Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Book Review: Freedom By Adam Kokesh

Adam Kokesh wrote what he calls a "book" entitled Freedom. He calls it "The Most Important Book Ever" so I downloaded it intending to read it and review it, maybe learn from it, or at least proofread it, and thus grow as a philosophical thinker. Alas, as with most manifestos and pundit excrement, I can't read it. I simply can not force myself to trudge through the wasteland of cyclical philosophy. I can't read my own manifestos either, or Ted Kaczynski's or Manson's or the long one by Moses, so Adam shouldn't feel bad. The thing about manifestos is how dull they are, how self-certain, how boldly arrogant. My blighted days in Hollywood taught me at least this: the words must play. Unless your name is Alexander Hamilton and you are about to enter a duel with a Vice President then do not rely on dusty platitudes to communicate your message. Mel Brooks is a better role model for the majority of people, not James Madison. This bit of wisdom comes with experience. Jon Stewart understands it; Bill O'Reilly understands it; William F. Buckley understood it. My beloved Thoreau understood it but stretched the boundaries of humor with his submission, Walden. These are the pundit elite whose manifestos are widely embraced. I suspect Adam Kokesh understands it but has not written enough to be able to economically embrace it. Kokesh is mildly entertaining in his derivative live podcasts, but he should really assign the writing jobs to other people, like me, for instance. He's a dynamic personality but young and abrasive without much new material. The world needs another pundit like it needs another piano tuner.




I think the problem involves preaching to the choir. The digital universe that has been created in the last 20 years is so vast that if your habitual migratory patterns do not include alternative viewpoints, then you will slowly come to believe that no alternative thinking exists, or else only view them through the lens of criticism. That's partly why I force myself to visit ultra-conservative websites and Exxonmobil's propaganda page. If all I did was visit blowjobs.com and theonion.com, then I would lose my edge, I would always be hearing what I want to hear from the pundit who is on my side. Adam Kokesh is preaching to the choir with his manifesto, he fails to convince or even attempt to convince anyone of anything. He preaches fervently and genuinely hopes that's enough. It's a manifesto because he's not trying to persuade, he's simply reaffirming his own definitions and making them public along with some weak "hopes you are now inspired" messages. Kokesh ends Freedom with this generic sermon:


Short of life itself, the message of freedom is the greatest gift you can give, and it gets stronger every time it is shared. If you embrace the message of freedom, having lived until now in a state of ignorance, frustration, or emotional slavery, it will be the beginning of a whole new life. And it starts right now. You know what you have to do.

I see now that if the word Freedom was replaced with "The Love of Christ" then Kokesh would make a good Minister.

Here's an example: The way most of us understand freedom The Love of Christ and happiness is backwards. Happiness is not the result of freedom The Love of Christ. Happiness causes freedom The Love of Christ!

Part of my defense of organized religion is that I've lately concluded the details are irrelevant, it's the all-inclusive nature and the importance of accessibility, the language and the symbolism and ritual that are extremely important. Recently, a close friend's father died. And a few days later a close friend's dog of 12 years died. When there is a death or birth in my Mexican village the citizens immediately buy fireworks and light them off, the fireworks fly up and explode. This happens every day at any hour. It's the beginning of a series of rituals to deal with death and birth. It's what they do because tradition is important and quasi-Catholic rituals make the process easy because it's automatic. Everyone know what to do because it is taught through ritual. Maybe this is simplistic but the type of ritual itself is unimportant, as long as a ritual occurs. No one asks, "What do we do now?" because they know exactly what to do: buy fireworks to blow them up. That's Tradition. And that custom is a comfort and is why I defend religion.
Tradition!

I've been reading about The 5 Pillars of Islam, The Ten Commandments, The Articles of Confederation, these unimpeachable "Supreme Laws" that facilitate behavior by making our response trainable, repeatable and automatic. But it's a curse to study all religions because it's broken down my own automatic response and left me free to choose between one of hundreds of responses I've witnessed. Do I light incense, fireworks, flowers, sage, ganja, myself? Do I fast, eat, slaughter a lamb and burn the fat, or pray? Do I pray to Christ, Abraham, Allah, Mohammed, Buddha, The Pope, Huitzilopochtli, David Gilmour, or Dwight Evans? These are all equal in my eyes. Choirs listen to the same sermon over and over, they are already converted so the preacher who only has a choir as an audience doesn't put the same effort into his sermon. He hears no objections, no disputes, so he offers no rebuttal. It's a circle jerk and most manifestos fall into this category with a few words replaced with others. Thus a 100 page book on freedom contains no bibliography, no quotes, no interviews, no footnotes, no graphs, no citations, no outside sources of any kind. It's purely from the mind of Kokesh for the benefit of Kokesh's mind.

"Every time they advocate for government," Kokesh writes, "they are suggesting that some form of violence be used against us for disagreeing."

See, Kokesh is assuming the person reading his manifesto is "us". The problem is that he doesn't do the work to support his claims since he's assuming the "us" is already convinced. I would submit that advocating for government and subsequent violence against the disobedient is an expedient for a social solution involving 7 Billion people. Like Religion, Government power is abused, and like Religion, when Government power is abused it ceases to be Government power.

Kokesh talks about "converts" and "getting the word out" in a tired fashion, the same from all TV preachers with their own vocabulary. Kokesh writes, "The current global paradigm of social organization is statism. Statism is based on a central authority, rule by force, and subservience to the collective or ruling class."

It would be premature to try to refute this statement because I'm not sure he has made a correct statement. Understand that Kokesh is an Anarchist/Libertarian who argues for the voluntary dissolution of government followed by a purely voluntary code of conduct worldwide where no threat of force will be used to enforce any action. Taxes, social services, national defense, all this will be voluntary with no form of Democracy remaining. This culture of "self ownership" is "True Freedom" according to Kokesh and the natural state of humanity which governments have denied us. I'm trying to write this without sounding condescending but it's hard. It's even harder to find intelligent quotes to support my conclusions.

Kokesh asserts that Statism, "is coming to an end as we wake up to a new freedom paradigm based on human rights, nonviolence, and self-ownership."

How can he make that assertion? There are 7.1 Billion people in the world. Which one of them is "waking up"? I don't want to be critical of someone writing from the heart about serious matters but Kokesh has not done the hard work of making his case. This is the manifesto paradox: I claim it is true in order to support my manifesto. If it weren't true then my manifesto would be false and my manifesto is true thus it must be true. ?? I don't think there are substantially more anarchists alive today than in 1810 or 1498. Proportionally, I'd say there has been no change so Statism is not threatened any more than usual. Furthermore, history suggest The State will burn as a final resort and it will not go gently, it will collapse from within, and it will be replaced by something slightly worse but moderately different. With a population of 400 million people you can be sure 100 million people will be dissatisfied enough to revolt on any given day.

And Kokesh misses the point that William F. Buckley and others learned: The fun part is in proving your point. It might seem tedious to go interview people and find quotes and statistics about freedom and statism, but that's only if you make it tedious. Buckley enjoyed that process, he had fun doing it and he had fun writing about the process. Subsequently, the reader is entertained by the writing even if he is not persuaded. Freedom, on the other hand is the lazy approach involving the belief that if I write it then it will come to pass. Mass persuasion in the era of ADHD will involve more than bland platitudes. For instance, I know Statism will lead to apocalypse but I merely suspect Anarchy will also lead to apocalypse. If I really cared about the fate of humanity then I would campaign for Anarchy on the slight chance it may avert apocalypse. The period of time from 1992-1998 were years of that campaign and maybe one day I'll finish writing the history.

Here's Kokesh's recommendation: More direct actions, like widespread disobedience, boycotts, direct interference with enforcers, tax resistance, seizing land, ignoring trade restrictions, going on strike, or even rejecting elements of government altogether, can achieve immediate change.

Though I agree with most of this and maintain this manifesto should be written, the biggest criticism I have of Freedom is it's not entertaining, it's dull, it's unoriginal, it's underwritten and over-thought, pedantic, psuedo-intellectualized, stiff, it's not inclusive, it's not inviting, it tells but does not show. The words are lifeless, the personality behind the words is uptight and bland, the language is all wrong. Kokesh is an animated guy who swears quite a bit in real life, and is totally without reservations or inhibitions but you wouldn't know that by reading the tiresomely formal platitudes in Freedom. I searched for uses of the words, shit, fuck, cock, cunt and did not find one in his manifesto.


Don't plan on subverting the dominant paradigm without swearing.
HOW CAN YOU WRITE A MANIFESTO ON FREEDOM WITHOUT USING THE WORD FUCK? Thus, it's a partial disguise and dishonest and ultimately not readable. Of course not everyone can write like William F. Buckley, or snark like Jon Stewart and maybe not everyone should try, but if one is going to embark on a quest to the peak of Freedom Mtn. then might I humbly recommend making the journey worth talking about? When in doubt, take Erma Bombeck's advice and write one punchline every paragraph, maybe two. If you can't do that then your name had better be James Madison.

"Every time we create a relationship free of
force, violence, and coercion, we are helping to build a freer world." Adam "The Opposite of Dangerous" Kokesh
Lastly, someone who promotes non-violence and non-violent disobedience ought not be loading shotguns in public to prove that they can do something ostensibly violent yet not commit violence. It's contradictory and led directly to his being targeted by park police who arrested him, discovered magic mushrooms in the same cabinet as his weapons arsenal and put him in confinement for 6 months. Of course, I strongly support magic mushroom consumption and have some fucked up stories involving them, but this kind of outcome is predictable and self-defeating obfuscation. His personality does not appear to be one bent on self-destruction or violence, but I could be wrong. He elevates his own principles to divine status in some kind of quest to be the modern-day Patrick Henry. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of The State he is dangerous so it's dishonest to claim he's not dangerous. He should be proud to be dangerous to something as evil as Statism. Nelson Mandela was not apologetic about aiming to defeat apartheid. Don't apologize!

Mandatory Santa Cruz Reference: In the pacifist "Food Not Bombs" world of Santa Cruz circa 1994 we debated regularly if the word "Bombs" should be in the title of the collective since the word was itself a violent image. One member named Utopia, who was truly the opposite of dangerous, suggested "Food For Thought" But our literature had "Food Not Bombs" all over it so we kept that name. We operated under a consensus paradigm in which nothing was voted on and all action was determined unanimously or not at all (political indifference was allowed), via endless debates, considerations, comments, additions, clarifications, concerns and assertions. We had our meetings in leaky garages and homeless shelters and sometimes open fields. Everyone was homeless and poor and sick and injured and hunted ruthlessly by the police. Without speaking for the group, I want to say that our cause was not protesting the lack of government assistance, though traitorous Government allocation of its budget irked us and provided the basis for our name, but rather protesting the abundant government resistance to self-determination and sovereignty. Most of the homeless people were content with being left alone to find their own shelter in which to quietly shuffle off this mortal coil. This was illegal so it criminalized our economic status. See? This is very serious. There was no way around the paradigm. We had to conform to renting property, trading labor for federal currency, pay war taxes. etc. or go to jail. It was a classic case of state welfare coming into direct conflict with individual liberty. The State could not proceed with upwards of 5000 sovereign homeless people wandering the streets and parks and forests fending for themselves, even if all 5000 fervently requested that sovereignty. It was untenable so The State determined to force us into the fold of conformity and modern western customs, which most of us had concluded was also globally untenable, and was the reason we were homeless to begin with.  See the cyclical friction? We weren't being disobedient children without just cause. We weren't lazy, or dumb, or communists or insolent hippies, although I admit to my share of aggrieved petulance in my youth. We were extremists who had individually determined the fate of the environment and society under the current power structure and resource use customs was first, exploitative and second, apocalyptic, so we could not morally conform. I cringed when I heard a car's engine start. We tried to grow crops where people walk their dogs. We ate reclaimed garbage. I wore a paisley peasant dress one week because that's all I had. I would've dressed in newspaper if it meant not supporting any business but free clothes were easily found. It was extreme living involving brutal urban survival tactics while simultaneously enabling deft philosophical arguments to be typed in legal format in defense of liberty and submitted for the pleasure of the court. Collectively we argued that it all had to immediately change and collectively The State vigorously disagreed. This is the central issue of my Santa Cruz saga. The State must force us to conform in order to sustain itself, but we concluded that conformity to The State is unsustainable as a society. Even The Pope agreed with us. The State isn't even debating that part; it's merely clinging sin qua non to the traditional power paradigm to preserve the status quo, even if that status quo will admittedly end in apocalypse. The State would rather see everyone die as subjects of The State, than see any Sovereign citizen live - and we activists would rather die as Sovereign citizens than live as subjects of the suicidal state. That's the intractable nature of Statism; The State becomes an entity, a Golem, blindly protecting itself at the cost of its collective creator. The U.S. Civil War could be looked at a large scale example of this, where to preserve the Nation as a unit, the states and citizens must do battle. We must kill in order to survive. That makes no sense on paper, The Constitution itself supported the South, but in reality it worked; The Nation was temporarily ruptured, reunited, and then expanded. The details fade into history like the fact that science and the ensuing 20 years from 1994 have mostly supported our environmental concerns; the main problem is the conflict between short term State survival and long term Human sovereignty and for 20 years my lonely nights have been haunted by the individual stories behind that conflict, the deceit, the abuse of power, the pain and suffering, the ignorant mockery of our cause, rape, pirate radio, animal rights, laws, police, mace, depositions, motions to dismiss, protests, the causality, the manifestos, rotting vegetable stew, broken bicycles, flat tires, expedience, desperation, conjunctivitis, the court trials, the fluffy puppies falling through decaying wharf boardwalks to their death in the ocean. Junkies fucking on a bed of used needles. Mayors casually condemning hundreds. Indifferent city council members. Rain dripping through cracked plastic shelters. Stick and mud huts. Patrol Dogs chasing naked Oggy in the forest. Police clubbing pregnant women. I am haunted not only by the past but what the past portends for the future. This is THE central non-climate related conflict of our time so Kokesh is on the right track, but his manifesto is mostly a grey-ish statement of his discontentment with the status quo and his belief that freedom is important, but his manifesto amounts to, as the Santa Cruz city attorney said of my own legal documents, "a philosophical disagreement with City Laws that conspicuously lacks supportive evidence".

Kokesh wrote some or all of Freedom while imprisoned so it's fitting to compare his writing with other manifestos from prisoner:

Kokesh: There are plenty of people who are ready and eager to hear the message of freedom, but others need to be shaken by the collar, as if to wake them from a stupor. There are those who will eagerly pursue self-education once given a peek behind the curtain. There are those who need encouragement and assistance. But for all those who cling to statism as if mistaking an anchor for a life jacket, there is activism to separate them from their delusions.

Thoreau: When I came out of prison- for some one interfered, and paid that tax- I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a tottering and gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene- the town, and State, and country- greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

Nelson Mandela: Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites. The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
"Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all."


Martin Luther King: I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.


Gandhi: I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. ... But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my strength for a better purpose.
 Unabomber: Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful....With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.

(I would include a sample of my own manifesto but it was handwritten on parchment paper and I don't have access to it. I also recall that I called it a "Treatise" and I modeled it after Emmanuel Kant's writings and it included an extended "dialogue" between myself and a resurrected Socrates...but it was a manifesto nonetheless, exploring broad philosophical topics with the goal of convincing humanity to agree with me.)

It's interesting to note that of these 6 Manifestos only Kokesh and The Unabomber are the authors who deliberately did not use the first person pronoun "I" in his entire work, though it's purely his opinion. This worries me even further since he's attempting to transcend ownership of his words so his platitudes will sound even more like religious decrees or conclusions reached by some wise collaboration of minds. I think that's a terrible technique because it's using quasi-Constitutional language to advocate the dissolution of the Constitution - so it's not only derivative it's also self-contradictory. Kokesh stops just short of writing, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union hereby abolish government..." Like, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had cool language so I'll borrow it to advocate the end of the U.S. Government. How presumptuous! It's the opposite of revolutionary.

Even the Unabomber was more humble writing in his closing statements, "And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth."
 
After more investigation I have decided it was the Declaration of Independence  that Kokesh was reading while in jail and tried to imitate with Freedom.

Here's an excerpt from that document: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance...
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither*, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

etc. etc..

That's how to list your grievances. The problem is that while the Declaration of Independence was undersigned by 56 people, including the namesake of my 7th grade school subsection, William Whipple**, Kokesh is the only signature under his tribal tattoo decorated statement. He either failed to convince anyone to collaborate on his statement, or he didn't try, but still used the plural pronoun "WE" to qualify his opinion. Is he schizophrenic or does Kokesh's idea of Anarchy depend on his wearing a feudal crown? This really irks me how someone can write "We" and then claim sole authorship. It irks me even more than someone saying "You" when he's referring to generic "One". Dr. King soothes me with his words, "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." Amen.

Summary: Better and more entertaining literature exist on the subject of social change, freedom, anarchy, libertarianism, etc. Ayn Rand probably provided enough material to last a few hundred years on this topic and she did it with an entertaining cast of characters, bold language, sex, intrigue, and some verifiable sources. Yes, it's an ideal universe Rand writes about but that's the universe she aspired to create. The richest guy I've met only read the financial section of the Wall Street Journal. "I don't pay attention to the news," he said when I asked his opinion on Genocide. He considered current events a step below gossip. If his time wasn't spent improving his situation financially then it was wasted. He made his money the smartest way possible, by using other people's money. He reminded me of Howard Roark but I don't think he'd ever read The Fountainhead. Rand's characters demonstrate the path that Kokesh painfully tries to describe: Education, discrimination, determination, dedication, non-violence, objective self-interest, responsibility. Skip Kokesh's vain punditry and check out Engineers Without Borders for some inspiration. The only power in the world worth pursuing is tangible skill in medicine and engineering and any scale of production team management. Everything else, including activism and politics, is flim flam. Our saying in Santa Cruz was "Outgrow The Government". That will only happen if you study like a South Korean girl. While Rand might object to the charitable nature of engineers voluntarily advancing the cause of the impoverished, it's a legitimate and powerful exercise of one's personal freedom with measurable results. Also, the future apocalypse will require engineers to build the final bridge to hell.

I'm not sure technology is the answer but I know shotguns on Freedom Plaza isn't the answer. I feel this MIT professor is demonstrating the revolutionary theory Kokesh can't express.



Corrections Suggested:
"If we argue for the fantasy of limited government, we are promoting at least limited injustice,
which is still promoting injustice.
" (pg. 92)
I think that first "injustice" should be "justice". Maybe not. I get the intended meaning but it's either wrong or repetitive. Simplify it: "If we argue for the fantasy of limited government, we are still promoting injustice."
I don't know. That whole paragraph is cluttered and clumsy. Too disjointed, repetitive, spasmodic. Why is limited government a fantasy but total absolution of government realistic? Compared to 1 B.C. Rome, the United States is a very limited government. Compared to Egyptian Pharaohs our Presidents are Saints. In 1962 South Africa Kokesh would be sentenced to 18 years in prison for writing Freedom. How about Norway as a model government? Or Labrador circa 1904 with Sir Wilfred Grenfell as President? Is it possible only American citizens are incapable of governing themselves because of drug abuse and misinformation on the part of for-profit news media? What example of Anarchy involving more than 5 people has demonstrated success? Can that example be scaled up to 7.1 Billion?

*Am I the only one who is amused that the Declaration of Independence that some people in Arizona claim to love so much actually includes language denouncing laws that Arizona is currently enforcing in the defense of the Declaration of Independence?

**In that 7th grade lunch room myself and 4 others wrote articles dictating our behavior at the lunch table. I have that sacred document somewhere and the details involved ketchup cups, pizza crust, trash removal, limits on insults involving one's mother and other issues pertinent to the hungry 14 year old. Even that humble document was carefully signed by all 5 of us so when we used the first person plural pronoun, that's what we meant.
Creative Commons License
Man in the Van by Oggy Bleacher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.