Below you will find the full book Crowd Freedom. The book is free and should be shared with as many people as you know. This book is also available in audiobook on Youtube.

    by Quinton on February 15th, 2016

    Crowd Freedom

    How To Create A Free Society Without Government

    By Quinton Figueroa

    Dedicated To

    Ludwig von Mises
    Murray Rothbard
    Stefan Molyneux

    Chapter 1


    The need for a free society

    The biggest problem in the world is government. It doesn't matter whether it's Democratic, Socialistic, Dictatorial or anything else. All governments throughout the world initiate violence. The initiation of violence is the greatest problem which currently holds humanity back more than anything else.

    My name is Quinton and I'm an American... because a few hundred years ago some people used violence to get land and call it the United States of America. If you go back a bit further you will find that the countries in Europe also came about through violence. If you go back further you will see land being conquered through violence in pretty much every society in the past. Pretty much all of the countries we have right now are a result of violence. And it looks this way in the foreseeable future as well.

    As children we're taught not to use violence to get our way. As we grow into adults we're still told not to use violence -- we'll go to jail for it. But when we become the highest level political leaders throughout the world we use violence to get our way and are praised for it. This is where humans currently are at. The leaders throughout the world all use violence on other people throughout the world. If it's not okay for children and adults to use violence why is it okay for our leaders to use violence? I thought only criminals used violence. Why are the people who are supposed to be our leaders, the highest quality individuals, allowed to use violence to get their way?

    Have you ever wondered why we even have countries? Perhaps it's similar to why we have homes. You need some place to live so we have homes which we put in communities which we put in cities which we put in states which we put in countries on planet Earth. But the way we get our personal homes that we live in is quite different than the way we get our countries that we live in.

    We got our country through war, but we got our home through commerce. War and commerce are 2 very different things. One uses violence, the other does not. Large areas of property, countries, come about through violence while small areas of property, homes, come from non-violence and instead from contracts. I find this inconsistent. It's okay to use violence and war to get countries, but it's not okay to use violence and war to get homes. Countries and governments don't follow the same set of rules that we have for pretty much everything else in life. We treat countries differently. In our daily lives nothing comes about through violence. With governments everything does.

    Every country has a government. Why do we always have a government within a country? We should be able to have one without the other. Why can't I buy a country like I can buy a home? Why can't I buy a city? Why are cities, states and countries not property that can be bought? Why are countries and governments off limits? I can buy land only from somebody who originally got the land through violence. I can buy land within a country, but I can't buy the country itself. And even if I buy land within a country I never really own it, I'm still just renting it from the country. It's a sobering thought which we never really consider.

    The way we handle things in our daily lives is non-violent and always changing for the better, except for one blaring area: countries. Countries are off limits, similar to how questioning religion is off limits to religious people. We create exceptions for countries where they don't fall under the same rules as everything else in life.

    We allow for free competition and innovation in all businesses except for one: government. We disfavor monopolies in everything except for one: government. Laws, courts, police, roads, schools and an ever growing list of government agencies are all monopolies. We are worried about the possibility of monopolies in business yet we ignore the largest monopoly looking us right in our faces: government. We don't like to initiate the use of force or violence in anything except for one major thing: government.

    We have disassociated government with everything else. We have come to think it is something we have to work around, rather than it working around us. Government is the immovable religion of today that we can't dare question or improve. Government is perfect and we are imperfect. Okay, calling it perfect is taking it a bit far. We know it's not perfect, but we have to have it, right? Government is a necessary evil we tell ourselves. Government is something we have to put up with. It's too big to change. It's too big to do anything about. And after all, without government how would we have law and order? How would we protect people and allow for society to function? These same types of questions used to be asked about religion. How could we live a moral life without the Church? How could we talk to God without religion?

    So we just have to become more and more powerless as we watch a relic of the past wreak havoc on a world outgrowing old technology. Because that's all government really is, it's old, outdated technology. Our governments haven't been updated for centuries. C-E-N-T-U-R-I-E-S. We are running a really outdated version of government from hundreds of years ago and rather than creating a completely new version of government we would rather keep trying to patch the existing one. It's like replacing our computer with pen and paper. We have a better way to write and communicate than pen and paper, it's called the computer. And we also have a better way to govern. But that's bad news for the pen and paper.

    For decades and even centuries we have tried to rework the system rather than allow for the recreation of it. When a business is doing a poor job at something a competitor will rise up and do a better job than them and put them out of business. This is natural and great for society. This doesn't happen with governments. When a government does a bad job we don't have another government rise up and do a better job. When a government does a bad job another government does an even worse job. Governments don't operate like businesses. They don't continually compete against each other to improve. They don't advance -- they're not allowed to. I can't go start a country like I can a business. I can start a business so long as it falls within the parameters of my government. But what if I want to start a government? What parameters does this fall under? It's not possible right now because it's never been done. At least without violence it's never been done.

    But I think the time is here for that to change. I think the time is here for competing governments. I think the time is here for competing cities. I think the time is here for us to start looking at society a bit differently. I think the time is here to do away with governments and the violence that comes with them. Violence is barbaric and unnecessary in a civilized world, just as slavery was in the past. We all know violence is bad. And that's what governments are.

    So that's what this book is about. This book is about developing the framework and resources to create a new country. And then another. And then another. Because the more free societies we create the higher quality they will be.

    What do I mean by free society?

    A free society is a location where an individual can live without having force initiated on them by another individual. It's such a simple request and dream, yet it is met with some of the most vile hatred and elementary excuses you will ever find. We will get more into specifics later, but when I say free society I am talking about a society without taxation, without conscription, without forced education or any of the other violent behaviors we call civilized. I am talking about a society without, dare I say, government -- the mac-daddy of violence.

    When we look a bit deeper at government we find that:

    • Taxation is theft
    • War is mass murder
    • Military and Jury conscription are forced labor and enslavement
    • Imprisonment of victimless crimes is kidnapping
    • Public schools are forced indoctrination
    • Police are armed thugs
    • Licenses are permission slips from your masters
    • Welfare is theft
    • National debt is enslavement of unborn

    And the list goes on and on. When our current society is looked at with the same measure of morality that we use to view our everyday lives it is simple to see just how immoral it really is. If we were to individually or collectively do any of the things the government does we would go to jail. But when the government does it we think it suddenly becomes okay because, well, we have to have government!

    A free society is a society that allows for individual choice without violence. Choice without violence. That is all there is to it. And pulling this off isn't complicated, it's just something we're not used to thinking about. Most people are non-violent 100% of the time. So it's not like it's a hard thing, we just don't think it's possible in government, or at least we've never even considered it. But we need to start considering it because once we do we will upgrade the way we do government to a new technology that makes everyone's lives better, similar to how once we acknowledged that slavery was wrong we were able to upgrade society forward. At first it might be tricky to see how society without government and the initiation of force is possible. But the more we do it the easier it becomes. It's just like when we learned how to ride a bike. The first few times it was a bit tricky and seemed impossible. But after you keep trying and putting time into it you finally get it. By the time you're done with this book I'm sure you'll view it differently than you did before. Most things you do the first time are weird. But once you've seen how something can work it starts to make more sense.

    So when I talk about a free society I am talking about a voluntary society without the initiation of force or violence. This is all a free society really is. And this simple premise exposes how absurd and outdated the current systems throughout the entire world really are.

    The scope of such a project

    In this world we have countries as the largest entities that control a piece of land. Then from there we have states and provinces, then we have counties, then we have cities, then we have districts. It's all the same thing with a different scale. When we think of land we normally think of it in some type of structure like this. But it doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to have a city within a country. It's possible for a city to be a country. That's what Vatican City is. Vatican City is not a city, it's a country. You don't have to be a huge size to be a country, you simply need to be independent.

    The kind of free society I am talking about would probably start at a smaller level like the city-level, but it could most certainly scale up larger as necessary. Just because it would be a city doesn't mean it can't operate like a country. Just because I am talking about an independent city doesn't mean it would need to be in a country. It wouldn't. The city itself would be the country.

    So what I am looking to accomplish is the creation of a city that would not allow for the use of violence or the initiation of force -- for anyone there. What I am talking about is a city without government. I know that when I say without government your alarm bells immediately go off and you think to yourself, "But how will we have police?" or "How will we have roads?". This will all be addressed.

    I understand the scope of this is immense. The scope of anything that's worthwhile is usually pretty immense. But think about it. 99% of our lives are already done without government. Most of the things we do in our everyday lives do not involve government. They really don't. And those little things that do involve government can be done by somebody else besides government, without the initiation of violence. So removing the extra 1% really isn't that much.

    Everyone copies each other these days as opposed to innovating. This is essentially what globalization is. The whole world right now is copying America and other Western nations. They're copying outdated software with viruses. They shouldn't be copying, they should be creating new software. We need to innovate in government, not replicate it. We already know our government is bad, it's predicated on violence. We should be improving it, not copying it and selling it throughout the world.

    Almost all businesses in the world are focusing on innovating within the framework of a structure that doesn't allow for freedom to innovate. We have car companies following regulations which halt innovation. We have medical companies following regulations which halt innovation. We have education companies following regulations which halt innovation. We see it everywhere right now. The problem isn't a lack of entrepreneurs or smart people in industries. The problem is a system which keeps those entrepreneurs and smart people from truly doing something better that is outside of the box. We are trying to innovate within the box of government. If we want to think outside of the box then we need to stop throwing people in jail for thinking outside of the box. Let me say that again. If we really want people to think outside the box then we need to actually allow people to think outside the box. And government doesn't allow for you to think outside the box. Thinking outside the box within government is usually a crime. The free society that I am talking about is most certainly outside of the box.

    I have reached the realization that we can't change the current system of government that we have. And we can't fix the current system. America didn't change England in 1776. They started fresh. And I think that's what we need to do also. We've tried to fix government but it just keeps getting worse and worse. It's a broken system that can't be fixed with a broken system for fixing it. We can't fix the system within the broken box. Einstein had it right when he said:

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

    Albert Einstein

    When we try to change the system from within we are using the same level of thinking we used when we created it. We can't use that kind of thinking to fix it -- and we don't need to anymore. We have a much better level of thinking that is outside of the system. We can create a society outside of government. Government is outdated technology and we have much better solutions for society that don't involve the initiation of force.

    We don't need to convince everyone of a free society. A great number of people are happy with their current governments. There's a lot of people who enjoy outdated technology and who take time to adopt new, better things. We see this all the time with phones, the Internet, televisions and cars. If people are happy with their governments then that is great, they should keep them and keep using them. We can create a society without these people. There are plenty of people who are not happy with their governments and who see the inherent flaws and problems and know that there's a better way. These are the people who want a free society. These are the people who are willing to give something new a try.

    If something like this sounds crazy to you then you really don't have to do anything. In fact, I would prefer you do nothing. Let all the other entrepreneurs and myself do something while you sit around, point your finger and say it's not possible. And when we do gain momentum please continue to do nothing and let us non-violently create society outside of violence. Because that's all we want. We want you to do nothing. We want you to leave us alone. I can assure you there are thousands, if not millions, of entrepreneurs who do want to do something because they are frustrated that the whole world wants to control, violently by force, how they should build a better future. All we need to do is hand them a blank slate and let the entrepreneurs do the rest. So please, do nothing, and when we build momentum and pick up traction, continue to do nothing so that we can remain free.

    The thinking and theories are in. The data and tests are in. The way a free society works has been discussed, theorized and tested for years. Now it's time to put it into action for real. If there's one thing I can't stand it's people complaining over and over again and never actually doing anything about it. Forget complaining. That just puts more energy on what we don't want. We already know what we don't want. Now we need to create what we do want. We need to focus on taking action towards building our reality the way we see fit. This is our world and our reality. It's our planet and we have the ability to change it. It's ours. And we're here to live how we want to live. If people want to practice slavery we don't have to. If people want to practice theft we don't have to. If people want to practice violence we don't have to.

    What we're doing now isn't working. Politics doesn't work. I don't need to tell you this. Everyone knows this. Where people differ is on what to do about it. Most people want to fix it. I don't want to fix it. I want to supersede it. I want to completely outdo and rebuild it from the ground up. Society needs to be re-written. The very core of society is built on a flawed premise: the initiation of violence. The core of society should be built on a correct premise: the non-initiation of violence. The core of society should be built on freedom and choice, not violence.

    Would you rather donate $100 to a dead-end political campaign that can't possibly change anything, or would you rather donate $100 to a well-defined plan of action that has a chance of bringing more freedom to the entire world? Would you rather take a chance on an egotistical politician or a selfless entrepreneur? Wouldn't you rather put your money in something like this where you know at least this is something different? Wouldn't you rather support people who don't want to change anything about your current life, but instead want to try testing something on the side that they are confident will work? I know where I would put my money. And I know where I would put my life.

    This book isn't only about talking about a free society. This book is unique in that it is about creating one. This book is a starting road map for actually ending the talk about how bad governments are, and instead doing something about it -- but doing something about it in a different way.

    This is more than just a book. This is an evolving framework to answer questions and provide insight on the steps necessary. This is a starting point to be built upon. This book is the gateway to the website which will include the technicals, the software and the world-wide community needed to organize a free society.

    This is written from an American perspective, however, it most certainly applies to the whole world. At the end of the day pretty much all governments act the same. And to the degrees that they don't act the same they act closer and closer to the American framework each day. Governments want to copy America. And America was a great framework for its time. But this time requires an even better framework. A framework without violence.

    This book should read and feel balanced. A lot of work has been done to make sure all the different parts fit together with one another and reinforce each other. This book is built upon a few foundational principles and then those principles are expanded upon throughout. Before we get into the specifics of a free society, let's first look at a few core principles.

    Chapter 2


    First Principles & Universally Preferable Behavior

    The closer you get to the core of something the better you can understand the true nature of it. The closer we can get to core principles that can encompass the human experience the better. In math, the simplest equation is the best. The same goes for human principles.

    I could come up with 100 rules that beat around the bush of something or I could just get to the core of it with 1 rule. I could be like don't shoot others. Don't steal from others. Don't hit other people. Don't spit on people. Don't force people to do things physically. Or I could just say: don't initiate violence.

    The better the principle, the clearer the results.

    The principle of addition and subtraction is a great principle. I don't need to have laws stating what every possible mathematical outcome using addition or subtraction is. I can just use that 1 principle because it is foundational. It always works the same and applies to all addition and subtraction. I don't need to have statutes for every possible arithmetic problem such as 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, 2+2 and on and on. I can just explain how addition works and then no matter what numbers you provide addition will follow the same principle to solve the problem.

    When we develop principles dealing with humans we want to do something like addition and subtraction. We want principles that are so foundational in their aim that they can not be reduced any further. You can't simplify addition and subtraction because they are as simple as it gets. This is what we need to do with principles dealing with people.

    We want to aim for consistency and universality. Things that can be universalized are generally good. Many of the things we would call bad can not be universalized. Universal things that apply to everyone are favorable.

    An obvious example to universality is stealing. You can't universalize stealing. If everyone were to steal from each other then everyone would constantly have things taken from them. It would be hard for people to obtain property and work for things if what they obtained was always stolen from them. So if everybody stole there would be problems. It can't be universalized. But if everyone didn't steal, and if everyone respected other people's property then we would not have issues. People not stealing can be universalized. If everyone didn't steal we don't have issues. Therefore, stealing is probably not a good thing.

    If everyone raped each other we would have lots of problems. But if everyone didn't rape each other we wouldn't have problems.

    If everyone helped each other we wouldn't have problems. So helping is a good thing. This is a basic, simple, foundational way of looking at people.

    This kind of thinking should be borne closely in mind as we move forward. With people we want to do things that deal with first principles and universality.


    We are all humans with unique human needs. Plants have unique needs, animals have unique needs and so do humans. To keep humans from needs is anti-human. Just as to keep plants from needs like sunlight or water is anti-plant.

    So we want to allow for basic human needs, but when we allow for these basic human needs we don't want to infringe on the needs of others. We want to universalize these basic needs to where it is consistent and can be applied to everyone, not just a few. One person's needs should not interfere with another's needs.

    What are humans' basic needs? Well, let's explore this. Some things that will immediately come to mind to most people will be things like food, water, shelter, and so on. Okay, and how do humans get these things? They find them, hunt for them, build them, etc. These basic things are provided by people transforming nature and resources. So even more foundational than food and shelter people need the ability to transform resources. Humans need material objects and land for their use. Without the ability to use land to grow food or hunt there wouldn't be food. So humans need land. And they need the ability to transform what is on this land. Humans need the ability use resources like wood to create shelter. Humans need the ability to transform resources to their needs.

    Now here is a very, very important point to understand. Is food a right that people have? Should all humans have food or should they have to create that food themselves? Well, can this be universalized? If food is universalized who provides the food? Somebody is going to be receiving the food and another is going to be providing the food. Why should one person be the provider and another the receiver? Wouldn't everyone want to the be the receiver? Why not have everyone on the receiving end? Because then there would be no food. This goes back to first principles and universality. If you want to universalize food it requires you to force the person producing the food to give it to others. This is no different than trying to universalize stealing. You can't universalize this.

    You can universalize people transforming resources to their own use. Everyone is free to use the resources around them. If you use resources around you to create something you are not using force on another person. If you claim an unused piece of land and start farming there nobody is hurt. If you force a doctor to perform healthcare on you because it is a right then you are using force. If you force somebody to build a house for you then you are using force. This is why food, shelter and all these other things are not part of humans' basic needs because they require using force on another human. This is why plants need sun and it's okay because they can all have sun without using force on another plant. This is so foundational and important to understand.

    Yes, of course we would all like to have food and shelter and all these things given to us for free. But we're not quite there yet. Things still take labor and time from other humans and they require the transformation of resources to create them. Yes, we are getting better at it, and we are able to transform more resources for cheaper, but they're not quite free yet. Free food isn't the same as free air. Free food requires work from another human, free air does not. We can universalize air for everyone without hurting anyone. We can not do the same with food and lots of other things that people confuse as human rights.


    Who owns us? Who owns yourself? Can a person even be owned? Why even ask such a question? Why even have ownership? Let's just keep it simple. You speak. You do things. You take action on things. You make decisions of what to do and what not to do on a daily basis. Who controls these actions that you do? You're obviously deciding them so who should take credit for them? Who is this you doing these things? Something is making actions happen. Is it you? Is it somebody else? Who is it? I'm glad you asked.

    When asking about ownership there are 3 basic options that we have:

    1. You (or you and others) do
    2. Another person (or other people besides you) do
    3. Everyone does

    If you go through all 3 of these only 1 ever makes sense. This is a really important point to understand. Keep in mind all questions of ownership come back to these 3 main options. There really aren't any other options. And of those 3 options there is 1 that clearly makes the most sense.

    In the case of yourself there are 3 options who owns you:

    1. You own yourself
    2. Another person or many other people own you
    3. Everyone owns you

    It makes sense that you own yourself. What about other people owning you? Do other people own you and make decisions for you? No, that's slavery. What about everyone owning you? Why doesn't everyone own a part of everyone else? How would that work? How do you make it so you equally divide everyone and manage the ownership of 7 billion people with 7 billion other people? Of course that doesn't make sense either. So clearly you own yourself.

    Since humans can think, feel, evaluate and act only as individuals, it becomes necessary that they are free to learn, choose and develop themselves. Since you own yourself you are able to control yourself and choose how you want to act. Other people can't do it for you. Just as we can't tell other people what to do. This is a core, fundamental principle that can be universalized. So this is an extremely powerful realization to build upon.

    If you don't own yourself then any man should be able to rape any woman. If a woman doesn't own herself and other people do then other people can do as they wish with her. If everyone owns a woman then everyone can do as they wish with her. It's blatantly obvious that a woman owns herself. And so too does anyone else own themselves.

    This leads us to a right to self-ownership -- to control the body free of coercive interference. The right to self-ownership allows people to practice in their human nature. If people don't own themselves then we have slavery where somebody else does.

    So our body is property. We own ourselves. Ourselves is property to us. This is fundamental towards the human experience. Somebody else doesn't own us, we own us. We are us.

    We hear of human rights. Human rights are property rights. You can't have one without the other. So whatever falls into property rights for individuals are human rights. The only equal right people should have is the right to their property. Food isn't a human right because it can't be universalized. Ownership of yourself is a human right because it can be universalized. Somebody else can't own you because that can't be universalized. I hope this is starting to make some sense.

    We also own the effects of our actions. Our actions are an extension of ourselves. In order to argue against humans owning their actions is to claim property to your argument which is an affirmation towards ownership of the effects of actions.

    We are individuals, not a collective group. We act as individuals, not as a group. We can have group actions, but the core of us is not a group. The core of us is an individual.

    So this is foundational, principle stuff. We own ourselves and the effects of our actions. So much stems from this. And all of this is done universally, where it applies to everyone without interfering with another person. We can all operate this way without disturbing anyone else. You would be hard pressed to find another way to state something that can be universalized for everyone.

    I know this stuff is a bit confusing and technical if you've never heard it before. Give it some time and let it sink in. Throw it around in your head for a while and question it hard. Try to tear it apart. Try to dismantle it. It's hard to do because it is foundational.


    Let's move on a bit from people now. Say somebody draws a picture. Who owns it? Once again, there are 3 options:

    1. The person who drew it does
    2. Somebody or a group of other people do
    3. Everyone owns a part of it

    What makes the most sense? It's not even a question and it is obvious. The person who drew it owns it. We actually like for people to own things because it allows for the unique, individual expression and creation of each individual. If people didn't own their drawings they probably wouldn't do them. The last thing a creator of anything wants to do is slap another person's name on it and give the credit to somebody else. When people own things they treat them better and take better care of them. When people own things they pour their heart into it.

    "If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization"

    Ludwig von Mises

    Property is a more advanced stage of civilization. When we use property to own things we are able to create economies which allow for people to specialize in what they are good at and exchange with others their property. Most of the innovations we have today come about because of property. Because people are able to take their ideas and turn them into their own property we advance civilization forward.

    All property is just like the drawing. All property is the same. Certain types of property don't follow certain rules and other types of property don't follow other rules. Property is property, just as addition is addition. Crops grown by a farmer belong to the farmer. Cars created by a manufacturer belong to the manufacturer. iPhones created by Apple belong to Apple. If the iPhones created by Apple did not belong to them then Apple wouldn't create them. People do things when they own what they do. It's not the only reason people do things, but without people owning what they did a lot less people would do what they do.

    If when Apple made an iPhone and it didn't belong to them so that they could sell it they would stop making iPhones. If Ford didn't own the car they just created and instead other people outside of Ford, or even every person on earth owned that car Ford would no longer create cars. Why would they? Would you want to create something that somebody else owned? Would you want to create a meal for yourself and then give it to somebody else to own so that you could starve? Yes, of course I understand sharing. I'm not talking about sharing. I'm talking about prioritizing. A women shouldn't have to share her body with other people. It's up to her on how to prioritize that. The same can be said for any other piece of property. If somebody wants to share that is one thing, but somebody should never be forced to share. Sharing is a choice. And people have the choice on whether or not to share their own property.

    Well why not force everyone to share? Because forcing people to share can't be universalized. If everyone is forced to share then we have somebody receiving something for free and somebody being forced to provide something. You can't force people to do things. That's fundamentally immoral.

    But what about land? How do you deal with the ownership of land? Clearly land is a special and unique case. No, it's not. Land is the exact same as anything else. Land used to produce something is owned by that producer.

    Let's again go through the possible options with land:

    1. You own it
    2. Others own it
    3. Everyone owns it

    Which makes the most sense?

    If everyone owns a piece of land then they can't all possibly use it or even have an equal say with what to do with it. If everyone owns a piece of land then it follows that they must also own all of every piece of land. And if they own all the land we are right back to determining how to best make use of the land. How are we going to organize 7 billion people to all have an equal say in managing and deciding what to best do with the land? Of course we can't do this and it would be a complete disaster. It doesn't make sense.

    But what about others owning a piece of land? Why can't other people outside of you own land? Well, why would they be allowed to own land but not you? Why can one group own land but not you? You own yourself. You own what you create. Why can't you own what you produce with land that you find or purchase? Why can't you have your own land? Why is okay for others to own land and not you? It's not and it doesn't make sense either.

    So once again the only thing that makes sense with land is you being able to own the land that you use. Are you starting to see a pattern here?

    How do you originally own a piece of land? By using it. And if you stop using it you no longer own it. There is tons and tons of land to be used. Many of the people who make money off of land are people who found a way to transform the resources of the land into something that is useful for people. And there are an infinite amount of ways to use land to transform it into useful ways for humans. There is no shortage of land in the world. There is a shortage of people willing to put the work and effort into transforming that land into something of value.

    But what if all the land gets owned? What if some greedy corporation buys up all the land and creates a monopoly on all the land on the planet? Well if this happens would you concede that something must be done about it? Surprise! That's what we already have with governments! But worse, they didn't buy the land, they violently stole it. And they don't let us use the land because they own the land. Or they charge us to use the land. Governments throughout the world already own most of the land. This is my exact point. But without government wouldn't some corporation buy up all the land and make even worse use of it than government? No, because if somebody made bad use of land they would go out of business. The government can't go out of business. This is a huge topic that will be discussed in full in the next chapter.

    Suffice to say the only thing that makes the most sense with land ownership is individuals owning land. And when I say individuals I'm not just talking about one person. It can be you plus other people. But it can't be other people and not you. Then you don't own it. Land can be owned by multiple people. It is the entity including you that I am referring to when I say you. Land needs to be owned by people who use land. Your body is owned by you because you use it, your car is owned by you because you use it, and everything else you own is your property, not someone else's. Again this stuff becomes more clear the more you think about it. At first it's a bit weird because we're not educated to think like this.

    Property is about most effectively and efficiently using finite resource transformation in a world of infinite desires. There is only a finite amount of human energy that can be put into transforming the many resources throughout the world into something of value. There are virtually infinite resources on Earth. But they need to be transformed before they can be used. And the transformation of them into something valuable is not infinite. It is limited by people and their time and energy. We have to find the best ways to transform these resources. Property ownership of resources is by far the best way that has ever been devised to manage the transformation of these resources.

    The Non-Aggression Principle

    Now there is a 2nd part to property ownership.

    In order to own yourself you need to be free from coercion. If you are coerced out of owning yourself this is breaking your self ownership. Somebody is infringing on it. If somebody initiates violence on you then they are infringing on your property, yourself. To use violence to interfere with the human experience is anti-human. It violates man's needs just as keeping sun from a plant violates its need. Violence can't be universalized. If you initiate coercion on another person you are no longer practicing behavior which can be universalized. If everybody initiated force on everyone else we would have problems. If everyone did not initiate force on everyone else we would not have problems, which is why the non-initiation of force is essential to property.

    From this we can gather an important principle: the non-aggression principle, or NAP. The non-aggression principle basically states that the non-initiation of force is a moral principle for humans because it can be universalized and allows for the greatest fulfillment of human needs. The NAP is pro-human. When we violate the NAP we are being anti-human.

    The non aggression principle and property go hand in hand. You can't have property without non-aggression. If people can freely steal your property then it's not property. If people can freely violate you then you don't own yourself. If we can go around raping anyone we want then we don't have property rights. So there has to be some container or thing that keeps people from messing with your property. There is, the NAP.

    This doesn't mean that you can't use force as a defense. It means that you can't use force as an offense. You can't initiate force on another person. Defending property is much different than offensively aggressing against property. If somebody tries to steal from you and you defend your property you are claiming ownership by defending it. If everyone defends their property this can be universalized and we have no problems. If everyone attacks other people's property we do have problems. So it is the initiation of force that is the problem, not defense with force.

    The NAP is the most basic of ethical principles. It is about as foundational as you can get and many other principles stem from it. It's what we teach our kids when they are younger. We teach kids not to use use force on other kids when they are growing up. And since the NAP is universal it applies to everyone no matter the age, race, status or number of people. It doesn't matter if you're 5 or 65, initiation of force is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're White, Black, Asian or Hispanic, initiation of force is wrong. It doesn't matter if 1 person initiates force or a group of 1,000,000 democratically elected people initiate force, it's still wrong. The potency of the NAP is in the simplicity of it. Simple things have less room for error. The closer you can get to the core of ethics the better. And the NAP, which goes together with property, is about as simple as you can get.

    Say somebody creates a phone. There are 2 ways you can get them to transfer this phone to you:

    1. Voluntarily
    2. Involuntarily

    You can offer money, trade something you have or be their best friend or something like this. Or you can steal the phone or pull a gun and demand it. The only moral way to get things from people is with their consent, voluntarily. If a group of people all want your phone and we all have a democratic election voting in favor of your phone then we are violating the NAP. As has been stated earlier, even if 1,000,000 people democratically vote to take the phone from somebody it still doesn't make it morally right. You are still initiating force on another person's property without their consent, which is anti-human and a lower level of civilization.

    So the NAP is a solid foundation which many other truths can be built upon. When we ask whether or not something is wrong we should first ask whether it violates the NAP. This is a much better indicator than a law. You will find that almost all things we read about as being immoral or wrong violate the NAP. The NAP is the common thread behind most things that are immoral. The thing is, since most people don't recognize the NAP they allow certain institutions and people to violate it.

    Is there ever a justified time to initiate violence? Let me ask you, is there ever a justified time to initiate rape or slavery? Rape and slavery are both the initiation of force. Are these okay? Are these any different than any other forms of the initiation of force? Let's continue with this foundation.

    Chapter 3


    Choice & Freedom

    I think most people would agree that freedom is a good goal for society. They may not know the best way to achieve this, and they may create contradictory laws and governments to try to get there, but to most people freedom is a good goal. It certainly is the most moral goal and it is universal. The goal of society should be to allow each individual the maximum amount of choice. Having the ability to exercise choice is what freedom is. Freedom is when a person and their property are not invaded against. That is the mission. Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand. When you restrict property, you restrict freedom. If you want maximum freedom, then you need maximum property ownership.

    A slave who does not own themselves is not free. A slave who does own themselves is no longer a slave. Slavery is a condition where the slave has no right to self ownership. Slavery is a property violation of self. Slavery has to do with property of oneself.

    You can't have choice with force. If you rape somebody they aren't choosing to have sex with you. You take away that choice. If you force people to pay taxes they are not choosing to pay these taxes. When you take away force people act differently, they act closer to what they really believe. You don't really know if people want something or not if you use force to get that decision. If you hold a gun to somebody's head and tell them to give you their money they are giving you their money not by choice, but because you are initiating force on them. If people don't have a free choice to a decision then it's not really their choice. And if it's not their choice then they're not free.

    Being able to succeed or fail is one of the greatest gifts a human can have. Being able to succeed or fail is what choice is all about. If you could only succeed you wouldn't be choosing. If you could only fail you wouldn't be choosing. We learn through choice. We need to have the ability to choose and learn through the consequences of our choices. This is a big part of life. If you take away the ability for somebody to choose you are taking away the ability for somebody to exercise their ownership of themselves. If people don't choose, they aren't free. Free people have the ability of choice. And being able to choose doesn't always mean choosing the right things.

    A human needs freedom to choose. A human needs freedom to make mistakes. A human needs to choose on their own rather than be told what to do. Humans learn through practice and mistakes. When we know what we don't want we better know what we do want. But if we are never allowed to choose then we are never allowed to discover what we don't and do like.

    When we choose we are acting as individuals. When we are told we are acting as a group. Since at the core we are indeed individuals and not a group of people, we need to bring out choices to the individual level, rather than the group level. Individuals have more freedom than a group since an individual is a simplification of a group. A group of people is multiple properties (people). A single individual is a single property. We can most closely represent ourselves with our choices than we can a group of people.

    We want to bring the greatest amount of power into ourselves, and to do that we need to exercise our individual choice. But what if we choose poorly? We will. That is part of freedom. If we have freedom then we have the ability to make bad decisions and the ability to make good decisions. But if we don't have freedom we don't have any decisions at all. Without freedom we aren't even living.

    Of course, not everyone wants the freedom to choose. Many people would rather be told what to do, what to believe, and how to live their lives. These people prefer security over freedom. The most secure place is a prison, and it is also the least free. If you want freedom you need self-responsibility, or rather the courage to live as your own individual. If you want freedom you need to own your actions. If you don't want self-responsibility then you can't have freedom. This is what many people want and if that is what they want that is fine. This project isn't for them at this point. At a later time they may change that view. But this project is for people who do want freedom, the ability to make choices without force. And right now there isn't a place to do that anywhere in the world.

    Government & Markets

    Now we're getting into a big part of this book. Everything we've been talking about so far has been building towards this section. We now need to break down the contrast between governments and markets.

    Let's first define government and markets. The definitions you find in a book for government are pretty worthless because they are too general. A book will define government as something like, a government is:

    "the governing body of a nation, state or community"

    How do they govern? How do they control? How do they regulate? With force of course, through taxation. Government is force that people choose to use on others to carry out services that they think require the government.

    In contrast to government we have the market. What about markets? How do markets govern? How do markets control? How do markets regulate? Markets are voluntary exchange. Markets allow people to exchange products and services between each other freely without force. Participation in a market is voluntary. Participation in government is involuntary. You can opt-out of a market. You can not opt-out of a government, unless you move (and even then you still may not fully be out). Do governments or markets allow for more choice? This is all about allowing the maximum amount of choice. Force doesn't allow for choice. Voluntary exchange is choice.

    Markets don't belong in government. Most people view markets as something that governments should manage. It doesn't work this way. Markets are outside of and above governments. Society is markets. Because we haven't put much thought into it we just default to having others rule our lives through government rather than thinking about what society should be and what the best way to accomplish this is.

    The government is a monopoly. If you don't like how the government does something you can't compete against it and do something better. You have to work through the government system in order to change it. We have to work through a democratic system rather than a market system. Markets always allow for competition to do something better if another company is doing something wrong. We hear about monopolies in markets. This really can't happen in a market because you always have the freedom to choose which business to support. If a company really is a monopoly in a market system you don't have to buy their services. You can buy from a company that isn't a monopoly. Nobody can force anything on you in a market and because of this it is not possible for a monopoly to exist in a market.

    But monopoly through government is possible and a current reality. If the government has a monopoly on the legal system I can't compete against them. If the government has a monopoly on the school system I can't compete against them. I can augment and build something on top of what they are doing, but I can't replace it. That's a monopoly. In the market system, if a company is doing something wrong I can start my own company to do that something right. In the market I always have the ability to do something that I see as better. With government I can't start my own company to fix whatever it is they're doing wrong. If government is exploiting people I can't remedy this problem through my own competing business. If the government is telling me I need to pay money to a government program I can't exercise the choice not to. This is a monopoly. So businesses within markets aren't monopolies, governments are monopolies, and moreover monopolies through coercion.

    The government is the biggest initiator of violence in the world. The government has a monopoly on violence. Nobody else throughout the entire world is allowed to initiate violence legally except the government. Really think about that and let it sink in. What company in the market is allowed to initiate violence on people? What makes the government any different? Because we vote for it? We also used to vote for slavery. Voting for it doesn't make it right. Because we need somebody to keep law and order? Then why initiate violence? Why offensively invade the property of others with force? If somebody does something bad then use defense. But why initiate violence on somebody because they don't agree with the democratic majority? Why allow the majority to invade the property of another human when we have already established that property rights should be universal. People should not have force initiated against them. You can't randomly choose which people you can initiate force on and which people you can't.

    All governments throughout the world have a monopoly on force, it doesn't matter which type. The following are all violent and violate the NAP:

    • Socialism
    • Communism
    • Fascism
    • Democracy
    • Monarchy
    • Oligarchy
    • Aristocracy
    • Theocracy
    • Dictatorship
    • Republics

    These all violate the NAP. These systems are all failures for society because they inhibit individual choice, the most basic freedom. They all use force to take away choice. Remember the initiation of force is anti-human. Initiating force is a lesser form of civilization. When we initiate force we are devolving, not evolving.

    "It's a basic fact of life that anyone who wants to force you to do something means their ideas are shit to begin with. Not a lot of rapists are very good lovers because they don't have to sell quality; they got violence."

    Stefan Molyneux

    Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with NAP. Capitalism is defined as:

    "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government"

    Obviously what we call Capitalism today is not real capitalism. We don't have Capitalism anywhere in the world today. The word Capitalism has changed. Just like the world Liberal has changed. Or the word Gay. It takes more than just a surface level view of society to understand this. This is why you're reading a book like this. It takes more than just a 5 minute news segments to truly grasp the entire brilliance, simplicity and truth behind Capitalism, or simply markets and voluntary exchange. Choice. Freedom. That's all Capitalism is. Capitalism is the only economic system which champions markets, and markets are voluntary exchange, not forceful exchange. Markets allow 100% choice. Nobody can hurt you in Capitalism unless you first allow them to. In any other system people can and will hurt you even if you do not want them to.

    All governments depend on taxation. When governments tax they are violating the NAP. This is one of the main reasons why governments are violent. Governments all rely on taxation to run. If governments didn't tax people they wouldn't exist. If taxes were voluntary people would choose not to pay them. So governments force people to pay taxes. But governments don't use force to make people pay taxes you say. What happens if you don't pay taxes? Government will eventually come after you and use force to put in you jail. If people don't pay taxes the government will at some point or another use force to either imprison the person or make them pay taxes. So yes, taxation is violent.

    As has already been stated: Taxation is theft, war is mass murder, military and jury conscription are forced labor and enslavement, imprisonment of victimless crimes is kidnapping, public schools are forced indoctrination, police are armed thugs, welfare is theft, national debt is enslavement of unborn and on and on. These are all highly immoral, violent behaviors that would be abhorred if done by anybody but the government. But when the government does them we change our position on the morality of them. We incorrectly believe that it is okay for government to do them because we think we need government.

    Government creates 2 class divisions:

    1. The rulers
    2. The ruled

    The rulers use force and the ruled get force used on them. This is a huge problem because one group of people should not have a monopoly of violence on another group of people. Government isn't a super-class who is above everyone else. Government is just as accountable to its actions as non-government citizens are. Being part of government doesn't make a person exempt from rules which are not allowed outside of government. If you can't force people to give you money in your business you can't do it in government business. This is one of the largest errors of society. When understood at this level the government becomes no different than a gang of criminals doing things that would be illegal to do in everyday life. We have become accustomed to the state. We don't even think twice when they initiate force because we believe that our current system of voting is the right way to do things. It's obviously not, it's outdated technology. If the mafia comes up to you and forces you to give them your money it's criminal. If the government comes up to you and forces you to give them your money because one team voted for it then that's perfectly legal and actually good. Huh?

    But we democratically elect and vote for this so it's okay. Is it okay for 10 white guys to vote to hang 1 black man? Is it okay for 10 guys to vote to rape 1 woman? That's democratic too. Just because something is democratic or popular doesn't make it right. There are many dumb things we used to do that were democratic and popular that we no longer do. Slavery used to be democratically okay. There are still democratic things we do that are popular but are wrong. Using force through government is the main one.

    Democracy is a terrible way to make decisions. Democracy is a system for letting everyone choose 1 decision to force on everyone. Imagine if you went to a restaurant and everyone had to eat the same food as everyone else. Imagine sitting down at a restaurant with 50 customers and then all 50 customers voted on what to eat. You can't choose your own individual meal. The group chooses the same meal for everyone. Democracy allows Team A to take choice away from Team B. Why do that when you don't need to? You don't need to use democracy. It's outdated technology. Team A can have what they want and Team B can have what they want. And more specifically, we don't even need teams. Each individual in Team A can make their own choices and each individual in Team B can make their choices. If they want to allow the Team to make their choices for them then let them. But don't force everybody to play on a team if they don't want to. You don't need to put 2 sides against each other and then violently coerce people for follow the dictates of a team. That's outdated.

    It's possible to go to a restaurant and allow each person to order their own food, just as it's possible to have a society where each person can order their own services. If a person doesn't want to have other people choose how their money should be spent via taxes then they shouldn't have to. Rather than give their money to the team they should be able to spend their money directly for the services they want. If taxes go towards police, courts, roads, health, education and so on then a person should be able to choose which services to use for these things directly. The same way a person can choose an entree at a restaurant they should be able to choose their service in a society. We don't all need to vote for the one true type of education that everyone should use. We don't need to vote for the one true type of healthcare that everyone should use. We don't need to lump everyone's money together via taxes and then all vote on where that should go. That's outdated technology. We don't do it with houses, cars, phones and spouses. Why should government services be any different? It most certainly should not and doesn't need to be.

    So the non-initiation of force is the #1 reason why markets are better than government. That itself is enough to make markets by far better than government. The initiation of force is the greatest thing keeping people from freedom. The difference between governments and markets is the difference between rape and sex. To promote force and governments is to promote rape on a societal level. To promote choice and markets is to promote consensual sex on a societal level. We all know that rape is wrong and we will go to great lengths to prevent rape. How could we oppose rape so vehemently but then allow government rape? Is rape wrong or isn't it?


    Now, not only are markets morally better than the government, they are also much more efficient. Markets exist because there is a finite amount of human energy that can transform resources. If resources could instantly be transformed to useful things for humans then we wouldn't need markets to carry out this task. If the transformation of resources was instant without any human work society would be much different than it is today. As mentioned earlier, because transformation of resources is finite we require property to best distribute and prioritize the way this process takes place. Were resources already transformed and ready for any consumption we need of them then there would be no need for property and therefore society would exist much more like the utopias you read about in fiction. But we haven't quite figured out how to do this and so we are stuck with the best system for our materially finite paradigm: property and markets. Nobody is in the business of bringing air because we have an infinite supply of air. But food doesn't just magically appear like air. Nor do our clothes. Nor does transportation. Nor does healthcare. Nor does pretty much anything else. All of these things require actual people to trade their time and labor for these things which we consume. Most things in life are not infinite and that's why we need markets. So it is all about the management of these resources.

    Government allocates resources worse than the market. Central planning, the way government operates, is far inferior to the dynamic planning of markets. The government attempts to manage something that needs no management. Central planning takes away choice, which is freedom. The market succeeds for just the opposite reasons. The market allows for individual choice and the market allocates resources better than any other known system. The market is dynamic and always adjusting to changes in resources.

    If something becomes scarce the price goes up so more people jump into that market to supply it. When something becomes plentiful the price goes down and more people jump out of that market because it doesn't need as many people to supply it anymore. The markets all adjust themselves based off of the price mechanism, which is really just a unit of measurement used to determine the necessity of certain resources. When I talked earlier about property being a more advanced stage for civilization this is the kind of stuff I was talking about: the pricing mechanism.

    Markets have people working in the right industries much more accurately than governments. The market has real-time data telling people what is needed and what isn't. From this data people adjust themselves to where their time and labor is most necessary. The market is really just a calculator on the entire world that knows exactly what is needed and what isn't based off of how much people are willing to spend on various things.

    If something like cell phones are invented they will start out at a fairly high price. When cell phones first came out most people couldn't afford them. They were low quality and high priced. But they offered something that no other phone offered and because of that people who could afford them started to buy them. Because of the high price it attracted more entrepreneurs into that field. People that were previously in industries that were on the decline may have decided to get out of a bad industry and move into a new, growing industry like cell phones. And so we have the market guiding people from dying industries to growing industries, all through the pricing system. No government was needed to tell people to get into the cell phone industry, the market did that for them. That's how the market works.

    And so rather than have a bunch of people in dying industries like newspapers or sending faxes, we instead have those companies transforming into Internet businesses and mobile phone companies. This is why markets are so efficient and good at allocating resources. People tell the market what they want with their money and the prices for things determine how valuable something is or isn't.

    When cell phones first came out they were expensive. Now pretty much everyone can afford a cell phone. At this point in time the cell phone industry has just about reached the top and pretty soon another new industry will come about and it will be time for the whole process to start over again. People will move away from the mobile industry into whatever new industry pays a higher price and demands greater innovation.

    Because markets are not a monopoly like government and because they are not centrally planned they allow for open and free competition. This competition creates what Buckminster Fuller coined ephemeralization. Big word, simple meaning. This means you can do more with less. This is what markets do. Ephemeralization. Doing more with less. Things should become less expensive and higher in quality as society advances. This is common sense and how markets work. Things get cheaper and cheaper and better and better until they are eventually free. That is the nature of innovation, competition and markets. There is no system that we have found better for allowing this process to occur than the market process - that is, 100% freedom. Let people be and they will improve things. Let people see what they can do better than another person or business and they will. Let people find what need needs service and it will be serviced. You can't vote ephemeralization into existence. And you can't have a group of people at the top plan ephemeralization into existence. All you can do is allow people complete freedom and it will be a natural byproduct of such freedom. It's pretty simple really.

    I really don't need to tell you this. You know this because this is how you operated as a kid. This is how you operated with siblings. This is how you operated with friends. You still probably operate a lot like this with your friends and people you know. If you had tasks to do as a kid you would find better ways to do them with time. The more you did certain tasks the more efficient you became at them. When you learned how to solve problems in school you learned to solve them more efficiently. You learn how to do more with less. If you were in sports when you were younger you would have friends also in sports and you would keep advancing in your skills. If you threw a baseball you would practice and get better. You would compete against other kids and as a result you would both become better. You would find what you enjoyed and then practice it. You would get better at what you enjoyed. You would extend and modify existing rules to have new experiences. You would continue to evolve things because it would bring you joy. People like to get better at things. People like to try new ways of doing things. This is a big part of human nature. And if you give people the freedom to do so they will. People naturally improve things.

    People in America live the high quality lives they live today not because of government, but because of markets. Markets created the American standard of living. Markets transformed America from 3rd world to 1st world. And markets have done that in many other societies as well. The problem is it's not done enough. The problem is we only see the tip of the iceberg when it comes to markets. The markets in America today are far less free than the markets they were 100 years ago. Today's markets in America are less free than they were 100 years ago. Today's markets are controlled much more by the government. And because of this we are halting society from advancing and actually reversing society in the wrong direction.

    Hospitals and medicine would be better and cheaper if we didn't have the government involved. Cars and transportation would be better and cheaper if we didn't have the government involved. Let me point this out since it is so important. We don't even have a clue to the extent of how much damage government really does towards the cost and quality of products and services because they are so involved and have been so involved in them for so long. Medical services aren't supposed to become more expensive with time. Costs of medicine should not be going up, they should be going down. If they are going up it is because there isn't a free market there. If the cost of anything goes up over time it is because a free market isn't operating there. Free markets bring prices down and quality up over time. An obvious example is showing non-government medical services like plastic surgery or lasik eye surgery to high government involvement medical services like emergency services, broken bones, heart attacks, etc, etc. Plastic surgery and lasik become cheaper and cheaper, other medical services more and more expensive. Can you guess which one is closer to a free market? Things are supposed to get better and cheaper with time. If they're not it's because a market does not exist. If medicine is becoming more expensive it is because it is not a free market, it is a centrally planned market, planned by the government, regulated by the government, and destroyed by the government.

    Oh I can hear it already, but what about safety and regulation? Everybody has a certain level of personal risk they will take with anything. And the best decider of that risk is the person themself. With governments we have other people determining for us what level of risk we can take. This is a lack of choice which is a lack of freedom. Markets are self-regulating. Anything that is unregulated allows for businesses to be built up around informing customers about the businesses. The businesses would also need to prove themselves to customers. Reputation would matter much more. The greatest regulator is yourself, your own individual decision to choose what's best for yourself. If you are unable to do so then what makes you think you are able to choose others to do so with you? As Rothbard so eloquently put it:

    " is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they."

    Murray Rothbard

    The problem with government regulation is they take away choice and freedom. If you want to go with a less expensive doctor without a license you can't -- even if 1,000 customers have all given him a 99% satisfaction score. Doctors and tons of other businesses can not operate without the government allowing them to operate right now. This is taking away the freedom of choice. The government treats us like little kids and doesn't let us make big boy decisions. We're not big boys in the eyes of government, we're little kids who must obey the decisions of our parents. And kids have less freedom than parents.

    Look at the tech industry. That is pretty much the only unregulated industry and that is where we see the most advancement. Tech doesn't advance because it uses computers and information, it advances because there isn't government restrictions using force to hold it back. Tech is allowed to do more for less because there are very few restrictions on that market. If medicine was a free market then many pills would be cheap or free. Yes, that's right free. How you ask? How are web pages essentially free? How is it that you're able to pay like $30 a month and access unlimited websites? How is information on a pill any different than information on a disk? Because one is consumed? How expensive is it to produce a pill? How expensive is it to produce a CD? You don't think having companies competing to create a cheaper Diabetes medication would bring the price down? You don't think allowing for a free market in medicine would make medicine cheaper all the way around? This is just one market. Imagine a free market in all government-run markets. Medicine should be cheaper. Cars should be cheaper. Everything should become cheaper, but we don't see this.

    If any industry is becoming more expensive over time then it is because markets are not allowed to operate voluntarily. A voluntary market economy will always make things cheaper and better over time. Always. This is a technical, mathematical reality. This is a foundational core understanding of resources and markets. This is the kind of finding that fundamentally allows the entire world to change for the better if we understand that governments keep ephemeralization from occurring. Markets are ephemeralization. Again ephemeralization means more for less. Markets do more for less. Government does less for more. And if what the government controls does less for more what does this tell you?

    There is mutual benefit in trade, win/win. When people trade something in a market they both win. If I give you $500 for your phone then you value my $500 more than your phone and I value your phone more than my $500. This is a mutually beneficial trade. And this is all markets are. If you valued your phone for more than $500 then you wouldn't trade it to me. Government doesn't have a mutual benefit. When you are forced to pay taxes you are not valuing what those taxes provide more than your money. You are paying your taxes because you are forced to. If you weren't forced to pay taxes you wouldn't. When somebody is raped there isn't mutual benefit. When people have sex there is mutual benefit. Government is rape. Markets are sex. Why do you get it at the sex level but not the governmental level? It is the same thing. Why are you still fighting it? Why are you still holding on to the belief that you need government, just like people hold onto the belief that they need religion to live a good life or to believe in God? You don't. Religion is not God or spirituality. Government is not advancement or society. Rape is bad. Rape is initiated force. Government is initiated force. It doesn't matter if we vote for government. If we all voted to have a man rape another woman would that be okay? We need to get past the inaccurate and damaging definitions we have programmed ourselves into believing. Snap out of it.


    The voting part of government is another cardinal flaw. We think voting with democracy is the best way to vote. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "put your money where your mouth is"? We use this saying because we know that what people say (vote for) is less accurate than what people really do or want (buy). What we do with our money truly shows how we really vote. We really vote with our money, not our mouths.

    "The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities."

    Ludwig von Mises

    Representatives have no skin in the game. You make better decisions with your own money than you do with somebody else's money. If we are better at knowing what to do with our money then why would we give it to somebody else to decide what to do with it? As Thomas Sowell says:

    "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

    Thomas Sowell

    We say things like actions speak louder than words, yet when it comes to society we prefer words. We would much rather vote with words than vote with dollars.

    Milton Friedman mentions the 4 ways of spending money:

    1. You can spend your money
    2. You can spend someone else's money
    3. Someone else can spend your money
    4. Someone else can spend someone else's money

    We are best at spending our own money. We are careful with our own money. If it's somebody else's money we use for ourselves we are less careful. If somebody else is using our money they are even less careful. And least careful is somebody we don't know spending money from somebody that they don't know. This is how government operates. The market operates on #1. Government #4.

    We assume government already solves many problems, they don't. We don't allow people to offer services that government offers, and then we assume that because government does these services in a non-competitive way that they are solving them. Examples of these industries are law, courts, police, schools, etc. That's like us saying only 1 type of guy exists for every woman, despite her individual preferences. It doesn't matter what she wants or prefers, she has to be with this one type of guy because we voted that this is the right type of guy for every woman. It doesn't matter if he abuses her, loves her, is compatible with her or anything else. If you don't have choice to all possibilities then you don't know if something really is better or worse. We do the same thing with society. We have always had government handling many of our services so we really don't know if they are doing a good job or not. And even if they were, which they most certainly are not, not everyone wants the same thing. People have preferences. People want to choose. I don't know about you but I'm tired of dating the same government over and over again. They're all the same. I'm sick of it.

    Government Taxes VS The Market

    Let's now take a look at how government spending would compare with spending in a free society.

    United States Federal Spending 2015[1]

    Total Spent: $3.8 Trillion
    Service % Per Year Tax
    Per Person Tax
    (Tax / 300 million people)
    Per Person Market
    (estimated on high side)
    Social Security 33% $1.276 Trillion $4,253 ~$4,200 If you put away $4,200 every year after 30 years at 2% interest you will have $173,793.00
    Medicare & Health 27% $1.052 Trillion $3,507 ~$3,500 Very good health insurance policy
    Military 16% $609.3 Billion $2,030 ~$2,000 DRO insurance policy (discussed more later in book)
    Interest on Debt 6% $229.2 Billion $763 $0 No bank loaned debt to pay back
    Veterans' Benefits 4% $160.6 Billion $537 $0 No costs here
    Food & Agriculture 4% $135.7 Billion $452 $0 No costs here
    Education 3% $102.3 Billion $341 $0 No Federal education costs
    Transportation 2% $85 Billion $283 $0 No Federal transportation costs
    Housing & Community 2% $61.5 Billion $205 $0 No costs here
    International Affairs 1% $50.2 Billion $167 $0 No costs here
    Energy & Environment 1% $44.8 Billion $149 $0 No costs here
    Science 1% $29.8 Billion $99 $0 No costs here
    Total Federal Spending $3.8 Trillion $12,786 ~$9,700 --

    California State + Local Spending 2015[2]

    Total Spent: $486.8 Billion
    Service % Per Year Tax
    Per Person Tax
    (Tax / 39.1 million people)
    Per Person Market
    (estimated on high side)
    Education 22% $107.5 Billion $2,749 $0 - ~$2,500 (Optional) Only people who use this will pay for it.
    Health Care 21% $100.7 Billion $2,575 $0 Covered in Federal table
    Other Spending 13% $65.1 Billion $1,665 $0 No costs here
    Pensions 10% $49.3 Billion $1,261 $0 No costs here
    Protection 9% $45.1 Billion $1,153 $0 Covered in Federal table
    Transportation 9% $44 Billion $1,125 ~$1,000 Roads may or may not have fees. Probably similar to how Internet is paid for.
    Welfare 8% $37.5 Billion $959 $0 No costs here
    General Government 4% $20.5 Billion $524 $0 No costs here
    Interest on Debt 4% $17.1 Billion $437 $0 No costs here
    Total California State + Local Spending $486.8 Billion $12,448 ~$1,000 - ~$3,500 Wait a minute... so you're telling me the average person in California is paying ~$12,000 a year to a state when it could all be handled by the market with better service for ~3,500? Yes!

    United States Federal + California State + Local Spending 2015

    Total Spent: $4.2868 Trillion
    Service Per Year Tax
    Per Person Tax
    (average person living in California)
    Per Person Market
    (estimated on high side)
    Total Federal + California State + Local Spending $4.2868 Trillion $25,234 $~13,200 So if we combine Federal, State and Local we get something close to $25,000 paid in taxes each year by the average person living in California. If this was all replaced with the market we would pay around $13,200 for better service. That's about 1/2 the price for much better service!

    Keep in mind that these charts divide the total spending equally by each person in the population. Since out of 300 million people not everyone is paying taxes, the total amount spent per person in taxes would actually be much higher. This is estimated on the low end by dividing by 300 million people as opposed to something closer to 150 million people.

    Now I know what you might be thinking: California is a bad example because taxes are way higher there. Well let's look at a few other states to see [3]:

    State 2015 Spending Population Per Person Tax
    California $486.8 Billion 39.1 million people $12,448
    Alaska $16.9 Billion 700,000 people $24,143
    Arizona $53.1 Billion 6.8 million people $7,809
    Florida $157.5 Billion 20.3 million people $7,759
    Ohio $114.8 Billion 11.6 million people $9,897
    Montana $9.6 Billion 1 million people $9,600
    Nebraska $21.8 Billion 1.9 million people $11,474
    Nevada $19.2 Billion 2.9 million people $6,621
    New Hampshire $11.6 Billion 1.3 million people $8,923
    New York $327.1 Billion 19.8 million people $15,520
    North Dakota $9.6 Billion 800,000 people $12,000
    Texas $235.6 Billion 27.5 million people $8,567
    Virginia $78 Billion 8.4 million people $9,286
    Wyoming $9.4 Billion 600,000 people $15,667

    So it really doesn't change that much per state. It's all relative to the population. Per person you're spending a lot of money wherever you are.

    How does the Federal government generate revenue you ask?

    Federal Tax Revenue 2015[4]

    Total Revenue: $3.18 Trillion
    Tax Percent Revenue
    Individual Income Taxes 47% $1.48 Trillion
    Payroll Taxes 33% $1.07 Trillion
    Corporate Income Taxes 11% $341.7 Billion
    Misc. 5% $158.6 Billion
    Excise Taxes 3% $95.9 Billion
    Customs Duties 1% $36.8 Billion

    If we subtract the Federal spending from the Federal revenue we get:
    $3.18 Trillion - $3.8 Trillion = -$620 Billion

    So the Federal government is operating at a deficit. And this isn't some outlier:

    Year Revenue Spending Difference
    2014 $3.0215 Trillion $3.5061 Trillion -$484.6 Billion
    2013 $2.7751 Trillion $3.4547 Trillion -$679.6 Billion
    2012 $2.45 Trillion $3.537 Trillion -$1.087 Trillion
    2011 $2.3035 $3.6031 Trillion -$1.2996 Trillion
    2010 $2.1627 Trillion $3.4571 Trillion -$1.2944 Trillion
    2009 $2.105 Trillion $3.5177 Trillion -$1.4127 Trillion
    2008 $2.524 Trillion $2.9825 Trillion -$458.5 Billion
    2007 $2.568 Trillion $2.7287 -$160.7 Billion
    2006 $2.4069 $2.6551 -$248.2 Billion

    And don't think the States look any different. It's all the same thing. All governments operate the same way. They all spend more than they bring in. And they all carry a debt which has to be paid at some point. But how do they pay this debt?

    The Federal government generates revenue outside of just taxes of course. There is the hidden tax called inflation. Do you wonder how those banks got bailed out in 2008? The government paid it somehow, and it wasn't through taxes. It was through inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. And who controls the money supply? The Federal Reserve. So the government, through the Federal Reserve, is able to bring money into existence through inflation if they deem necessary. That's what Quantitative Easing is. That's just another name for inflation. The government is loaning currency into existence to pay for things. So the government uses much more than taxes these days to fund their operations. They bring new currency into existence for free, which lowers the value of our currency. That's government ingenuity!

    The Federal government also spends more than is reported on the balance sheet. That's why the national debt is now over $19 trillion. That's also why we have over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities like Social Security and Medicare. So we have over $19 trillion in national debt and then we can throw another $100 trillion on top of that in unfunded liabilities. This is all the result of a government which we don't need.

    Let me break this down for you.

    The average US Citizen earns about $50,000 per year.
    The average US Citizen pays around $18,000 - $35,000 in taxes per year depending on the state they live in.
    This means the average US Citizen pays 36 - 70% of their income in taxes to the Federal and State governments. This is just taxes. This isn't taking into account the amount of money they lose to inflation. Don't forget about ~$120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities and national debt. This means the average US Citizen owes ~$400,000 to the government as well. So there is a lot to all this. It isn't just taxes and spending. We also have inflation, debt, and unfunded liabilities. And for what? What do the Federal and State governments have to show for all this spending? We can do better. We can do much better.

    We don't have to enslave future generations with trillions of dollars of debt. This is morally unjustified. If we're upset about slavery why do we still have financial slavery? Why is it okay for us to enslave unborn children with all this debt? Who's going to pay it? Older people aren't. They'll be gone soon. But somebody is going to have to pay it, or the system is going to have to collapse. Let's just hope we have other options for society before it happens. The United States balance sheet is an immoral, violent mess. And it's not just the United States. This is how the whole world operates.


    Let's take a reverse government example. We normally take something like police and ask how the market could do that instead of government. Instead, let's take an already successful and useful market like shoes and see what would happen if we were to turn it over to the government. Right now we have many different options for shoes. We have shoes for guys and girls, we have dress shoes, work shoes, casual shoes, athletic shoes, sandals, different materials and room for new types of shoes to come about if necessary. Whatever the task at hand we have a shoe for it. If you're in hot weather we have shoes. If you're in cold weather we have shoes. If you're in snow we have shoes, if you're in sand we have shoes. It doesn't matter what type of shoe you need, the market provides it. I don't see anyone complaining about how the shoe industry needs to be reworked. There is no shortage or problem of quality shoes at a fair price. This is how markets work.

    Now what if the government took over the shoe business? What if government no longer allowed businesses to create shoes and instead we got our shoes from the government? Well our choices would drastically drop. We can't all have the types of shoes we want, we would have to decide which are the best shoes for everyone. Rather than letting different people choose different types of shoes depending on their preferences, we would instead have much less shoe options. Government takes away choice.

    Just as we have one type of police through government, we would only have one shoe manufacturer. We wouldn't have different shoe companies competing and creating shoes. If you didn't like the shoe company it wouldn't matter. If you wanted to get sandals and this shoe company didn't make sandals you would be out of luck. If you wanted to create your own sandals and sell them to people who wanted sandals it would be illegal. You would not be allowed to compete against the government shoe monopoly.

    The shoe industry would now start to be problematic because we would have government controlling that industry through a monopoly, and we would pour more and more money into government in the hopes of fixing this industry. There would be legislation and laws passed on what types of shoes should be legal and which ones should be illegal. There would be black markets where people would try to create shoes outside of government in order to simply provide a product that people wanted for less money than the government.

    People would quickly see just how bad and unnecessary the government is at providing products and services. But within a generation or two that would fade. If people never knew what the shoe industry was before the government took it over, they wouldn't know how good it used to be before government replaced it. People would forget about the days when they could just walk into a store and grab a pair of shoes without a headache. People would think to themselves, well, if government has always provided shoes then that's the way it is. People would get upset when you told them that it's possible to have shoes provided outside of the government. People would call you a bad person or a Utopian when you proposed letting the market provide the shoes. People wouldn't understand how it was possible to have the market provide shoes instead of government. People would be so used to government providing shoes that they wouldn't see any possible other way. You might see a better way, but that wouldn't matter to most people. You would have to convince them that shoes could be provided without government, and you would face an uphill challenge.

    This is how it currently is with every government service. Yes, every government service, even military, even police, even courts. We will explore this more in depth in later chapters.


    It's obvious, the government is by far worse than the free market. It's like comparing rape to sex. But it's actually worse than rape. With government, everyone is raped the same way by the same person, over and over again. You're not just raped once, you're raped over and over again for the rest of your life and you have no hope of ever finding true love. The rape will only get worse and worse. Government is morally wrong because it uses force. Markets do not use force. Again, remember, we established these core principles as basic foundational systems to build upon and that is exactly what we are doing. Government can't be built upon universal foundational principles because government is not universal. Rape is not universal. Government is for less civilized beings. Markets are for the rational, moral and civilized.

    Government doesn't allow for freedom by acting as a referee. The government isn't some referee operating outside of the system. The government is an active team player with a team uniform on. The government is involved in choosing winners and losers in almost every industry. The government forces you to use their money, forces you to use certain industries like wind and solar, forces you from using certain drugs and so on. The government keeps you from having choice from the services you want to use and it financially incentivizes services that it chooses will get the funds. This is not the behavior of a referee.

    So here is a quick recap:

    1. Government initiates violence
    2. Government takes away choice and freedom
    3. Government is more expensive and lower quality than markets

    This is why there is no reason for government in a civilized society. I'm not saying we shouldn't have government. I'm saying the people who don't want government because they understand it as being outdated technology should work on creating a society without it. A lot of people like government and are happy with their governments, and that's fine, let them be. Some women are happy being beaten by their husbands. Some people learn the hard way. But some people get it and understand that markets are more civilized than government.

    Intelligence and Self-Responsibility

    We have to be somewhat intelligent and responsible for a free society to work. We don't have to be perfect, but we can't be stupid either. Monkeys in a free society wouldn't work as well as humans in a free society. A free society requires that people are individuals who are responsible for their actions. If people would rather not be responsible for their actions and would rather act as a group as opposed to an individual then we will continue to have governments which use force. Honest, intelligent people are going to form a better society than dishonest, stupid people. But the good news is that it's usually honest, intelligent people who want a free society.

    If you look at the various civilizations throughout the world you will immediately notice certain patterns relating to IQ. The people in places we generally call more civilized like the 1st world have higher IQs than places we call less civilized, like the 3rd world. America and European countries have higher IQs than South American countries and Africa. Yes, of course IQ isn't the only measure of what makes a society civilized and of course there is much more to it. But this is still hinting at a foundational realization. People that are smarter create better societies. People that are smarter are less violent, we know this factually [5]. The violent sweet spot in IQ is 85. People with an IQ of 85 are the most likely to be violent. The average IQ is 100, so 85 is a below average IQ and it is the IQ of people who are more likely to be violent.

    If you were to set up the framework for a free society and populate it with people of lower IQ it would not work. A free society requires certain levels of responsibility and understanding which less intelligent people are less likely to possess. I'm by no means saying that intelligent people are better than less intelligent people. I'm saying that they have different preferences. Most people who are interested in a free society are generally people with higher IQs than the average IQ. This makes perfect sense. Smart people want more freedom. Freedom is what allows smart people to grow and express themselves. So we have to at least acknowledge this to be able to somewhat wrap our head around what it takes for a free society. Even within a democracy, intelligent people will create a better democracy than less intelligent people.

    So obviously the people in a society are important, but the system is also important. Certain systems allow people to either grow or not grow. It's like a family. Some children can survive under extreme family circumstances with violence and fear, but most will struggle. We are better off in a family with a more conducive framework for children to grow. The same can be said about society. Societies that allow for more choice and less violence will allow for higher quality individuals than societies which restrict choice and enforce violence.


    For a long time we have thought we had to convince everyone to be on the same page in order to create a new society. I don't think we do. I think the people who want a free society can come together to create it for themselves. The people who don't want a free society can stay with what they have. We don't need to convince everyone. All we need to do is find those that want it and work together to bring it about.

    Not everyone may want a free society. Some favor security, others freedom. Let people have their choice. You have your government, we have ours. Not everyone is for a free society, that's okay, the people that are can work towards it. People who want governments can keep governments. It shouldn't matter to them if people who no longer desire government want to create their own society. Yeah, some people might get mad if a woman leaves her husband who beats her. So? They might try to hold her back and tell her that that's true love. They might tell her that all women get beat and it's okay. This is sometimes how people react when you choose to leave a less favorable situation for a more favorable situation.

    If somebody moves to another country people don't care. So they also shouldn't care if they move to start their own society. The fact that some people will care if you want to move and live somewhere else should show just how controlling the system already is. Why should you care where I non-violently want to live? Why should you want to control how I live? Why should you want to violently keep me from living non-violently?

    Most people think government is a necessary evil. But if we learn that government isn't necessary then all we're left with is evil. People don't think there is a better way the same way anybody who is less wise in any category doesn't have the same vision as someone who is more wise.

    This is all my suggestion. I can't possibly have it all right. But we should at least be thinking in this direction. Now that we know the reasoning behind a free society, let's look at a plan of action.

    "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else"

    Frederic Bastiat

    Chapter 3 Sources:


    Chapter 4


    Now that we have discussed the important foundational parts of a free society we can now get into the more technical how-to aspect. There are obvious challenges towards creating a free society. Here are the 3 big ones:

    1. Location - where do we do it?
    2. Financing - how do we pay for it?
    3. Defense - how do we keep somebody from taking it over, destroying it or preventing it?


    There are a few different options for location:

    1. We can change existing governments
    2. We can get land somehow
    3. We can seastead
    4. We can go underground
    5. We can go off-planet

    I'm sure there are some other options as well. Let's explore some of these options. Some of these sound crazy. Some of these are more realistic than others.

    Off-planet is super expensive and just too hardcore for right now. I don't think we would ever get anywhere with that without first doing a free society on this planet first. If we don't know how to make a free society work on this planet what makes us think we can make it work on another planet? So I would rule off-planet out immediately.

    Going underground isn't much different than using above ground land and since there is still tons of above ground land that isn't used that sounds way better to me. So I would also cross underground off the list right now.

    Seasteading seems difficult because it makes resources trickier and makes you much more dependent on importing resources and isolating yourself. The main advantage to seasteading is that there may be some ways to get around restricting laws of nations and it may be a bit easier to act outside of existing government restrictions. But overall seasteading just seems too costly and unrealistic. It's way too hard to scale seasteading. Seasteading relies on you coming up with loads of money just to stay "afloat" as opposed to coming up with a smarter way to work with existing land and governments. While more realistic than off-planet or underground, I still think there are more favorable ways for a free society than seasteading. Again, I like the idea of finding the right way to use what we have rather than running away from what we have and ignoring it. Why do a costly solution from the start if we don't need to?

    Land makes the most sense to me. I don't think the focus should be about trying to get around the existing framework. I think the focus should be finding how to convince certain countries or groups of power within the existing framework to shift their focus towards a free society approach. That seems more realistic and sustainable to me. Doing some quick little seasteading operation or some little isolated experiment in some remote island, while better than nothing, seems like a short term fix rather than a long term fix. I think we need to focus on a bigger picture than these small little one time things. I think we need to work on a system that re-works the way we use land within countries who are interesting in doing so.

    The thing about this concept is all options are open and if people want to try them they should. It's hard to know with complete accuracy the right way to do any business ahead of time. But my take is the land approach so my energy will be spent exploring that.

    All land is pretty much owned by a government right now. So here we reach the 1st big problem. We want to be completely free and independent. The legal term for what we want is allodial title of land. According to Wiki:

    "In the modern developed world, true allodial title is only possible for nation state governments".

    We want to change this. We want to own land and operate outside of government control. We want the ability to create multiple cities which are outside of government control and own the land completely ourselves. We don't want government ownership, we want private ownership, whether that be 1 private owner or 1,000s of private owners.

    We don't want to be like Hong Kong, Macau or any other charter city that is still under control of another nation. We want to be 100% free and sovereign. We want to have full ownership of land and have no taxes to pay or allegiances to follow. Each land area or city will most likely be a business. Each business will own the land completely. We want to create localized areas where businesses own and control the land which anybody can be a part of. We want to shift from government control to business control. If you don't understand economics this may sound scary to some. But if you understand economics this will sound liberating. Anybody needs to have the ability to buy into this business and create their own city if they want to. This is what we want to create. How do we do this?


    Well, fortunately not all nations see the world the exact same. There are some nations that are struggling more than others and some that are thriving more than others. Just as businesses come and go, nations come and go. Pretty much every nation in Europe was once the wealthiest and most desired nation of the world. Many have risen and fallen over the last 500 years. There are nations right now that may rise to overtake many of the nations that we currently view as at the top. So with that said I think the focus is much more appropriate to move our interest towards less wealthy nations who have something to gain and an incentive to innovate and progress. It is much more profitable to invest in a smaller, less known company and make it successful than it is to find an already large company and try to steer that. So it would make sense to me to find a smaller, less known country and work towards making that successful.

    Changing existing 1st world governments seems like a pretty bad idea and a waste of time to me. We need complete control and these governments will never allow for that. We can't rework these governments because these all operate on democracy. And since all democratic governments are growing in power this shows that the democratic system is in favor of big government. We would need government to go the other way and this really isn't possible in a democracy. Democratic governments grow because as people become poorer and poorer they vote for larger and larger government to make up for their poverty. These governments never get reworked. They grow until they collapse. Look at history. So that's a no.

    Now 3rd world governments... maybe.

    So with this in mind I think anywhere outside of North America and Europe would make the most sense. Less developed areas like South America, Asia or even Africa makes the most sense to me. We want to focus on an area that could be improved on a lot. These areas also have good climate for resources and agriculture. I think North America and Europe are the worst choices and the most difficult to rework. A lot of people in these countries are happy with what they have so let them be. I'd love to take a shot at this in America or Europe, but I just think there is going to be way too much pressure to try to convince governments at the State and especially Federal level to go along with this. If we can pull it off by all means let's do it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

    The ultimate goal would be to shift from governments built on force controlling land to private entities or individuals built on economics controlling the land. We need to turn land over from being controlled by force to land being controlled by market. This fundamental shift in ownership would transform the world.

    Okay, but how do we deal with already existing governments in these areas? So the end goal is to control the land 100%, but that may not be how the relationship starts. The relationship may start as a partnership where a business venture is constructed where the current landowner (existing government) becomes part owner with the new private owner. Maybe a group of people buy into an existing country. Maybe a country is willing to sell off a part of their land as a test. I understand that this isn't the cleanest way, but this is a starting point. If we were to do this in multiple different places then perhaps eventually more and more people would start to understand the core values of free societies and be more and more open to removing governments in localized areas.

    This would be a non-violent operation so all agreements would be done contractually, legally. There would be no force or war used. This has to be done as a business, contractually and mutually beneficial.

    Why would a country want to do this? The same reason anybody does anything: self-interest. Many 3rd world countries would like to outdo 1st world countries when it comes to standard of living and there could be great financial and economic gain by doing so. When you do a better job than another business you usually make a lot of money. When you do a better job than another country you will also make a lot of money. Resources will be shifted towards you. Your model will get the financial backing and economic encouragement to move forward. Entrepreneurs will come to build infrastructure in your area because they can thrive the best in your environment. We already see this to a large degree with Singapore and many Asian cities where a lot of American companies have shifted towards over the past 30 years. They shifted there because these places have less restrictions than America. These places are more free economically than America.

    Like I said earlier, not all countries and people view the world the same way. Some people view Western Civilization as imploding in on itself. Some countries are under the control of other countries. Some countries have their hands tied and would like to get out of bad economic deals with other countries if they could. This could be their way out.

    But we don't fully know exactly what a country would want. I haven't talked to them. This is why we need to work together to find out exactly what would be necessary for this to happen and then do it. It's possible, it's just not attempted right now. That's the main thing, we just don't even try right now. We have all the time in the world to work towards discovering how to contractually become partners or complete owners of land. So let's do it.

    I understand that the hardest part is that transition to starting the first free society with full ownership of land. That's why I have this as one of the main challenges. That's why the website is created to help answer this question of how to get the land to do so. We currently have no free society. Creating the first free society will be a challenge. Once the first one is created the 2nd will be easier, and so on. I know it's possible. Anything is possible. It's just a matter of finding a way, or multiple ways, to do it in within our current government paradigm.


    Starting a new society isn't cheap. Obviously. We are talking in the millions and probably billions of dollars. I really don't fully know because it's not everyday a new society is born, especially without violently stealing it from somebody else or stealing the money to do it from people through taxation.

    But here's the thing. I'm a businessman and at least know a few things about starting a business, especially in uncharted waters where nobody has ever ventured before. When I start a business I bootstrap it for as cheap as possible. When you start a business you find ways to do things cheaply. You do small tests and add capital as things prove themselves. You replace costs with creativity. This is the core of real business. You don't do the State thing and just start spending other people's money on fancy offices and nice things. No way. You work your ass off, brainstorm, create and keep pushing even when it's hard. You let your internal desire to create what you know is possible drive you through to completion. You try again and again, failure after failure until you finally make some headway. Real business is usually a struggle because you're bringing something into the world that the world has never seen before. This would be no different. Being in a difficult situation makes you become more creative. It makes you innovate in ways you never would if it was easy. Yes, this is hard, but it has to be done. And the creativity and genius is here to make it happen. We just need to keep taking steps in this direction and it will happen. We know this is what needs to be done, now let's start doing it step by step.

    We also don't fully know if a lot of money is needed, at least from us. A lot of times the entrepreneurs are the ones who put up the money because they see an opportunity. Many businessmen who see a way to make money through a free society like this will cover many of the costs if they really think there is something in it for them. Since this doesn't operate like current governments it's not like we need to come up with money for police or for schools. Entrepreneurs will build these things with their own money since they will make even more money by providing these services. We don't pay these costs. We set up a free society framework and allow people to invest their own money in their own businesses in whatever creative and beneficial ways they can come up with.

    I see this similar to Linux in this way. We create Linux and we let other people build on top of Linux. We continue to refine and re-create the framework for society and entrepreneurs run with our framework and tools to start reshaping the way cities are built.

    We really only need money for the land, whatever or however much that would be. That part I couldn't really tell you at this point. But I am pretty sure this is the main part where the funds would be going. Most money would probably go to another government or landowner to purchase full allodial title of a set amount of land in order to create a free, non-violent society within it. All the other infrastructure and services would most likely come from entrepreneurs out of their own pockets.

    Financing wouldn't happen until a very realistic plan was ready that had been heavily scrutinized by the world through the Internet. We replace any hurdle or problem with a question asked to the entire world to solve. This will all be organized and structured through the Internet. I don't want to brag, but I understand organizing data and structuring systems very well. I have a pretty good idea of what needs to be in place to allow for a worldwide discussion and what needs to be done to allow such a discussion to scale at the global level. Again, we start small. We start simple. We take things step by step and scale as necessary. Every problem can be answered. So let's start finding problems, asking questions and solving them. This is where the website really comes into play. If you go to you will find a Q&A section which allows the best answers to the hardest questions to rise to the top.

    I know there are a lot of smart people out there who are experts in a wide range of topics. Rather than wasting their energy yelling at the politicians on their computers and TVs they should be on creating solutions with other really smart people. It doesn't do anybody any good to just complain at how bad the current situation is. Yes, I get how bad it is just as much as the next person with an IQ above room temperature. Things are pretty bad and a lot of people don't get what's going on. But you do, so focus your energy on creating something better. If we know what we don't want then we better know what we do want. And if we work towards what we do want eventually it will become real. What we put our energy on becomes real. Let's put our energy on what we do want, not what we don't want.


    I see 2 main financing options:

    1. Crowdfunding (public)
    2. Private capital (private)

    Crowdfunding would be where we go more the individual route and let large numbers of people contribute smaller amounts of capital to fund this type of an operation. In this route thousands of people would all be owners in the land in which they put up the money for. In contrast, the private capital route would be more so where a few businessmen and private equity firms raise majority of the funds and take more control over the operation. There can obviously be a hybrid of these two. I like both options and what I am advocating allows for both options or a hybrid of both to take place. It's up to us to determine which makes the most sense and to also know that different methods could be used for different locations. We don't only have to build 1 location. In fact, the more locations the better for a number of reasons.

    This brings up the topic of competing cities. The more free societies that pop up the better. It will allow different structures to test themselves out and the best structures will ultimately win. As we have discussed earlier, the more competition something has the better it becomes for the consumer. The consumer for a free society is you and me. The more we and businesses compete to build the best free society the better the society we will have. We want a society that is antifragile, to use the word coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Current governments are completely fragile and weak because they all do everything the same, more or less. Governments do not experiment with new ways to improve the quality of existing products or services. And it is much too difficult for people who have a way to do government better to actually go about doing it in our current societies. All 1st world countries are not free market and have layers of people voting for things with their mouth rather than with their wallet. Most governments do not allow themselves to be reworked.

    We are already giving around 36 - 70% of our money to governments already via taxes, not to mention all the hidden opportunity and cost of living costs. Why not shift that to a better place? Look at the amount of money governments bring in through taxation right now. As has previously been shown, government brought in $3.8 trillion in taxes in 2015. You don't think we can undercut them? You don't think we can profitably do a better job than this? The government is without a doubt the easiest competitor to outdo, it's not even a contest. I know this because I am an entrepreneur. The easiest businesses to outdo are the ones that hold onto old technology and fear change. This is government. This is precisely what government is. And because of this it opens up a huge opportunity to actually run a society right: without government and without force. We already waste billions and even trillions in our existing governments. Why not put that money elsewhere? We waste more money on government than we do on any other purchase, by far.

    Go back and view the charts in Chapter 3 if you want to get a detailed understanding of all the wasted money that government spends.

    This could be a profitable venture for people. Land could become worth a lot of money to the early adopters, similar to Bitcoin. I'm not trying to sell you, I'm just trying to find similar examples to what I think this could be. Bitcoin is a very similar structure in a lot of ways. Sure this is not fully anonymous or decentralized... but perhaps it could be and we could build towards that. Owning a part of land in a free society could be similar to owning a Bitcoin on the Blockchain. At first it is not too valuable but if it gains traction and starts to catch on it would become valuable. I do see much of this movement being about creating a distributed societychain that tracks the ownership of all property in a decentralized way, all through computers, similar to Bitcoin. I also see this as building an organized, open source framework that has within it the collective insight and wisdom of the entire world for various society functions and aspects. I see us working towards putting our heads together towards building a society first on the Internet, and 2nd on land. The early adopters of new businesses usually end up doing pretty well. People that acquired Bitcoin when it was under $1 are doing pretty well right now. Good ideas make money as they scale. This would be no different. No I'm not talking about a Ponzi Scheme. I'm talking about being one of the first people into something that is world changing like Bitcoin or Google. Because I truly believe a free society will change the world for the better when it is done right.

    The are multiple ways to skin a cat. The way I am proposing is most certainly not the only way. We should encourage all possible ideas and plans. With time the more realistic plans for our current paradigm will prevail. What is right for our time to get us out of where society currently is will arise. It already has to a large degree. We just need to take action and work out some of the details. 100 years into the future the way a better society looks may look different than it does right now. 250 years ago the American Constitution was the right model. There is a time and a place for all things. And right now I think we have a pretty good understanding of how a free society should look. We just need to work through some of the main challenges like the ones presented in this book.


    I know history. People who have something to lose don't want to lose it. We may be non-violent, but the world isn't there yet, far from it unfortunately. The good news is that until we have some type of momentum we really don't need to worry about defense. But if there is some momentum and attention then defense will become a more important challenge. So the initial challenges will be working out the location and financing aspects and the later and ongoing challenge will be working through the defense aspect.

    When it does get there we will need to prepare for some type of backlash, and a massive backlash. And not just a backlash at the militaristic, violent level. A backlash at the media slander level, a backlash where they break your character and brand. An all out attack where they label you a racist, a fascist, a terrorist, an extremist, a cult leader, a [insert emotionally-charged-manipulative-derogatory label here] because you want to peacefully attempt to create a nonviolent, 100% free society. It's sad I even have to say this but this is the world we live in. Or at least the world our masters pretend we live in. I'm sure the Founding Fathers of America were portrayed in similar light back then, and if you read a few modern history books they most certainly are today as well. The level of the insanity of the world should be clear when you see the level of ridicule you will get for trying to create a free society. Think of how absolutely backwards and insane it is that people will go crazy after you for wanting to create a free society without violence and force. Just think about that. Because you know it's true. And this should show you just how badly society needs to be reworked if you get labeled as a heretic for wanting to peacefully improve society, especially when you don't even want to change their system. So I know what we're up against. That is why the way we approach this is very important.

    One of the greatest things we have going is that the government structure throughout the entire world is so bad at this point that it becomes more and more painstakingly obvious to many people that what we are proposing is reasonable, useful and worth exploring. When you know what you don't want you can more clearly see what you do want. And many people are not happy with government, not happy at all. A problem is they still think it is a necessary evil.

    This movement needs to get to a point where it is so useful, tangible, valuable and real that people don't want to stop it. People wouldn't let government stop Google because it is too useful. It's not going to happen. People won't let the government stop Apple because it is too valuable to them. The government would have to brand Google and Apple as bad and they're just not going to be able to do that to people. The people know that Google and Apple make their lives better. We need to become like these brands. We need to get to the point where the government can say what they want, but having a free society is better than a government so it doesn't matter what they say. We know it and the people living throughout the world know it as well. So the branding is important, but most importantly, the value of a free society is most important. If we can have small successful tests and actual real-life data that people can see first hand then it becomes harder and harder to put a stop to something like this. If people can see the peace, happiness and innovation that comes from a truly free society then they will start to change their view of this. The same way people changed their view of Google when they saw the benefit of typing anything their heart desired into Google and having it appear to them instantly. When people can see why something is better they adopt it.

    We need to get the world behind us, or at least a part of it. This is a huge challenge because much of the world does not want to be free, at least at an intellectual level they don't. But we don't need the whole world, we just need a small group of people throughout the world who matter. America wasn't started by the whole world, it was started by a few people. Google isn't ran by the whole world, it is ran by a few key people. Most people are followers and will follow what is worth following. So we don't need a lot of people behind this. We just need the right people behind it.

    Governments will obviously do everything they can to keep their taxpaying citizens from leaving to go to a non-taxpaying society. Governments do not want to lose their current power and financial resources. Companies don't like losing revenue to a competitor that does a better job than them. But this is life and how advancement works. You replace the old with the new. Taxi drivers don't like losing money to Uber drivers who found a way to offer better service to the consumer for cheaper. The fact that government is unwilling to allow people to create a better form of government should show you just how bad government really is. When a business loses to a competitor they either go out of business or they change. Government doesn't want to play by these rules.

    Governments do not want their people to be self-responsible, independent or wise. This is pretty obvious for anyone with a cursory understanding of history. You can't easily control people who think for themselves and are not dependent on you. So all these things must be borne closely in mind. We're going up against the hardest battle ever, the battle that has been fought throughout history.

    Now again. I am not against governments. I get what they are and I understand people truly believe in them and that society functions at a certain level with them. That's great. For those people who are happy with their government keep it -- the same way people who had horse and buggies were happy with those when cars came out, or analog cameras when digital cameras came out, or taxies when Uber came out, or whatever other innovation you want to mention. Better things come along. Newer technologies are born. And not everyone wants to shift immediately. A newer government is being born and not everyone will want to make the shift. That is fine. But understand that in order for the entire world to advance these types of changes do happen and it is healthy. When America came about the whole world was not at all happy about it. But now some 250 years or so later most of all 1st world nations have copied many of the principles from Early America. The Early American technology made its way throughout the entire world. Now it is time for another update to work its way throughout the world.

    You can stop some people, but you can't stop an idea. This idea needs to be distributed throughout the Internet. The Internet is the greatest tool for this type of movement. The actual framework needs to be available online. That's the purpose of the site. If there is any type of silencing of non-violent, free speech it is pretty easy to decentralize and distribute the site in a way where it would be hard to stop. I'm pretty competent with IT and there are lots of things we can do to have a decentralized site and database of all the information created and organized. A main goal of this is to create a decentralized, open source society framework. We need a society framework that people throughout the world can continue to improve bit by bit.

    As has previously been stated, this would be done similar to open source software like Linux, Android and even Bitcoin. These systems are incredibly strong because they are built in accordance with many of the principles discussed earlier in this book. People have tried to exploit, tear down and hack Linux for years. And yet Linux becomes stronger and stronger. Linux is antifragile. Now imagine government. LOL. Imagine trying to find holes in the government. It's not even a rational statement. The government is the most fragile and least antifragile entity I can think of. This is why what we are proposing is so valuable. We need an antifragile government. We need a system for society like Linux, one that has been torn apart and scrutinized from every angle, and after all of it is still standing and only becomes stronger.

    Let me give an analogy of how I could see this working. Linux is free software owned by nobody. There really aren't any firms or businesses that own a large part of Linux directly. Large businesses may build proprietary things on top of Linux, but they don't really change Linux itself. This is the crowdfunded approach. We would also fully accept and welcome Windows and Mac OS. These would be more the 2nd method that is financed by private capital and done in a more polished user friendly way for a bit larger of a fee. In this approach you may rent land from the landowners and large corporations, for example. We currently do not have this in society. What we have with governments like that of the US is something like pen and paper, they still haven't quite made the jump to computers yet :P. It isn't even a contest. With the market we would have something like Linux, Windows or OS X always improving. Right now we are left with none of these things. We have pen and paper without a pencil sharpener.

    Having multiple free societies is harder to stop. You may be able to stop 1. But what about 5 in different locations throughout the world? Are you going to invade each one? Are you going to come up with a cover story for each one? Especially when free societies are peaceful and have the whole Internet and world behind their mission? So we need to keep the focus on the core understanding of the free society and the planning of creating free societies any possible place. The more locations where we can push towards bringing in a free society the harder it becomes to stop. Decentralized, distributed things are hard to stop. You can't stop everyone. This is just as much about the framework for free societies as it is about creating a free society itself. The system has to be replicable. We don't want to just create one free society and hope for the best. We want to create the software and framework to deploy free societies throughout the world. The same way we can install Linux on any hardware we need a way to install a free society on any location. That is the real value that can't be stopped.

    This is obviously a peaceful operation and we would strive to be the most peaceful place on earth. There would be no initiation of force on other countries and only defense if necessary. Commerce with other nations or cities or individuals would be encouraged and happen as markets deemed necessary.

    We would not have a huge military bill like many countries currently have. In 2015 the United States spent $624 billion dollars on military spending. If you divide that by 300 million then that is $2,080 per person each year. There wouldn't be such a thing as a central military. There would be private defense agencies. To what extent they protect you from foreign affairs would be up to them and their customers and will be discussed later.

    There are also currently many countries which do not have militaries. One of those countries is Costa Rica. Costa Rica has not had a military since 1949. Sure, they have police operating inside the country, as would a free society, but they don't have a military like most countries. You would imagine if Costa Rica can go over 65 years without needing a military then perhaps a free society could too.

    But what if we get attacked? Then we rely on the idea itself, because that can't be destroyed. We continue to grow the idea and we continue to create new societies. You can't stop all of them. Look what happens when the government tries to take down a website. Another one doing the exact same thing pops up. This is how this would work. When the framework and system behind the society is in place you can't stop it. If you do another one will pop right up.


    So these are the 3 most challenging pieces in my view. I think we would face these challenges sequentially in this order. I think the first challenge would be the location piece. As this starts to become more clear the financing piece would become the main challenge. And once these first 2 challenges start to solidify themselves the defense challenge would become the primary and on-going challenge. There may be other things that are more important than these. And if there are we will figure them out. Every problem has a solution and we can have the collective world help solve it.

    Chapter 5

    A Free Society Example

    Now, I think it will be useful to give a bit of a rundown of how I could see this playing out at a very broad, general level.

    We spend a few years gaining members to the main website and discussing ideas. We get a pretty good understanding of where we want to go with this and we have say $1,000,000 raised by 3,000 people and a few investment firms. We may even have 2 separate funds. One for ownership of land and another for operations. This is all logged transparently through the website which is served from multiple international locations and stored in a decentralized repository. The money is stored in Bitcoin so it can't be confiscated and it can also clearly be seen how much there is and who donated what. Keep in mind that the money raised will go towards equal distribution of ownership of the land. So if you contribute 1/100 of the total funds to purchase the land you will own 1% of it. Which part of the land you own and how it's tracked and managed will be discussed and detailed out with time.

    By this time the movement begins to pick up momentum and there is some media attention as to what this is about. We do the best we can to brand this for what it truly is, a non-violent framework for people who think they can make life better for the world. We support the current governments throughout the world, we just think we can do a better job. The way we are branded is everything. So we have to have the right branding for what we are doing and we have to market ourselves correctly. We use the media and funds to speak to countries.

    We ultimately structure a deal with a country in South America whereby we can buy into a small area of the land (100 sq. miles) and have complete allodial title. They name their price and we now know how much we really need to raise to make this a reality. If a country wants more than just money we will have to negotiate and figure out how to structure a deal where both parties are happy. But it's possible. Some type of deal is possible. We just have to negotiate, listen, and find ways to provide what both parties want. If we need to raise millions of dollars then we write up the contract, we raise the money and we move forward. If we really had a deal in place where all we needed was money then we would probably raise the money pretty quickly. I really don't think the hard part will be raising the money. I think the hard part will be getting a location figured out and getting the framework in place for how a free society will be deployed in that location. Once people see an actual dollar amount on what is needed for a free society I think they will donate. We've just never seen that figure before and been that close and had the possibility of a free society that real.

    So let's say we buy 100 sq. miles of land somewhere in Brazil. For comparison, Los Angeles, New York City and Phoenix are all around 500 sq. miles. The whole state of New Jersey is 8,729 sq. miles. The entire country of Brazil is 3,287,357 sq. miles.

    We now get to work. We divide up the land as we have already planned and worked out and people who contributed funds now fully own this land without having to pay taxes. This 100 sq. miles will be owned by say 3,000 different individuals and groups of people. One person may own 5%. Another person may own 0.01%.

    What if somebody tries to take your newly purchased land? This is where the market comes in. As we have discussed at great length earlier, property will be the basis for everything. Somebody trying to take or use your land will be an infringement on your property. A business will immediately be set up to protect the property of others. Entrepreneurs will begin to come in and offer many of the services currently offered by governments: courts, police, roads and so on (more of this will be discussed later). What if they don't? Then I'll set these businesses up because there will be no competition at the beginning. You will make decent money providing these businesses so of course somebody is going to do it.

    Won't this be like paying taxes for police? No, because you don't have to pay it. If you do decide to pay for property protection it will be better and cheaper than police by the state because the market is always better and cheaper than the government because of competition. Yes, of course starting out will be a bit bumpy, any new industry always is. But after some time this stuff will get dialed in and the benefits of a free market will start to shine.

    Land will be bought and sold by different parties to make best use of it. People will sell out to make a quick buck while others will buy in to be a part of it. People will merge property to start joint businesses and allocation of the land will quickly be used for efficient and necessary uses via the market.

    But won't we be a central agency who determines who owns the land? We don't have to be, it depends. The ownership of land itself could be on a distributed propertychain where everyone knows who the owners are. In order to buy and sell land it would be done through this decentralized propertychain that everyone has access to, similar to the Bitcoin Blockchain. This is just one way to do it, it could be done many ways. Even if it was a centralized agency which the property was purchased and managed through, people would have the ability to buy land in different areas throughout the world and compete against another one. The one who managed land the best would rise to the top and there would always be the ability to start a new one.

    The value of land will rise as more people make use of it and seek out ownership of it. There will be an incentive to use the land as it provides the benefits and opportunity of complete ownership. There are no taxes to be paid and no central agency to report to. This would legally be the most free land in the world. There won't be a government telling you what kind of business you can and can't do. There won't be a government forcing you to pay taxes. You would actually be free -- for real this time!

    People will start to physically move here once they feel that it is safe and offers enough for them to be happy. The first people will probably be pioneer type people who want a place to escape to away from governments. They will be like, no more taxes, no forced health care system, no forced welfare, sounds good to me. They will have a home built, they will have energy provided by a company that offers that, they will have access to food and doctors and they will have what they need to be happy. There will be entrepreneurs who want to provide all these services to the people who live here. It will be a real economy, a true market.

    As more people see this and it builds momentum many of the nicer and more modern parts of society will be created. You'll start to see better healthcare, you'll start to see higher quality services, you'll see less expensive costs, you'll see entertainment and other fun things start to take form.

    If more land is needed it will be purchased and expanded. By this time we will already have a working model for how this process will work and will be able to scale it. As it scales it will start to have a snowball effect. At this time it is possible a few other free societies could start to be forming in other parts of the world using a similar structure.

    Entrepreneurs will see that they can make lots of money in a society without citizens paying the high overhead for a government and everyday people will see that things are starting to become cheaper here. More and more people will become attracted to this movement the same way people were attracted to cars from the horse and buggy or to the Internet from newspapers and TV. It's just a better system. Better systems become adopted.

    Tech entrepreneurs will flock to these places because it will allow them the most freedom to create anything they want. These will become tech hubs throughout the world because they will allow anything to take place. But when I say tech, I'm not just talking about computers. I'm talking about the kind of tech we aren't allowed to do fully in government societies. Driverless cars you ask? Sure, have them here since you don't need to go through a bureaucracy to get them approved. The individual people will decide if they want driverless cars or not, not the government. New drugs and cheap forms of medicine? Sure, go for it. Cheap and safe methods for medical care without insurance? Count me in too. People will have the ability to do and create anything they want without many of the current limitations they face from government. It will be like another industrial revolution throughout the world, but a society revolution.

    This is just a small overview of how it could work out and how I see it shaping itself with time. If we were to get people throughout the world to contribute their ideas and participate then the result would be much better. I'm just one person giving you my vision.

    Of course there will be challenges. Of course not everything will go as planned. Of course it will be like starting any other business: it will be a lot of work and it will evolve as time goes on. But like some of the best businesses in the world, it has the ability to completely transform and change the world for the better. I've said it before and I truly believe when we figure out how to create free societies we will create a revolution in the world greater than the Internet. The biggest bottleneck in the world is government. When we remove the bottleneck we unleash the world we've always dreamed of.

    Chapter 6

    The Legal System

    Okay, I know you've been asking yourself this for a while: what do we do about bad guys? What do we do with people who break the law? Is there even a law? These are important questions and I'm glad you asked.

    The legal system is the main part of a free society that people struggle with. Most people can see how we could get rid of the government in business, education, social organizations or even things like transportation. But when it comes to removing government from law, courts or police the mind gives a great big, "DOES NOT COMPUTE". I will admit that I struggled myself with this for a while. But as I researched more and thought about it more it started to come together. Most of us have just never even considered a legal system outside of the government that even thinking about it seems completely foreign and impossible to us. But the first time you try anything new it can be a bit weird at first. So let's talk it through.

    Law and the corresponding pieces are the core part of a free society. Many people talk about roads, or money, or education and while these are all important they all come back to an even more fundamental core which is that of law. There are going to be disputes and gray areas in society that need a way to be handled appropriately. We can theorize about how things will work but there are always exceptions and disagreements where details need to be worked through, and this is where law and courts come in.

    Right now government basically controls all these things. We assume that because government currently does these things that they are doing a good job. But what does government actually do better than the market? If government always controlled electronics production we might think that the government is doing a good job by allowing people to communicate with walkie-talkies.

    A free society doesn't have to replicate what the state has done. The legal system has not evolved for hundreds of years. Other industries evolve, but not the legal industry because the government has a monopoly on it and competition isn't allowed. Better ideas are not allowed. It is interesting how one of the most messed up parts of society is the whole legal system, and this is one of the main parts of society that has a monopoly that the market can not currently operate in. So government is essentially 100% in the legal system and it is absolutely terrible. What does this tell you? This is one of the greatest parts of society that would benefit the most through a market with competition. Letting individuals and businesses actually compete and revamp the entire legal system would clean it up in ways we could never imagine.

    Having a set plan that completely covers how this would work is an argument against free markets. Part of free markets is allowing for the market to solve the problems, and this can not be known until all the market forces play themselves out. If we already had a full solution that would be an argument for central planning. But it's not possible for a person or a group of people to be smarter than the market. The market is the sum of all people throughout the world. So this description of how a legal system could work is provided as a way to give insight and answer some common questions. How it would really play out would ultimately be more efficient than what I propose. I'm just one person giving my take on the best way to do something. When we have the full output of everyone in the market working together the outcome will be much better. I do know the obvious. The market makes things cheaper and better. And the market doesn't initiate force like government. Right now the legal system is a complete mess. Let's allow businesses to compete to improve it.

    The legal system can be broken down into a few main pieces:

    1. Laws
    2. Crime
    3. Police and Defense Agencies
    4. Courts and Arbitration
    5. Reputation
    6. Prison and Ostracization

    Let's explore all of these in greater detail.


    Keep in mind that we spent a full chapter on property earlier so that this part could build itself on top of that fundamental core. There is so much packed into property and NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) which is why we spent so much time on it earlier. It's a magical and accurate formula that does wonders because it is just about as foundational as you can get.

    "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

    Frederic Bastiat

    This is a very powerful quote. Laws derive from property. Property does not derive from laws. If you own something you decide how it works. These are the laws of property. Law is another word for rule. And people who own property make rules for their property. You have laws/rules on how you dress yourself, your property. You may dress completely different than everyone else, or you may dress similar to many people. You may wear jeans like many people or you may wear lederhosens like few people. It's up to you on the laws for yourself, just as it is up to others on the laws for their property. Your personal laws don't have to be the same as the laws of everyone else.

    We currently have such a limited view on law that it is hard to see how we could remove law from a state or world level and bring it down to a property level. But it's like visiting somebody's house. Their house has different rules than your house. When you visit somebody in another culture they have different things they do. This is basically law. Certain cultures may have things they all agree on. But if somebody within that culture doesn't that can be their law. And you don't all have to agree on the same inconsequential things.

    Many people will say that we have to have one law or legal system that everyone agrees on, like a Constitution. Not true. Right now the world already operates with many legal systems between each country. Disputes between countries are already handled without one overseeing world legal system. So it is obviously possible to have multiple ways to handle things legally.

    But it goes much further than this. Nobody cares if you want to eat something different than them. Nobody cares if you want to dress different than them. Nobody cares if you want to do something different than them. Most things we do are things where a law doesn't matter.

    So people aren't bound by laws of society, people are bound by laws of property. This is the important distinction to be made on law. It has to do with property. If there was a Constitution for a free society it would be based on property. Property is the law. So when people talk about one law or legal system that people should all agree on it is the topic that has been stressed throughout this entire book: property. In order to have property that property can not be aggressed against. If it can be aggressed against then you don't own it. So if there is one global, core law that everything else falls under it is this. And this is the law because this allows everyone the most freedom and choice, as discussed earlier. Property is the law. If you find a better one that allows for more freedom for everyone as a whole then it would be used. But so far this is it.

    When it comes to most things less is more, and law is no different. And we have one: ownership of property. And with ownership of property comes the NAP. Without non-aggression you can't own anything.

    If we have the right laws everything else will follow. If we have wrong principles it will only get worse. It's like trying to find out how fast something will fall with the wrong equation for gravity. The right equation for gravity is simple. The wrong equation for gravity gets really confusing. The right equation for society is also simple. People would rather complicate it.


    Okay, so let's say the law is based around property. What do we do about criminals who break the law, that is, who violate the property of another person?

    "Moreover, in the system of criminal punishment in the libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on 'society's' jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime. The present system, in which the victim is not recompensed but instead has to pay taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker — would be evident nonsense in a world that focuses on the defense of property rights and therefore on the victim of crime."

    Murray Rothbard

    When somebody initiates force on another's property without their consent that is a crime. One person was an aggressor and another a victim. Crimes become based around victims -- people who are victims to force on their property. Once again, this is all based around property, whether that be yourself, your house, your car, your land, whatever.

    Victimless crimes, where there is no victim, are not crimes. If there is no victim then it is not a crime. If there is no victim then there is no force being used on another. Again, if you have the right equation everything else will follow. This is a very important point to realize and think about because this is not how it currently works anywhere in the world. If nobody is hurt it is not a crime.

    Drugs are not a crime because you are not using force on somebody else's property by doing them. You can do whatever you want to do to yourself. You are your own property. If a certain drug is damaging and you choose to damage yourself you can do so, just as you can damage your car if you want to. Do as you wish with your property as long as you don't aggress on the property of others.

    But what if everyone else as a whole decides to do something which brings down society and society slowly degrades because there is no state to enforce the correct behavior? What if people allow for prostitution which brings down society? This is another important point to be understood. People can't bring down your level of society if they can't use force on you. They may not create society the way you see fit, but that is why you have your own property and are able to create society in your direction. You create in your direction and they create in their direction. Maximum diversity and freedom is a beautiful thing. This is something very important for people to understand who want to use government force to make people act a certain way and follow their rules. We don't need to try to find the right set of rules and then force them on everyone else so that they don't hurt us. In a free society people can't hurt you because they can't force you to pay taxes to subsidize their behavior which you do not approve of. They have to subsidize their own behavior. So this is a great realization that must be understood. You can read more about this in the Q&A section.

    How do we know what's right or wrong? Moral or immoral? That's for you to decide for yourself, and for others to decide for themselves. There isn't a set rulebook saying this is right or wrong like religion. That is what a free society is all about: freedom. The freedom to choose. And not everyone has to choose the same thing. Not everyone has to agree on the same rights and wrongs. This allows for whatever individual expression (freedom) somebody wants so long as they don't interfere with another's. Again, you will be hard pressed to name a system for society that is more allowing than this one.

    There is really only one law: property -- which means don't initiate force on another person's property. And if we remove the force law we run into issues with people disrupting the property of others and nobody can own anything any longer and it becomes a complete mess. It throws the whole system out of balance to remove property from the equation. But with it the system allows for maximum freedom and at the same type protects against the practice and exercise of that freedom. I've said it 1,000 times because it's true: when you find the right principles for something everything else falls into place. When you hit on foundational truths you don't need lots of tiny little rules to try to manage everything.

    So with this all in mind it changes our current understanding of the laws and crimes most governments currently have. Taxation is a crime because it is theft. The victim is that taxpayer and the aggressor is the State. The State is stealing from people by force. If you can't go up to somebody on the street and tax them then the State should not be allowed to come up to you and tax you.

    War is a crime because it is murder. Rape is still a crime. Murder is still a crime. Self defense is still okay. And so on. Everything comes down to property. Is somebody's property being aggressed against? This will determine whether or not a crime is occurring. And yes, sometimes it may be a bit tricky to tell and that's where courts will come in as we will talk about shortly.

    Cocaine used to be legal, Marijuana used to be legal. Alcohol was once illegal. You can't drink until you're 21, but you can go to war at 18. You can't gamble until you're 21. Our current laws are contradictory and silly because they don't derive from principles and property. But even more fundamentally they are silly because they accept the premise that somebody has a right way to live and can enforce that right way of living on other people. Our current laws derive from the opinions of the government and people, and those opinions change. If you have to keep rewriting and changing laws then they're probably not very foundational. People don't have to keep re-writing how addition and subtraction work because it is foundational.

    With this understanding of crime it should be obvious that many, many criminals are invented under the current state system. You become a criminal if you do drugs under the current system. In a free society you're not a criminal for doing drugs, you're a person choosing what to put into your body. Prisons are filled with people who did drugs and harmed nobody. Doing drugs isn't a crime. And these people are not criminals. Criminals initiate force on property. Doing drugs does not do this. Many of the people in jail are not criminals, they are an invention of the government. The government turned an innocent person into a criminal.

    Police & Defense Agencies

    In a free society police are handled like any other service on the market. Police are just like any other person in society, they don't get special privileges. Police are people doing a job, just like a teacher doing a job. So it follows that police are not allowed to initiate force. Well then how do they do their job? They prevent crime, protect people and use force in defense, not offense. Because police can't initiate force society would be much safer. You wouldn't have to worry about a police being able to use physical force on you without any recourse on your part. Police would not be above the law like they currently are. If you truly care about safety and protection then you should care about having a level playing field between all members of society. We shouldn't create a police class which can do things non-police can't. Police are just people too.

    Police would probably come in the form of insurance like other services. These have been called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) by Stefan Molyneux. These would act similar to insurance agencies only instead of insuring your car or your house they insure your protection and security. And unlike the current state police we have throughout the world, these companies would actually be accountable towards doing a good job. Unlike police right now, if these companies didn't protect you and make you more secure they would go out of business. To what extent they protect you and solve disputes between you and another party depends on the level of service you have and the price you pay.

    Oh I can hear it already... but what if you can't afford protection? Well, what if you can't afford food? What if you can't afford clothing? As mentioned earlier, the purpose of a free society isn't to provide a long list of things for people for free. A society can't provide something for free without violating somebody else's property rights. The purpose of a free society is to allow the freedom for people to make their own choices. Keep in mind, we already pay a monthly premium to our current police force in the form of taxes. So our current police isn't free. It costs money too. And because this would be offered on the market with competition it would be cheaper and more efficient than the current government monopoly police. Yeah, but what about poor people who are unable to live as free in a free society because they can't afford protection? Well, what about people who right now can afford to have private security? What about people who right now can afford to live safer than poor people? Rich people already do live much safer lives than many poor people. Not everyone lives the same, people come from different circumstances. Nevertheless, poor people do have options. Poor people can carry a firearm, poor people can learn self defense, poor people can do a number of things for cheap or free. Moreover, if people think that there should be DROs for people who can't afford DROs then people may create DROs like this for poorer people, similar to how there are charitable places where poor people can get food and shelter. This will be discussed more later on.

    As was previously stated, the pricing model would probably work very similar to insurance. You could pay per use or you could pay a monthly insurance premium or I'm sure there are countless other creative ways this service could be provided.

    Picture this: imagine somebody offers to charge you 6% of your income to protect you. You don't really know where your funds go or if it even makes it to the company. If something goes wrong and you are not satisfied with the protection you received you have no recourse. If somebody steals from you they never really get to the bottom of it and you don't expect them to. You pay your money and since your money doesn't actually go to the people providing the service there is no real incentive for the actual police to do a good job. If the police do a good job they get the same pay as if they do a mediocre job. You know they're not experts at solving problems because they have no incentive to be. They don't have to do a good job because there is not competition to make them have to improve. Well guess what? That's what we currently have! Surprise! Yeah I know, it's a completely terrible system and everybody knows it is.

    Now imagine how much cleaner and elegant this would look if handled through the market. There are 2 or 3 big DRO agencies who service most people. TIMEOUT! MONOPOLY! No, we already have a monopoly with the state. 2 or 3 big non-violent DROs is better than 1 big violent government DRO. Let me continue. They have proven track records and have earned their spot at the top and their customers trust and money because they do a good job. These agencies compete against other DRO agencies who are constantly trying to find better ways to service their customers. These DROs are always exploring and researching ways to improve their service and offer the customer better defense and security for a cheaper price. Because these agencies are all competing with each other your service continues to get better for less money. When somebody does steal from you the DRO gets to the bottom of it because they know if they don't you will leave to another DRO that will get to the bottom of it. DROs are complete experts in solving problems like this. Protecting you and alleviating crime against you is what they eat, sleep and breathe. The same way Google makes sure that you get exactly what you want when you type a search into their search box, these companies would make sure you get exactly what you want for the security of yourself and your family. Oh and by the way, all this for much, much less than what you're currently paying for your State police service. This isn't some fantasy. This is what markets do. Get rid of state police and I am 100% sure private police will be better for less -- the same way I am sure that 2 + 2 = 4.

    In a free society self defense is perfectly okay because it doesn't violate the NAP. So if you want to walk around with a gun then you can, granted the property owner allows you to. If the property owner does not allow you to have guns then you can't have them... including police. Police can't have guns on your property if you do not want them to. If they do then it is up to a court to decide if they are aggressing on your property or not (which they clearly would be in most cases).

    If you don't want to carry a gun you can hire a defense agency instead. And most people would. Less people would carry guns if we had DROs because DROs would do a much, much better job than State police and society would be safer. If you ask a lot of people who carry guns right now why they carry it is because they know the police take too long to respond. By the time the current government, monopoly police get to a crime scene it is already too late in most cases. This is because the government doesn't have market forces acting on improved defense systems. If people didn't have to carry guns they wouldn't. If society was safer people would be less likely to carry guns. And a market will get us there much quicker than a government monopoly.

    You can choose not to use a DRO if you want. Nobody forces you to use a DRO. It's like insurance. If you want it great, if not great. It's your choice and there isn't a right or wrong answer. For some people it may make sense to have a DRO, for others it may make sense not to have a DRO.

    You can start your own DRO if you want. Maybe you're not happy with the level of service the DROs are currently putting out and you know of a way to do it better. Great! That's how markets work. Start your DRO and get customers. Do something better for less money to the customer.

    As has previously been stated, DROs can not violate the NAP. They are just like any other person. Nobody is outside of property. If you are a DRO you have to act in accordance to property.

    What about the mafia scenario where a big company takes over all the competitors and people can't stop them? This is a common question that is discussed later in the Q&A.

    Courts & Arbitration

    In a free society courts would be businesses that compete with each other. There wouldn't be one court system that is a monopoly like we currently have. Different businesses would provide these services and innovations in better providing this service would be welcomed by the market.

    Courts rule with one guiding principle: property. So when cases come about to a court the court decides who owns the property and if that property is being aggressed against. This is what most legal disputes are. If somebody kills another person then it has to be decided if the killer was initiating force on another person, or rather, property. If somebody steals from another person it has to be established who owned the item that was stolen. If somebody is polluting the air next to their neighbor's house it has to be determined if pollution is deemed an invasion of property in this case. Everything comes down to property. And these not so clear cases are where courts come in.

    Most people currently avoid courts because they are inefficient, time consuming and costly -- and rightfully so. It's a bit silly how the 6th Amendment is the right to a fair and speedy trial... more outdated technology I suppose. Perhaps the 6th Amendment is referring to the speed and technology of the 18th century...

    Courts currently force people into admitting to crimes to avoid more time wasted. Think about this. The whole government court process is so bad that people would rather just admit to guilt, and serve a reduced sentence, then actually present all their evidence to have a legitimate case. It's not even worth defending yourself in court unless you have loads of money right now. So what about the poor you ask? Hah! Yeah, exactly.

    In a free society courts make money by providing the best ruling on the law, that is, the best ruling on property. The goal of courts will be reaching a correct verdict as fast as possible for as cheap as possible.

    Contracts will be important for certain types of things. Many risks and dangers would be agreed to ahead of time. What if XYZ Bank plans to take all my money and then leave? Then they will have to write it out in their contract and be bound by it legally. Before banking with them you could make sure all the owners of the bank provide their information so you know who to go after in the case of a problem. But how am I supposed to know all the tiny details to look for ahead of time? This is where markets come into play. There will be businesses to help you with this. It will become 2nd nature. But this will cost more money you say. You already are paying for the government to do this kind of thing and they are not doing a good job at it at all.

    DROs would decide which arbitration agencies to use for certain types of disputes ahead of time. When you sign up with a DRO you would know in the case of say a murder dispute you would be bound by the decision of ABC Arbitration. ABC Arbitration would be damn good at solving murder cases because competition through the market would have weeded out all the arbitration firms that can't solve murder cases.

    Judges will be professionals in knowing favorable resolutions for a wide range of scenarios. Would judges serve a life long tenure at the highest level to ensure that they can't be bought and sold? Haha, no they wouldn't use outdated technology -- they would just let the market weed out the bad judges. Corrupt, bad judges would be unemployed and good judges would be paid very well. Judges would be trained detectives who know how to sniff out BS and get to the bottom of things quickly. That's their job. Judges will be completely versed in first principles to know how to get to the core of disputes and find appropriate resolutions based off of property. Judges will not be appointed, judges will earn their place by providing the best resolutions to citizens that directly pay their wage. Back in Ireland this is actually how it used to work. Judges were known and respected for their ability to rule based on principles. They were able to accurately map current scenarios to past scenarios and extract the commonalities and important points.

    Whether it would be one judge, or a group of judges, or a jury, or a decentralized legal database or whatever else is trivial. The market and the customers would find the right setup for the right kind of case. Different cases may use different setups or most cases may all use the same setup. The important part is that the setup would get the correct decision as quickly and inexpensively as possible. And the even more important point is that it would be lightyears ahead of the current outdated technology that is currently promoted throughout the entire world via our current governments.

    In this regard common law will most likely be used between parties to handle disputes. As more and more cases are handled a database will be built of all the resolutions and it will become pretty easy to quickly ascertain the correct way to rule on property. Common law is basically law that is derived through the market system rather than through the political system. As more courts take on cases the laws of how to deal with certain matters begin to become more clear.

    Again, the market will clean up courts entirely. Since people will no longer only have 1 legal system choice as soon as something is done poorly or unjust it will be an opportunity for them or somebody else to create a better court. Right now we can't create better courts so we don't get better courts.


    Reputation becomes really important in a free society -- all people and businesses have a reputation to maintain. It is already somewhat like this in our current society, but nowhere near where it could be.

    When people start relationships with businesses they would need to be convinced that the business they were dealing with was legitimate. Businesses would need to prove to people why they should work with them. If they couldn't do this there would be another business who could. New businesses who don't have a reputation built up would need to convince you of their service by charging less money or doing something to make you feel comfortable taking a risk in business with them. Established people are more trusted. This is how it already works to a large degree, but it would happen even more in a free society, especially in services where the government currently holds a monopoly.

    DROs will have a reputation to maintain. If they are unable to solve problems between people then that will be known and other better DROs who do solve problems will be used more.

    People will have a reputation to maintain. If people are shady it will be known about. A free society will look out for each other because it will know that reputation is an effective way to maintain order.

    Reputation works similar to Amazon or eBay or even a new business. When you buy a product on Amazon would you rather read what the business says about the product or would you rather read what customer reviews say about the product? What about when you go to see a movie? Do you read the reviews on the Internet first? Do you treat different products and services differently? These are the types of things that will become more commonplace in a free society. Rather than turning to the government to see what some government agency says about something you will turn to a business about it instead.

    If reputation becomes important then surely there will be businesses that work towards providing people information on the reputation of businesses. Just as we have companies like IMDB who provide movie reviews and BBB who provide a very basic level of business quality, it would become much more dialed in. All the current government rating agencies like the FDA, FCC, etc would be replaced with private companies who would be much better at providing realistic, accurate assessments of businesses because they would all be competing to find the best way to equip the consumer for educated, accurate, smart decisions.

    And unlike the FDA and other governmental agencies, if a business wasn't following certain guidelines you could still work with them if you were comfortable taking that risk. If a private agency finds the reputation of somebody below par they put that information out and people can decide whether or not that risk is worth it to them. People won't be forced to not use a company. They will simply know the risks and make up their own decision. If you want to work with an unlicensed doctor who is super cheap and has a great reputation you can. If you only want a licensed doctor who is more expensive you can work with them. There isn't an agency who can force you not to do business with a business like the government currently does. There are agencies that provide you the information and you decide. Again, maximum choice is maximum freedom.

    Prison & Ostracization

    You're probably been thinking this for a while... but if you can't use force and somebody who murdered another person doesn't want to go to jail, how do you force them to go to jail? Well it is first important to realize that we don't make exceptions to the rule. If the rule is the non-initiation of force then we don't try to make exceptions for certain cases like our current governments would do. Rather than make exceptions we get creative and come up with non-violent solutions. If we don't initiate violence in a free society, unlike all governments in the world, then we don't initiate violence. Period. This question is one of the questions that originally threw me for a loop for a while too at first. How do you non-violently deal with people who are violent and don't care what a court orders them to do? You ostracize them. This is where reputation comes in.

    Ostracization is a last resort if no other non-violent methods resolve problems. This is probably something you have never really thought about or heard of. The final measure in a free society is not force, it's ostracization. If all contracts, courts and negotiations do not resolve a conflict then the final measure is ostracization.

    What is meant by ostracization? Ostracization in a free society would non-violently cut people off from society -- making it where people are unable to participate in society because other people don't want to deal with criminals. If somebody raped a little girl and everyone knew about it, most people would probably not want to do business with him. If they did do business with him it would be known that that business tolerates customers who rape little girls. Ostracization is extremely powerful and there would be businesses built around this kind of information.

    The form ostracization takes and the degree that it permeates throughout society are again up to the market to decide. If people aggressing on property becomes a big problem then businesses and services built around efficient ostracization will rise up and do the best job and protecting people and businesses from this individual and make it costly and difficult for this individual to go about their life. If ostracization is not a big problem then there won't be many businesses built around it and it won't happen often. If society is balanced and efficient it will be less likely that disputes ever come to this.

    A big part of dealing with problems is prevention. In the current system very little effort is put into prevention because police don't have any incentive to prevent crimes. In a free society there would be a much greater emphasis on prevention because it is cheaper to prevent a crime then to deal with it after it has happened. Things like discounts on your DRO insurance for good, peaceful parenting and things like this will be more common, the same way people who don't smoke get cheaper health insurance. Violent people don't normally just come out of nowhere. There are certain patterns and events which happen in their lives which lead up this. In a free society these events would be taken much more seriously because defense protection would be much cheaper for those that followed guidelines which produced less violent behavior.

    Wait, so you're telling me if somebody murders somebody they will just be ostracized and that's it? Well first off, why do people murder? Sure there are crazy people out there but people don't become crazy out of nowhere. A lot of crazy people come from bad environments, from heavy drug use, from broken families, from broken legal systems which exist in state societies and so on. A lot of crazy people also have histories of other violent behavior. So these people don't just magically appear. They are created. So the amount of people who would get something out of murdering another person in a free society may be less likely than we think. There is a lot that goes into a murder which derives from the state system which we don't see. Moreover, ostracization is about as bad of a punishment as you can get. People don't understand the severity and effectiveness of ostracization because we don't currently practice it.

    You won't pay to imprison people in a free society. This would be paid for by the criminals. We currently get hurt by the crimes that criminals do and then we also get hurt by having to financially pay to put them in prison. In a free society it would be on the criminal to pay their own way. If they couldn't pay their own way then they would have a hard time going through society. People would know about what they've done and know that they're not willing to pay restitution towards the crimes that they have committed.

    Historically, when monetary restitution not enough to make something right that is where the idea of prison originally came in. In the case of somebody stealing something or more minor crimes the person could more easily make the crime right by returning what they stole or by paying some money for the other party's troubles. But what would happen when they didn't have enough money to pay restitution? What would happen in the case of murder where there isn't a price that would make the crime right?

    This is how prisons originally came about. They served a few purposes:

    1. Punishment
    2. Deterrent
    3. Remove person from society

    These are some of the main reasons prison came about and they are still some of the main reasons we have prisons today. But as many people know, a lot of prisons today really aren't that bad and many criminals would rather be in prison than living on the street. A lot of prisons serve decent meals and are basically a low level hotel. People watch television, chat with other prisoners and live life at that level. And it's not to say that this is a bad thing.

    However, under the free market system prisons would be competing to create the best system for dealing with these problem people in society. In the free market prisons would not be subsidized by everyday citizens, they would be subsidized by the criminals themselves. The criminals would not be a burden on society but on themselves. The incentives would be entirely shifted in a free society.

    And of course, if criminals didn't want to go along with this then they would have a hard time participating in society where their reputation is ruined and they are not taking steps to make the wrongs they did right. All of this would be done non-violently.


    Here is are 2 examples of how a dispute could happen:

    Somebody steals a TV

    Somebody murders another person


    So that's an overview of how a legal system could work. Keep in mind much of this is using existing legal pieces that we already recognize in order to make it easier to understand and see how even using the existing pieces could be improved greatly. Ultimately many of these pieces may be done away with and new pieces for the legal infrastructure may be brought in. The market would determine that.

    Also keep this in mind: a large reason why people like to have rules and laws is because they think that because of the government it is possible for somebody who does something wrong to hurt them. And this is somewhat true. If you pay taxes to support people who do wrong then it does hurt you. But in a free society you can't be hurt this way because there is no government that extracts your wealth to subsidize behavior of another individual that you do not agree with. Really stop and think about this. Many people are not in favor of drug use or prostitution and things like this because they say it will hurt these people and then they will end up having to pay for them in the form of welfare or prison or something like this.

    Chapter 7

    Important Things

    In a free society there of course are lots of other topics to discuss like money, infrastructure, roads, education, charity and so on. It is not super important to focus on these specifically because a free market will automatically allow the best solutions to rise to the top. If you have a fairly strong understanding of the earlier section on governments & markets then this should make sense. We don't need to understand every little detail on how things will work. Markets will do things better than the government. Just as systems of freedom will create more happiness than systems of fear. Systems of choice will create better solutions than systems of force.

    Nevertheless it is still helpful to at least see how things could work out. By seeing how certain things can unfold opens your eyes to the possibility of the market system at work and allows you to be like, "Oh yeah, why didn't I see it like that before?" You didn't see it like this before because we're not educated to think in terms of markets. We've traveled so far down the government model that we don't even know how much it clouds our perception of how things could work without it.

    When thinking about how the market system will solve problems you should always remember this: every problem is an opportunity to make money by solving it. That's why markets are so good. All the time people will say, "But how will X be done?" And every time that X problem is an opportunity to make money by solving it. Every possible problem that you can throw at a free society is a new opportunity to make money. And every time somebody makes money in a free society people are choosing to give that business their money because that business did something they wanted. So problems are great in a free society. The biggest problem in a free society will be less about what the problems are and more about how tricky it is to find a new problem that somebody else hasn't already solved or started to solve. We see this all the time in the business world already. Starting a new business is hard because there are so many people who have already created businesses around the problem you are trying to solve. The obvious problem with society right now is that people aren't legally able to start businesses to solve many of the current problems government creates. Because government has a monopoly and poorly solves a problem, it is not legal to solve the problem that government is not solving.

    If the solutions to a lot of these sound repetitive they should. The core way of handling all these parts of society should sound the same because they are being handled the same, by the market.

    Once again, I ask to you to keep in mind we want to favor 100% choice. When we are not allowing choice and when we are initiating force we are being anti-human.

    Keep in mind that everything the state currently provides is not free. So these things already cost money. That money will be better spent in an efficient market than an inefficient bureaucracy.


    Money is at the heart of any society and one of the most important parts. Without sound money it is hard to have a sound economy. Money is simply a medium of exchange that helps to facilitate trade between two parties. Money is basically the next level of bartering. Money allows a higher level of barter which allows a higher level of society. Money is the natural outgrowth of a free society.

    Currently, for the most part, each country issues its own money, or rather currency. There are obvious reasons as to why this is and many books to explain the game of money. If you're reading this book you probably already have a decent understanding of how money works. If you don't fully understand money there are many great books written which go into how money really works and how money ties into many of the problems we have worldwide today. If you're looking for a good book on how money works check out "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. Suffice to say, money is one of the biggest problems of society.

    For example, if we currently use our own money outside of the state enforced money we ultimately go to jail. You have to stop and ask yourself why, if America is "free". We always hear talk about how the United States is a free market. No no. The first step to being a free market is freedom to choose the money we use. We can't do that in the US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. When we pay for things we have to use dollars issued by the Federal Reserve. We have to use this money. If we don't then it will be treated as a barter and we will have to pay taxes on that. No matter what, we can't do non-taxed, non-dollar commerce in America without breaking the law. So by the most foundational part of a free market, America is not a free market. America doesn't even allow for the market to choose which money will be used.

    The money we currently use is making us poorer and extracting our wealth. Since 1900 the dollar has lost almost 100 times its value. That means $100 dollars is now only worth $1. You may think that's fine and normal because of inflation. But why isn't an ounce of gold worth less today because of inflation? Gold 100 years was worth $20 and today it is worth over $1,000. Gold and the dollar have basically traded places. It's because we don't have sound money in America, and the same goes for the rest of the world. Sound money doesn't come about from governments, it comes about from markets. And since markets are not legally allowed to issue money throughout the world we do not have sound money.

    A free society would allow for competing currencies. Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange which stores values, not a wealth extraction device we are forced to use. Currency can be anything and it is up to the buyers and sellers in a market to choose. But don't we need to all use the same currency? No, not at all, especially in a more technological world. Shops can easily accept a few of the top currencies. Every currency will have an exchange rate with the other currencies and eventually the best currencies would rise to the top and people would use them. If a better currency came along that would work its way into society.

    I think gold would be very popular and there would be banks who issue cards and mobile apps backed by gold. I also could see a digital currency like Bitcoin becoming more popular. If you wanted to use something like dollars you could use it. And people who accepted it would do business with you. If people didn't accept it then there would be a business that allows you to convert dollars into something that people do accept. It's called an exchange and we already use them when we go to other countries. But wouldn't this become annoying and a problem? No, because through the market process there would really only be 2 or 3 main currencies that most people used because they were the best ones to use. But then why not just use dollars? Because dollars lose value. If people weren't forced by government to use dollars they wouldn't use them. People would use currencies that don't lose value instead.

    We would be less likely to have any type of currency manipulation because if any currency started to do something shady people would just stop using it and use a currency that wasn't shady. If people saw something like the US Dollar inflating and bailing out banks with trillions of artificial dollars they would just stop using it and no longer support that currency. The people counterfeiting this currency and using it to support their banks would go out of business because they would have no real value to offer through their currency. Their currency would not be worth the value they say it's worth and people would no longer accept it. People would have many options in choices for money and since they wouldn't be forced by a government to use a currency which loses value, they would use a currency which doesn't lose value.

    The craziest part is how this one simple change would be one of the most drastic changes we would see in society. It's hard to even do justice to how important the ability to choose your money in a free society would even be. Libraries of books have been written on how money is at the core of everything in society. The very core of a free society is the ability to freely exchange. When people are able to actually use a currency where interest rates aren't arbitrarily chosen and where it doesn't lose value the wealth of everyone using it will not drop. If you can actually put your money in the bank and make more money than you're losing to inflation it would have an impact on every industry. People wouldn't have to work harder and harder to stay afloat. You wouldn't have to have both parents working full-time jobs to try to support a family. We would actually have real wealth and more time to enjoy our lives. We wouldn't have to have gains in technology to offset losses in money.

    Let me just give you a quick example of how completely insane our money system currently is in the United States. We currently pay 6% of all taxes to interest on our debt. We have debt for no reason. We paid $229.2 Billion in 2015 just on interest on debt that we don't need to have. That's $763 per person if you divide it by 300 million people.


    How are we going to pay for infrastructure without taxes? How do we pay for roads, bridges, tunnels, water, sewers, energy, Internet, airports, stadiums, parks and so forth?

    All of the things that government currently provides can be done in a similar fashion through the market. If people need something there will be a business to provide it. If there isn't a business to supply it somebody can make a good profit by finding a way to supply it, and they will. All these things we currently pay taxes for would be paid for directly, or the costs would be covered in some creative way by business owners. Either way it will ultimately be cheaper than the government solution because this is how markets work. They are better and cheaper.

    Infrastructure could differ from society to society based on how the property owners want to handle it. It is even possible that if one group or individual bought 100% of the land in an area they could provide all these services themselves. But wait, isn't this like what we have now with the State? No. This is different than how it is currently done today democratically because they would be running the city as a voluntary business rather than forced taxes in a democracy. It would be in their best interest to find ways to provide value that generate revenue. But what if they took advantage of people and charged too much since they had a monopoly? Then people wouldn't live there, they would move to another free society that didn't do this. But can't people currently do that now if they don't like the city they're in? They can move, but no cities exist that are 100% free that people can move to. That is what this book is all about. People need the choice to live somewhere that doesn't force taxes on them.

    But what if all free societies were businesses where the business owners took advantage of people? Then it would be a great opportunity for somebody to start another city that doesn't take advantage of people so they can take all the existing customers of the cities that do. This has been discussed a lot earlier in the book and that's why it's important to understand the fundamental way that markets work. Without the use of government force it is hard and expensive to maintain a monopoly. A business who overcharges for things has bills to pay and if they lose their customers to a competitor then they're going to be losing lots of money and will have to go bankrupt or change their business model. No business can and will take a continued loss for the sake of having a monopoly. As long as people always have the ability to start a new city then if one city goes wayward a new city can always rise up again. Right now we don't have the model in place or understanding of how to start a new society easily and so we don't. This book is meant to help change that. Starting a new city should be no different than starting a new business. People just don't think like that right now. Let's start thinking like that.

    So having a group own the city completely and provide or contract businesses to provide infrastructure is fairly easily understood and straightforward. But it most certainly does not need to be done this way. The market can easily allow for many different property owners to provide different services all within one city.

    If somebody wanted to create an airport, stadium or park they could. They could purchase land, get the capital to build it and then do it. There wouldn't be any regulations or guidelines to follow. They would simply build it on their property. If it was built well and worked well people could choose whether or not to use it.

    It gets a bit more tricky when you talk about services that require the cooperation of multiple property owners, like roads, water, energy and things of this nature. But it's really not that tricky. This already happens fully with the Internet. Everybody who uses the Internet follows a few basic protocols like HTTP for websites, SMTP for email and so on. Most people use USB for electronic devices. No government forced people to do things this way. People just communicated with each other, tested out different methods and then started to agree and adopt the best methods. This is what markets do. If there comes a better way to display information over the Internet people will start to change and shift towards that. This actually happens all the time in the online world, it's just that the market is so incredibly good at rolling out these improvements you as a customer never notice them. If you compare the Internet of today (fully working on your mobile phone, video, audio, real time applications and tons of other cool stuff) to the Internet of even 10 years ago it looks very different. But when did this change happen? What government order changed it? Government didn't change it, customers and entrepreneurs did. And it happened gradually and smoothly. This is what markets do. And this is how it would work with things like roads, water, energy and so on. If you let people freely solve problems they will.

    So in the case of energy, anybody who owns land can create a power plant and start generating energy. So they could put coal, solar, wind or whatever other types of energy producing devices on their land and start to sell it to other people similar to how it is done today. But what about power lines to move the energy? People will come up with a way to transport the energy between each other. This could work just like the Internet. You could have energy service providers who transport energy the same way we have ISPs who transport information via the Internet. The energy business could provide energy receivers with the technology they need on their property to receive energy so that they could bring them on as a customer. Maybe if they equipped your property to be energy ready you would need to sign a 1 year contract with them as your provider. This is all up to how smart and creative the entrepreneurs are to providing value and it is up to customers on how much value they expect from the businesses providing service. Again, the same market principles we have talked about throughout the book.

    To further understand how this multi-property owner infrastructure will work it is best to explore an example like transportation.

    Roads & Transportation

    When it comes to roads it is important to remember the focus should be on transportation. We want the best way to provide transportation. That may or may not involve roads. We don't fully know if roads are the best way to transport people in this day and age. Rather than driving to an office it may be better to work from home and have meetings over Skype. We have things like self-driving cars on the horizon. Will these use roads like we do today? We have Elon Musk working on things like the Hyperloop. Will this type of thing change the way we travel? Maybe, maybe not. Of course roads are important, but it's not to say there aren't other ways of transportation that may be more beneficial for certain situations, especially in a free society where innovation is paramount. Who knows how fast transportation would advance without the restrictions currently placed on it?

    But let's say majority of transportation is going to be on roads for the foreseeable future. That's fine and it's not a problem, the market handles it fine and here's how.

    As discussed previously, roads would be owned privately. At first thought roads may sound a bit tricky because in most cases they span across the property of multiple property owners. This is something that can be hard to wrap your head around at first. What does this mean?

    Again, there are 2 main ways to go about this: the crowdfunded, public way with lots of property owners or the private capital way with just a few owners. The private capital route is simple because it would work similar to how roads are currently done where a few property owners could map out how they want to handle roads and scale them in the future. This would tie into the overall infrastructure of the location and be fairly straightforward.

    But what about the crowdfunded, public way with lots of property owners? There are different ways it could be done. Groups of property owners, like say the owners of a shopping mall, could all create and maintain roads within their area to allow customers and residents to get to the location. People who owned commercial stores that people shopped at would need a way for people to get there, so they would factor roads into part of their equation. This would be no different than a grocery store providing shopping carts for their customers. They know people need a place to put their groceries so they have it. Stores would know people need a way to get there so they would provide it.

    This same approach could happen for residential areas too. There may be a residential community with 50 new homes being built where the developer builds roads throughout the community and connects them to other existing roads centrally located in the city.

    As has previously been mentioned. This could all work very similar to how it already works with the Internet. When you visit a web page you are going through many different private owners who transfer your information through their computers that they own. That's how the Internet works. The data you want is located in a remote place far away from where you currently are and many different ISPs direct your request to the data that you want. The Internet is an information road. And the Internet has all the problems you may see with roads like traffic, downtime, construction and so on. And the Internet has ways with dealing with all these problems. So roads would most likely work very similar to this type of model. Different people create roads in their own areas for their own reasons and then they connect into other roads using protocols which evolve the same way the Internet follows certain protocols for connecting one privately owned server to another privately owned server. Cities and locations that have lots of traffic would have lots of extra backup systems and technology to make sure that the traffic can get through in peak times. All of this would work just like it does already with the Internet.

    But the Internet is not physical and roads are. Well, not totally true. The Internet is physical. All the information lives on physical hard-drives. And this data has to go from one physical location to another physical location. Roads are the same thing. Yes, of course roads are much larger, more expensive and the infrastructure is a much greater commitment, and that's all the more reason to have the market do it. With time the market will make roads more and more efficient, and cheaper and cheaper for the consumer.

    It could also be possible that roads could have pricing in certain areas. Maybe non-commercial, non-residential roads that go to more remote places or are not directly tied to some type of business will have some type of fee. You could easily have a GPS device in your vehicle that tracks your usage and bills you. But wait, that would suck if we had to pay for roads when right now we don't have to pay for roads when we use them. Did you just catch yourself? Our roads aren't currently free and we do pay for them in the form of taxes. And as has been discussed over and over again (and will continue to be because it is the basis of everything) when we pay for things directly through the market it will be better and cheaper than buying it via taxes through the government. So roads would of course be cheaper overall in a free society. Transportation would become cheaper and cheaper until eventually technology made it free.

    What about rural roads? What about Internet in rural areas? It comes down to supply and demand. Roads may be done away with in certain locations, but if they are needed there will be a price for them. If building lots of roads in rural areas is costly and a useless thing to work on then what does this currently say about government roads that we're forced to have in rural areas? People who are putting up their own money for roads are going to be a lot more careful on where to put roads and the right way to plan them. There will be a lot less roads that are built that aren't used. It would be a waste of resources for unused roads. People are notoriously bad at planning the most efficient way to use other people's money. People are much better at using their own money.

    There are many things we could experiment with that we currently are unable to experiment with because of how limiting government is. For example we might have peak load pricing for times when traffic is really high. The pricing mechanism would reduce traffic, just as it reduces any shortage and speeds up slow processes. If you want a package quickly you have the option of paying for overnight delivery. If you want a road with low traffic you may have the option of paying for that. Yes, different road speeds just like we have different Internet speeds. Crazy these markets I tell you.

    But there are lots of other very important things that could take place that we don't normally even consider. Road owners will be able to innovate on rules for the roads. There will be less accidents because the people who construct roads will compete to create roads in a way where it allows for less accidents. Over 40,000 people die on roads every year in America. Roads would be safer in a free market. How do we know our current roads have turns in the right spots? How do we know our current roads don't confuse drivers and cause more accidents? What if somebody comes up with a safer way to architect a road right now? How do they create that? They can't. In a free society they can and will. Maybe there will be less stops and turns in roads. Maybe roads won't be forced to go through certain areas that are dangerous. Who knows? The market, that's who.

    There will be better drivers. Drivers may be required to prove that they really are competent drivers. There may be better ways to prove that people are competent. People who are good drivers may travel for free. People who are bad drivers may face heavier fees. The market makes everything better and roads are no different.

    So this is a small overview on how roads without government would work. Are you starting to see things from another perspective? Are you starting to see things from the top of the mountain called the market? Are you getting there?


    Education would be an open market and the parents could decide where and how to educate their children. They could even choose not to have them educated.

    The current way we educate people really isn't that good. It even shows with test scores compared to other countries. Most children don't like going to school and many bad teachers can't be fired. It's just a mess right now that could be heavily revamped through the markets. After all, it wasn't until the early 1900s that education in America became ran by the State. Before that education was private and people in America were very well educated. Ever since the government has taken over control of education people have become dumber. But of course they have, that's what governments do -- they make things lower quality and more expensive.

    In a free society good teachers would make more money and bad teachers would make less money or be fired. Right now it is very hard to get rid of bad teachers. Schools and teachers would compete on the best ways to education children and adults. So naturally, as is always the case in a market environment, it will provide better education for less than the current government controlled education we have. Having the market take care of education is the obvious answer unless of course you went to a government school which told you otherwise.

    Education may be done in the form of physical schools or it may be done through the Internet or other technological ways. People have different preferences and there isn't a right or wrong way to educate. Who knows what the right way to educate is? The market, that's who.

    We currently focus a great deal on college and scholarships. Who's to say that in a free society scholarships wouldn't start a lot earlier in education? Scholarships would probably also apply to Elementary, Middle, and High School where people would be looking for talented children earlier on so that they could sponsor them earlier. School would be less about preparation for college and wasting time in earlier grade school and more about the entire education process and recognizing and developing children from the very beginning.

    People would directly pay for school services rather than be taxed for them. Right now you pay for public schools even if you don't have children using them. Why do we pay for things that we don't use? Because the government forces people to pool all their money together and then spend it much worse than each individual could spend it on their own. More of that outdated technology I suppose.

    As has been shown earlier, in California education costs are conservatively ~$2,749 per person per year, even if you don't use education services. In Arizona education costs are ~$2,058 per person each year. These are super conservative numbers.

    Public education currently trains students to think a certain way and there isn't much a parent can do in sending their child to a school to think another way. Not everyone needs to be educated the same way. In a market you would have the option of choosing what type of school your child would go to. If you wanted to educate your child on business and finance you could find a school to do that. If it didn't exist you could start it. If you wanted to educate your child through a religious school you could. If you wanted to have a school that talked about God you could. If you wanted a school that didn't talk about God you could have that too. There wouldn't have to be a one-size-fits-all school. Similar to how we don't have a one-size-fits-all restaurant that everyone must eat at. People do like choices you know.

    The beginning of the entire Crowd Freedom movement was that I originally wanted to start an educational institution and revamp the whole educational industry. I quickly found that my hands were really tied by government. Sure I could do something online or supplemental to the existing K-12 school system, but this wasn't the important part to me. I wanted to replace the K-12 education system and I couldn't. This is what led me to look further at what I could do to change the problem. The problem isn't so much the school system, but it is the system above the school system that doesn't allow people to educate any way they would like. You still have to follow rules of the State. If we were to remove the controls government has on education, especially early education, the market would naturally improve education drastically. We don't need some smart, innovate way to educate. Even if we had it it wouldn't be allowed. We just need to get the government out of schools and let the schools do their thing. For starters let's let the market choose teachers. If teachers are good let the market pay them well, if they are bad let them get fired. As is the case with most industries that are doing a bad job, when you remove the government from them they immediately start to improve. The government does less for more. The markets do more for less.

    So rather than me trying to start a school I decided it would be much more beneficial for me to start a movement that allowed the market to correct many of the problems governments currently create, like schools and education. It's not that people can't come up with better ways to educate. It's that we're not allowed to.

    Charity & Welfare

    There would not be state welfare. There would be private charity.

    So what about poor people? How do we take care of them.

    Do you think something should be done about poor people? So do many others. And because of this something will be done. We just don't need to have the government do it at a much higher price than the free market. With government only roughly 20% of funds collected go towards charity. And government charity doesn't care about actually improving people and teaching them how to become independent of charity and self-sustaining. Governments don't try different methods to eliminate poverty. They make people dependent on poverty. The bring people into poverty and then hold them there. So like everything else, government doesn't currently solve poverty, it creates and perpetuates it.

    If you want to be poor you can be. If you want to be rich you can be. The only thing limiting you in a free society is yourself. The vast majority of people who currently call themselves poor are not poor by circumstance but by choice. And being poor isn't bad. And being rich isn't good. These are all choices and states of being that fluctuate throughout life. Poor people don't all stay poor and rich people don't all stay rich.

    But what about people who are unable to work in a free society? What about people who really are injured and are poor because of it? Well it is up to them on how to handle that situation. If they think family or friends should help them out then they will. If they think there should be a charity to help them out then a charity may exist to do just that. What's not right is forcing a group of people to subsidize something about you. People can choose to help somebody, but you can't force people to help you.

    Stefan Molyneux quote:

    "'Oh no, without the government forcing people to be charitable, no one would lift a finger to help the poor, people are so selfish, they don't care etc. etc. etc.' This paradox cannot be unraveled this side of insanity. If a democratic government must force a selfish and unwilling populace to help the poor, then government programs do not reflect the will of the people, and democracy is a lie, and we must get rid of it – or at least stop pretending to vote. If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a stateless society – and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity than government programs."

    Stefan Molyneux

    If majority of people want to help poor people or give to charity, which is shown they do in State systems, then they would be able to do the same in a free society. If they don't help the poor then they would be hypocritical to saying that they do want to help the poor. If you want to help them, and majority do, then they will help them. If they don't then they are not being honest when they say they care about charity.

    With a state system roughly 80% of what we give to charity goes to the state running the system and then only 20% ever gets to the actual people who need help. Most of our money doesn't go to charity in the state, it goes to the bureaucracy running it. And then with the state we're not even sure if the way we are doing charity is even making people better and helping them. With the state people are much more likely to become dependent on charity and more and more people take advantage of this.

    At this point I shouldn't even need to tell you about how bad government charity really is. At this point it should be more and more obvious just how bad government solutions are and just how greatly they could be improved by a market. No matter which way you look at it the market does a better job than the government in every possible way. And this is why we need markets instead of government.

    Chapter 8


    On gray area questions that's where courts and arbitration businesses come in. Let's walk through some of the more controversial and difficult questions.

    Keep in mind, again, every problem is an opportunity to solve that problem and make money. The larger the problem, the more money to be made by solving it.

    Also keep in mind that the State currently doesn't solve these. We may have the government handling many of these problems but they're not doing a good job with handling many of these problems. So the problems are still present in our current government societies.

    Also if people in society are more free and more moral there is generally less violence and less problems.

    Property Questions

    People Questions

    Financial Questions

    Sexual Questions

    Defense Questions

    Misc Questions

    Chapter 9


    The biggest business opportunity by far right now is putting the government out of business. Advances in almost every industry are crippled by the government. Government currently has a monopoly on the whole world and there is nobody competing against them. We need competition in government. This is the next big Google or Apple. The next big business opportunity that will transform the world is building free societies. The best businesses are the ones that save people money through innovation and technology. Governments are using old technology and do not innovate. The biggest waste of money in the entire world is unequivocally governments -- and by a long shot. But money isn't the only thing wasted by governments. Governments waste lives, governments waste creativity, governments promote bad ideas and discourage new ideas, etc, etc. And most importantly, governments are violent, and governments are the only institutions in the world which the people are encouraged to be violent.

    If there is even the slightest hint of momentum behind the movement of this book it could work. People donate hundreds, thousands and even millions of dollars towards political campaigns to try to change the current system only to get worse and worse results as time goes on. People want a good society, the problem is our current structure is no longer the best structure for a good society. You can't create what you do want by putting energy on what you don't want. We need to focus on what we do want. There are better ways to do it now. When people realize that there is momentum to this and that it is realistic I think the people and the money will come in this direction.

    We need to remove government. What happens after shouldn't matter. Slavery was wrong. We don't worry about what the slaves are going to do. We end the wrong part. Government is wrong. Just like slavery was wrong and just like rape is wrong. It's wrong. Encouraging government, which is predicated on initiating violence, is no different than encouraging slavery or encouraging rape.

    This isn't about perfection, this is about improvement. A market is a better system of society than a government. A market isn't perfect. But it is more perfect than government. We're not talking about a Utopia. We're talking about something better, much better, than what we currently have. The Internet is better than the newspaper. A free society built behind property and markets is better than a society built around government and taxation.

    The biggest problems in society are where a government exists. The biggest solutions in society are where markets exist. This isn't rocket science.

    Come on guys, we're living in the information age with access to information at the tips of our fingers. We are a connected world that is lightyears ahead of the fear and superstition from the past. We have the technology and communication to organize things so efficiently. We have open source software which allows anyone to contribute, we have cryptographic blockchains to decentralize control, we have what we need to make it happen. Let's build a better world together. It's our time to live the lives we've always wanted to live. We know what we don't want. Now let's build what we do want.

    If you're unsure if this could ever happen then you've probably never started a business before. The ability for something like this to actually take place and happen is very clear. Private cities built this way will eventually happen in the future. This is how society will move forward. It's just a matter of how long we want to wait for it to take place. This business is a home run. This business will do well. There are most certainly challenges, but any business has challenges. Overcoming the challenges is the best part of any business. The challenges are just stepping stones into a better way of living. And when these challenges are overcome the world that we live in will be the most beautiful world we have ever seen.

    I'm pouring not just my heart, but my entire life into this. If I could do only one thing with my life this would be it. There is nothing in the world more important to me than this. I will do anything it takes to make this a reality. And I won't quit. I understand it takes time and I have time. So help me get started one step at a time. The book is the first step. Where this will lead I don't know, nobody does. But I know it will lead better than where we are now.

    "You can't connect the dots looking forward, you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something: your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. Because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference."

    Steve Jobs

    "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

    Buckminster Fuller

    Thank you for reading, and follow your heart.


    This book is free. Please share it with your friends and people you know.

     Filed under: General, Required Reading, Banned in America, Uncommon Sense, Afraid of Books, Mind Wide Shut, Freedom Deficit Disorder, Choice Deficient, The Big Bad Market, Caveman Trajectory, Free Speech Except For This, But What About The Poor?, Failed In Somalia, Inconvenient Truths, PhD in Government, Compasionate Slavery, Worked in the Bronze Age, tl;dr, Logic In Our Lifetime, Party's Over, Where's Everybody Going?, 1700's Tech


    eridasi: Congrats on finishing the
    Sun, 03/20/2016 - 22:32

    Congrats on finishing the book! I remember you mentioning the idea of doing this a few years ago and I think it turned out very good.

    invinciblelight: That's Exactly What I dreamed since childhood
    Fri, 03/23/2018 - 09:13

    Hi! I have many many different ideas to make this thing a reality! I was looking for someone like you as I alone can't make it happen. I would like to discuss my ideas with you and I believe we will fund more like-minded, free spirt entrepreneurs like us. :)

    Jasmine Tea: New Start
    Sun, 08/05/2018 - 19:17

    It's great to see someone actually thinking and planning about alternative ideas; a well thought out book.

    It seems to me that the greatest impediment will be the mindset or morality. It's going to take a a group of people that don't buy into self-victimization and that do subscribe to to self-responsibility.

    We went 'off-grid' approximately 15 years ago and there is a lot of hard work and introspection of life's priorities when you do something of this nature. Priorities will change along the way; it is possible to do though.

    It may take decades or some other drastic measure to get enough people to get aligned enough to make it work.
    I agree with you that: it's better to gather the group beforehand because most people talk a good story about wanting to be free.
    If people can break their tribalism roots to things like family and religion then they may well be suited for something like this.

    You must be logged in to comment

    Site Statistics