.

• And, lastly, "their children" is only an expression of relationship when other humans are being referred to; never ownership.

Yes, child abuse still happens in Libertopia. So does murder and theft. The difference is that there is no "legal" haven for the abusers anymore. Anyone can step in.

If a child is being abused there are plenty of people who will advocate or intercede for that child if he doesn't feel confident to take matters into his own hands.

However, if, in spite of being informed that he does not have an obligation to submit to any abuse, the child still wants to remain in the abusive relationship, no one has the right to save him. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen (especially when imprisonment/isolation prevents informing him of his choices), just that when it does happen, arbitration is a possibility. Remember, sometimes you just do what you feel you must, whether you have a right to do it or not, and accept the consequences of your actions.

In arbitration all the details of the situation are probably going to come out. If the parent feels confident that he can prove his innocence, then he will probably go ahead and insist on arbitration. If not, he may quietly stand down.

Also, remember that just about everyone here relies on a good reputation, and on good character underwriters* and insurers*, for just about everything. From arbitration insurance to business dealings. Refuse arbitration, or refuse to abide by its outcome, and you may be dropped like a hot coal by those you were previously involved with.

Remember that if you see someone being attacked in public in Libertopia, it would be a very strange thing indeed for no one to step in and rescue the person being attacked; to defuse the situation no matter what. Libertopians are almost universally armed and ready to come to the defense of anyone.

Hidden abuse is a little different, but someone will have a strong suspicion if it is happening, and there isn't much reason to look the other way. As long as certain steps are taken to make sure you don't go too far in your accusation, arbitration usually goes fairly easy on people who made honest mistakes when accusing someone of abuse, and restitution is normally not too high- plus concerned people often chip in to help. Plus, since there is no State to take away children on the basis of an unfounded accusation, parents who are exonerated usually don't feel too much resentment, since they would also have the best interests of the child at heart. (I've known of one case where an accused child abuser become a model parent after the accusation was dismissed- I suppose simply to avoid the appearance of problems in the future.)

I'm sure mistakes are probably made on occasion. But in just about everything, the child has the final say in where she wants to be, if he or she can speak or show a preference. As human beings, that is their right, even if you or I would disagree. It is the right of association.

I hope that answers your questions, Christopher.

(*I will have to go into all of this in more detail sometime.)

.

Terrorism- a historical curiosity

I was looking back over some history today and saw a word I haven't thought about in a very long time: "terrorism".

Like smallpox, terrorism is something Libertopians never worry about. Most people have probably forgotten either problem once existed. Both are diseases which were eliminated when the causes were eradicated. States caused terrorism just as surely as viruses caused smallpox.

Sure, there are sometimes violent attacks here or there. What difference does it make why the attacker does what he does? The results, and consequences, are the same. However, now there is no State whipping up violent extremism and hunger for revenge. So, even without Homeland Security [sic], the attacks are very, very rare- almost nonexistent.

Of course, without a State to make enemies around the globe, and to influence politically, it isn't worth the effort to attack random innocent people. Libertopians are pretty much universally armed. You'll die and no one will fear "your cause".

I admit it is hard for me to even hard for me to think about what terrorism might have been or how it might have been thought about. How unsettling it must have been to watch a State continuing to take actions which put your loved-ones at risk, while it simultaneously violated your liberty, using the terrorism its own actions caused as justification. It's no wonder some people .... Ah, I almost fell into the trap of revealing too much about your future. Don't worry. You'll soon see what I was referring to.

.

"No guns"- No deal

Wow! Today I started to go into a local business and saw something I have never before seen: a sign saying my gun was not welcome!

I should have noticed something was wrong as soon as I pulled into the parking lot. Mine was one of only 3 cars there. Did the others belong to employees? I'll never know since I pulled my hand off the door as if the handle were red-hot and covered in blood and gore. Which it might as well have been. I'll trade with a competitor who respects me, instead.

Here in Libertopia people are free to be stupid. And I am free to avoid dealing with those whose twisted notion of "property rights" includes violating mine. I'll be surprised if the business lasts long.

It has the potential to be an "exciting" short run, though. The few surviving armed-robbers still in practice might not have a very big window of opportunity to rob the only place around I know of that "guarantees" an unarmed victim pool for their craft.

"Unarmed", that is, unless customers don't notice the sign. If anything does occur, the business owners will be facing a lot of liability claims, either way.

Libertopians assume liberty, and it takes a lot to break through that assumption- in most cases a sign will probably not be enough to get their attention and make them realize their rights are not respected there. As a service, I have already told several people to be wary of that particular establishment. I also gave that information to the competitor I chose to patronize (they were already aware of the sign).

Good luck to them and to those customers foolish enough to give up their liberty and their security for- I'm not even sure what.

.

Case of the dead little girl

Recently, here in Libertopia, there was a young mother who was suspected of killing her little daughter. A tragic case no matter how you look at it. Friends and family noticed that the girl just disappeared and the mother had no good explanation that held up to scrutiny over time. Plus her story changed several times before the daughter's body was found. No one really doubted that the mom was a little bit crazy, not a particularly nice person, and certainly not a good mother.

There were no witnesses to the death, of course, or there would have been more than "suspicions". There was also no concrete scientific or objective observational evidence that could tie any particular person to the girl's death. So, what's a free society to do?

Gossip being what it is, most people formed their opinions concerning her guilt or innocence based purely on whether or not they liked the woman, which was based on what other people said about her. Almost without exception, without knowing anything about her from first-hand experience. Yeah, that still happens here and is probably just a part of human nature that won't go away anytime soon simply because it's ridiculous.

Restitution being impossible, and without even definitive evidence of the ZAP being violated or a debt being incurred, the matter dropped. People chose to either shun the woman or not. Those who believed she had killed her daughter refused to deal with her in any way from this day forward. They could refuse to sell her food, or repair her vehicle, or hire her, or anything. Those who felt she was innocent were free to continue to do business with her. In this case, that number of supporters is rather small.

However, human nature being what it is, if she gets herself into another fishy situation anytime in the next several decades, her base of supporters would probably be too small to keep her housed, clothed, fed, and fueled. No person is an island and no one is truly independent, as is abundantly clear even in Libertopia. And without The State to meddle, there is no one to save bad people from the just consequences of their actions.

.

Quiet (but noisy) in Libertopia

It's been quiet in Libertopia. Not much to report. Just people doing the things that mean the most to them and that give their lives purpose. Those particular things differ from person to person; having as many individual answers as there are people. Well, guess what. Your actions in your today, there in my past, are ultimately responsible for creating Libertopia, my Libertopia and yours, tomorrow. In my present.

It has already happened, so even events that seem to be destructive to individual liberty end up creating that which they try to prevent. Your States are sealing their own fates by their anti-liberty actions. Isn't that ironic?

What a happy tangent. Anyway, back to the point. I should probably explain "quiet". I suppose Libertopia is quiet in some ways, but rather noisy in ways that those unaccustomed to liberty might not expect.

It is quiet in the sense that there is no crime. There are occasional acts that violate a right and create a debt, but since there is no State to make "laws", there is no "crime".

But Libertopia is not quiet in the sense that there is a vibrant culture creating, experimenting, and exploring all around us. And living life to the fullest. That sometimes makes a ruckus. No one really seems to mind, and if they do it is simple to fix the problem.

Just think about it. What is it that you most would want to do if there was no one telling you it was forbidden or ordering you to pay for the "privilege" of doing things you want to do which harm (nor obligate) no other person? The sooner you throw off your yoke the sooner you can get started.

These are exciting times and I can't wait for you to get here! What are you waiting for? Come on!

.

Ostrafers Fill a Need

I know a guy here in Libertopia who has an interesting job. A job I would hate, but interesting, nonetheless. He is an "ostrafer". What is that, you may ask?

Let me explain. Long ago, back in the days before Libertopia, there were people who hunted down "fugitives from the law" and handed those they captured over to The State. They were called "bounty hunters".

Now that there is nothing really like "the law" anymore, and no "State" (not in this part of the world, anyway), and since there is no "bounty" to collect, and since forcing someone to comply with arbitration (when there is no aggression involved) is still normally seen as an initiation of force, bounty hunters are no longer needed. Dangerously violent aggressors on the loose are a different matter- perhaps I'll talk about that some day- but those cases are extremely rare due to the fact that there is no longer any State protecting aggressors from the consequences of their actions.

In our free society, after a person has been ruled against in arbitration, what happens if they still refuse to cooperate? How do you encourage compliance when enforcement isn't a legitimized option?

For that small percentage of individuals who refuse to abide by the decision of the arbiters there is the last resort of shunning. Freedom means no one can force you to do business with anyone, nor can anyone forbid you from trading with whoever you wish. Everyone has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, and a shunned person is facing a very hard life.

Those who refuse to live up to the obligations they brought upon themselves through aggression, damage to property, or theft/fraud are not generally people you would want to be involved with lest they do the same to you. It can also be damaging to your reputation if it is known you continue to trade with people who reject arbitration. So arbitration providers employ people to make it costly to refuse to abide by arbitration.

These people, known as "ostrafers", will follow, literally or virtually, a shunned individual and inform his prospective associates of the fact he is being shunned, and why. They publicize the offense in every way imaginable, without using force, without violating property rights, without deception, and without coercion. Ostrafers will also post announcements to let others know, and will inform ostrafers in another region if the shunned person tries to flee in order to escape.

I guess much of the thrill of chasing down a fugitive, and tackling him when he tries to run, is missing from the job of the ostrafer, but a free society has other thrills available.

.

Museum of Government- Enforcers

Continuing the tour...

____

"We have previously seen the ridiculous law pollution that made a 'law-abiding' existence impossible and undesirable during the Era of Government. Now we will look at the enforcers of those counterfeit 'laws'*; the police.

"Police forces only existed for less than two centuries, yet many of the people feared that without them, society would erupt into chaos. We may laugh at their fears now, but to them, under constant brainwashing, it seemed a real threat.

"So police forces were set up everywhere. The counterfeit 'laws' that they enforced became more important to them than the safety or liberty of the people whose stolen money paid their salaries. Most of them began to see themselves as 'above the law'. They were rarely held accountable for the aggressions they committed. On the occasions where a person dared to stand up to their abuses, any lawsuit awards were paid with more stolen money rather than through restitution by the aggressor. This did not teach the out-of-control enforcers any lesson other than that they had a blank-check to commit tyranny. They were issued electrical torture devices that were somewhat less deadly than their guns, and they had a heyday zapping people of all ages for the slightest infraction of their rules.

"A few people spoke up against these badge-bullies. When this happened, the enforcers always lied that 'I don't make the laws; I just enforce them'. As we all know, without enforcement, there is no 'law'. Therefore the blame rests directly on those who make the conscious choice to uphold tyranny. Real rules need no enforcement by a special group. It is, and has always been, up to each of us to own and protect our own interests without harming any innocent person. Society will see to that through self defense, freedom of association, and shunning.

"After the evaporation of government, you might expect that all these enforcers joined their masters swinging in the breeze, yet the existence of the Enforcers' Homes proves that forgiveness is always an option. Most of these pathetic creatures would have died for lack of anyone willing to trade with them due to the popularity of shunning. Yet, charities were set up by those who felt that every human life, even the most destructive, has value. It is true that only about half of the residents of these Homes are actually former enforcers; the rest were 'criminals' from the other side of 'the law', but the two sides have always had a symbiotic relationship and more in common with one another than with the peaceful majority of people. It is a good arrangement."

(*Counterfeit "laws" are those which attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual initiated force; either physical or financial.)

.

Museum of Government- "Taxation"

We are over halfway through this tour of The Museum of Government.

________

"So, how did the state pay for all this waste and oppression? They didn't do the logical thing and simply print more of their 'funny-money'. No, they actually engaged in theft; stealing from the people in order to enslave them. They justified their theft by passing laws that made it 'legal', and they called it 'taxation'.

"There were even a lot of liberty-lovers who denied that taxation was theft and supported the government's actions in collecting the money. They pointed to the 'laws' that had been passed and said that made it 'OK'. They didn't seem to understand that, no matter how many 'laws' the government might pass, theft is never right. It is like 'legalizing' rape. No 'law' can ever make it an acceptable act.

"There was no function of government that was worth harming even one person for, yet it happened. Many people were destroyed by the tax-thieves. Their homes and businesses, along with their money, were stolen to make an example of them. They were kidnapped and imprisoned for years. Some were murdered if they kept refusing to cooperate with the thieves at each step of the attack. This horrible abuse was perpetrated in order to frighten other people into compliance with the thieves. It worked very well. Here in this display case are some examples and dioramas showing some of the tax-thieves at work, and describing some of the victims' stories.

"People became so brainwashed that they spoke of 'owing' the government. They might as well have been speaking of 'owing a mugger his take'. Those who wished to give the state their money were well within their rights to do so, of course, but that wasn't enough for them. They wanted to give the state other people's money as well. That is where they crossed the line into advocating aggression.

"It was obviously a terribly sad era, this 'Era of Government'. That era lasted about 5000 years too long and will not be missed or mourned. Except by those mentally ill individuals who still constantly attempt to establish a new government in order to save us from liberty. It is good to keep them around as a warning of what not to do."

.

Museum of Government- Gun prohibition

"Don't crowd, and let the folks in back see the display, please. Don't act like statists!

"Here we exhibit the ridiculous religion of 'victim disarmament'. Back in the 'Era of Government' it was euphemistically called 'gun control' even though guns were about the only thing it did not control.

"Parasitic liars in government convinced people that guns were the problem that caused 'crime' (the government substitute for 'aggression'). With their puppets in the old broadcast and print media, they pushed an agenda of disarmament and gun-owner vilification on an ignorant and fearful public.

"From our perspective of hindsight we can see the futility of thinking a 'law' would affect aggressors, but at that time too many people were fooled. Many, many innocent people were destroyed, physically and financially, by the hideously evil agents of the 'Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives'. There was not a single purpose behind that agency that was not an act of state terrorism and aggression.

"It took a lot of principle and ironically, guns, to keep the newly liberated mobs from stringing up those morally vacant enforcers after government died. Believe it or not, there are still a few old agents trying to pay restitution to their victims, but most committed suicide when they realized the scam was done and they would be known and held accountable for their acts of authoritarianism.

"Back to the main points: when people finally began to see that each new 'gun control law' caused an immediate increase in aggression on the part of the predators, both badged and free-lance, they began to demand that self-defense and its tools be decriminalized. The parasites fought back violently; realizing that without a monopoly of force, they could no longer treat people as state property. As you are well aware, it was a losing fight for them and their kind.

"Liberty was regained; aggressors (instead of tools) are controlled; and people will never again be fooled into allowing the most depraved among them to rule them. Each of us rules himself, as you know. For that matter, the desire to rule others has finally been recognized as a very dangerous sociopathic mental problem, so it is now treated and usually cured. The success rate is very high. It is a shame it was not cured thousands of years ago.

"The restrooms are here in the hallway, so we will take a short break while you refresh yourselves. You may have time to visit the snack bar or gift shop. We carry many of the books which were instrumental in bringing down statism. You might find them historically interesting. There will be an announcement when we are ready to continue."

_____________________________

Museum of Government- crime

"As we examine this exhibit on the government concept of 'crime' (the government's substitute for 'aggression') you will see that by the end of the 20th century, 'crime' had been solved. The only problem was that government fought back against the solution in order to prop up 'crime' for a few years more. They had to.

"If you will look at this chart, you will see that 'crime' is big business for the statists. That is why they made up the entire concept in the first place. 'Aggression', as everyone knows, was the real problem. The solution was to allow the good people, who outnumber the aggressive people by a huge margin, to properly defend themselves without fear of government retribution. The authoritarians hated self defense as it demonstrated how unnecessary they and their enforcers really were.

"So the government enablers created the concept of 'crime' which was 'any action that went against the demands of the state'; regardless of whether it harmed any innocent person or not. Often there was absolutely no aggression involved, yet the people fell for the scam! Really, I am serious. People actually fell for the scam.

"Huge numbers of non-aggressors were kidnapped and robbed of all their possessions by the tragi-comically named 'justice system'. The people actually allowed the government, the worst offender, to settle disputes; most of which only pitted a person against the fictitious entity of 'The State'. In the instances of actual aggression, restitution was rare, and often any judgements of monetary punishment only went to fund more government. 'Justice' was absent from society.

"I realize that these photographs and artifacts are difficult for more sensitive visitors to view, but it is important that we never forget. This is why we say 'Never again!'

"In the old 'United States', which occupied much of America, the government had a higher percentage of people imprisoned than in any other country during the 'Era of Government'. Many were imprisoned and enslaved simply because of ingesting chemicals. Yet most people did not speak out unless it happened to someone close to them. From our perspective we see the ridiculousness of the statist ideology; the concept of 'crime' and the denial of 'aggression', but to the majority who lived through it, it seemed 'normal'. Such was the world during that dark time.

"Now please turn around to view this next display......."