(Oliver Janich Investigativ) Even a limited government does not solve the problem that every minimal state inevitably transforms into Big Government over time. It can only be an interim solution. There is no way to prevent lobbyists or secret societies from influencing politicians.
But there is one and only one solution to the problem. To solve a problem you have to get to the root cause of it. I am presenting my solution here for the first time. I describe it in my third book, but since I do not know when it will be available in English I will present a short version of it here.
It may surprise many libertarians or followers of mine that I do not see the root cause of the problem as the absence of natural law or property rights or the application of the non-aggression principle. These are only consequences. I will try to prove this point logically. The fundamental principle can be expressed in just nine words:
The arbiter must not be part of the conflict.
In other words, the one responsible for deciding a conflict must not be part of that conflict. Since the government is the ultimate arbiter in all conflicts up to and including conflicts with the government, true arbitration is not possible while a monopoly of force exists. This has already been expressed brilliantly in the works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe or in his 2011 speech at the Mises Institute in Brazil, for example. This teaching is already acknowledged within the libertarian community, but many see it as simply an extension of the teachings of the Austrian school. But it isn’t. It takes libertarianism to an entirely new level. This principle supersedes all other rules and therefore gets down to the root. Let me explain why:
In a state there are no property rights. All “property” is simply fiat property granted by the state. As such, it can be (and is!) taken by the state. Taxation is not the only infringement of property rights. The state can confiscate property for whatever reason politicians deem necessary. For example, property is already being seized in Germany to be given to illegal immigrants who never paid a dime in taxes. (Both German corporate and public TV call this fake news, but it isn’t. You can find my YouTube videos about this topic on my website.)
Clearly, the precondition for being able to exercise property rights is the absence of any monopoly of force, meaning government. But if the absence of government is the precondition for property rights, then property rights are simply the consequence of the absence of an ultimate arbiter.
The same is true for the non-aggression principle: It only applies if there is no government. This goes even further. The state can even forbid you from talking about anarchy or property rights. Hence the state can even forbid you from debating the principle of self-ownership.
The central point of the principle of self-ownership is that you need to own your body in order to be able to argue. But you do not own your body under a state. The government not only seizes up to 70 percent of the fruits of your labor, it can also prevent you from exercising your right to argue. States all across the world indeed do this. Anarchists are not yet generally subject to censorship (in Germany, at least, efforts are concentrated on immigration critics for now), but the laws in place clearly apply to anarchists.
In Germany and many other countries, you are declared an enemy of state if you disagree with the government or spread subversive “propaganda” (the German term is even more appropriate “staatsfeindlich”, which means “hostile to the state”). And indeed, every anarchist is an enemy of the state. It is only a matter of time until they are imprisoned, at least under the New World Order, where there are no countries left to escape to. There just aren’t enough anarchists right now for them to be considered any great threat.
So as long as the government or indeed any ultimate arbiter exists, you can forget not only your property rights but even your right to argue in favor of them.
The beauty of this line of argument is you don’t need to know anything about philosophy, natural rights, or secret societies. It’s simply true. And the truth shall set you free. There’s no need to fight over semantics. What is natural? What is property? What is aggression? State lovers always find a way to turn things around.
They argue, for example, that they are “forced” to work in order to survive, or that it is an aggression if they do not get the salary they think they deserve. Of course, this is silly argumentation, but some listeners do not grasp this and will think they are right. But nobody can deny that the arbiter must not be part of the conflict. There are no semantics involved. Even if you argue about this with someone, you can always say:
“OK, we are in conflict here, would you mind if I act as ultimate arbiter and decide our conflict once and for all?” Either he agrees and you decide that you are right, or he refuses, which proves the point that the arbiter must not be part of the conflict.
Take this metaphor (rewritten in my own words) from the book Beyond Democracy, which I highly recommend:
Imagine 100 people board a bus. They start fighting over their destination. After endless debate, the majority decides where the bus will go. Now almost everyone is unhappy, even including most of the majority, because they cannot reach their specific destination. That’s democracy.
The solution to this problem would be for everyone to choose the bus which goes to his or her specifically desired destination. That’s anarchy or the free-market solution. In a state you are forced to get on that one bus and argue with the other passengers.
Democracy is institutionalized conflict. Anarchy is freedom of choice. Democracy is chaos. Anarchy is order.
The ruling class tells you the exact opposite. Reversing everything into its opposite is Satanic or Luciferian in itself. So there is no need to wonder if or why the ruling class supports Luciferianism. However, you don‘t have to believe in the supernatural in order to understand it. You can just call it evil. Which side are you on, good or evil?
Secret Societies in a private law society
Freemasons, big corporations, lobbyists, secret lodges, or whatever group comes to mind always exercise their power via government. Therefore, in a private law society, where there is no ultimate arbiter, these groups lose all their power.
Once you’ve found the root cause of a problem, you can reduce all problems to that. If you can’t trace an argument back to its root, your argument is wrong. So, let´s apply our principle to actual cases. The reason why the Clintons are not prosecuted is that the victims can only go to the ultimate arbiter, which is controlled by only one person: Donald Trump. So, the secret societies or lobbyists only need to control, influence, threaten or blackmail one man.
In a private law society, the victims can choose any company to investigate these crimes and they can choose which arbiter decides the case. I elaborate on that extensively in my upcoming book, but to put it briefly:
In a private law society, an insurance company defends your rights. These companies have a portfolio of arbitrating companies they trust and on which the customer agrees. If someone accuses someone else of a crime, the insurance companies of both parties agree on an arbiter. If they cannot agree, the accuser can always choose from the portfolio the defendant agreed on in his contract. For murders the insurance company will be the accuser, because otherwise the insurance company would lose its customers.
If the defendant has no insurance, he can still agree on an arbiter or choose one from the portfolio of the accuser’s insurance company. There will always be more than one instance where you can complain and at a certain stage the arbiter could be chosen randomly out of the most trusted companies, but I do not have the space to explain all different varieties here.
Crucially, if an arbiter makes terrible decisions they will lose all their customers. A common objection to a private law society is that it favors the rich. But actually the opposite is true. If, for example, a very wealthy individual or corporation wins a dispute even though they were obviously in the wrong, nobody would trust the arbiter any more. While the wealthy individual could bribe an arbiter in the first instance, the insurance company who chose this arbiter would lose millions of customers. It’s important to remember that large corporations or wealthy individuals or members of the power elite are always a small minority. No major corporation relies on a few rich customers. Yacht makers, for example, are medium-sized companies, because there are not enough rich people for them to grow any larger. Market-leading companies will always have to serve a majority of ordinary people.
Even if you think a wealthy individual could buy all arbitrating companies (and all insurance companies, who could set up their own arbitration companies. Which is impossible, but that’s a topic for my next book…), nobody can prevent you or anyone else from founding a new company, because there are no governmental laws which create market barriers. Obviously, no ordinary individual would sign a contract where he can only choose from a portfolio of arbiters who all belong to the same person or group. Even if you argue that the real ownership might be secret, this will become obvious on the first bad decision. And the next time you would refuse to choose one of those arbiters.
Today, you can only go to the government for arbitration, no matter how bad their decisions are. The power elite only need to control one person per country. This is the main reason they want a World Government. Because then you only need to control one person or a small group of individuals to rule the whole world. It is obvious that such a government would be totalitarian, even if it was started by well-meaning people.
Many questions will arise here but I have to come to an end. Until you can read my next book, I refer you to the works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, which are available in English, especially Democracy, the God that Failed and The Great Fiction, and of course everything by Murray Rothbard. mises.org and lewrockwell.com are also great resources. Other anarchists who describe how anarchy would work in the real world include David Friedman, Larken Rose, Jeff Berwick and others. In the age of YouTube I can especially recommend the work of Stefan Molyneux, who has also written some books that are available for free. I do not agree with everything these authors suggest (except for Hoppe), which is why I wrote my own book on this subject (only available in German for now), but these authors can at least give you some clear ideas of how this system could work.
It is vital to understand that no matter what propaganda is spread by the elite, without a government, nobody can force you to pay for it. For example, even if the media remains in the hands of a few (without the government, alternative media would stand a better chance), that cannot bother you. Even if they still spread the lie that climate change is caused by humans, they cannot force you to buy shitty electricity from windmills. Of course, without a government there would be no taxpayers who are forced to fund this phony science or other pseudo-sciences such as gender studies.
You also need to understand that the state’s court does not only makes bad decisions when it comes to their own issues. Although the Lisbon Treaty forbids bailouts, all constitutional courts in Europe confirmed the decisions, because the arbiter was part of the conflict. But even if the state is not part of the conflict, the state courts decide according to the ideology of the ruling class.
For example, in Germany migrants are treated much better than native Germans because it fits the multicultural liberal agenda. There are thousands of cases, but to cite just one: In April 2017, a court exculpated a Turkish migrant who brutally raped a German girl over the course of four hours. The judge even said there was absolutely no doubt that he raped her. But he was set free, because the judge decided that, because of his “culture”, the rapist thought it was not rape, even though he shackled her to the bed!
Of course, no rape victim would ever choose such an arbiter voluntarily. No woman would choose an insurance company who still had that arbitrating company in its portfolio. The judge would be held accountable and at least lose her job (Yes, it was a woman!). The next instance of arbitration would correct the verdict immediately.
Unbelievable judgments like this occur every day in Germany; you can read some of the cases on my website. But no judges are fired, and absolutely nothing changes! This alone is reason enough to abolish the state. Of course, security would improve immediately and massively. To make a comparison: The security the state monopoly produces is comparable to any other business a state monopoly would take over. In East Germany the cars produced by the socialist government were made from plastic and you had to wait ten years to get one. The monopoly of force is comparable to that car. A private law society is comparable to buying a Mercedes or a Ferrari for a much lower price than the cost of the government model.
No matter what the secret societies plan for you, they cannot force you into it. Today, you can even be hospitalized if you believe in “conspiracy theories”. The World Health Organization defines paranoid personality disorder with these symptoms:
…preoccupation with unsubstantiated „conspiratorial“ explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.
According to the British Medical Association the “[…] diagnosis of mental illness permits the state to detain an individual against their will and then insist on treatment in his or her own interest and in the wider interests of society.”
In Germany, the famous case of Gustl Mollath proves that these powers are indeed implied. Mollath was committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital, as the court deemed him a danger to the public and declared him insane based on expert diagnoses of paranoid personality disorder.
Mollath revealed a very real conspiracy of money laundering at a Bavarian bank where his wife worked. Some newspapers wrote that the Rotary Club was involved in the scandal, but some of these articles have since been deleted from the internet. They basically stated that Rotary Club members were not only involved in money laundering but also part of the justice system which sent Mollath into the hospital.
An impressive example of what we face under the New World Order was provided by the European Court of Human Rights. After some scandals surrounding Freemasons in Great Britain, in 1999 new judges were required to publicly disclose whether they were Masons. This should be natural, since judges serve the public, not the secret. Of course, in a private law society, the insurance companies or their customers could demand the same. But forget that if you have an international state court who can overrule such a useful rule. As the BBC reported in 2012:
But after a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, the requirement was dropped in 2009. Police officers have a voluntary requirement to disclose – but only to their superiors.
The same BBC report states:
Today a significant proportion of the Royal Household are members, and the Duke of Kent is grand master of the United Grand Lodge of England.
Three guesses who rules the European Court of Human Rights and who will rule the World Court of “Human Rights” under the New World Order…