It’s easy to criticize. Solutions are something else. One of the tragic paradoxes of humanity is that the best of intentions can produce the worst kinds of consequences. History stands as testimony to this unfortunate fact.

This blog, a never ending project of refining perspective, is designed to help us see the dialectic as it unfolds and to suggest ways in which we can withdraw our consent to it’s unfolding in a direction that enslaves us further and cause it to evolve in a more constructive way via consent as opposed to present day violent coercion.

This is a monumental task, of course. Way beyond the scope of a single individual. The Internet has afforded us all the ability to leverage on enormous amounts of information collated and refined by others. I will therefore make reference to some of the sites that I believe may be part of the solution in terms of help us to see what’s really going on and how we can perhaps change the direction of the dialectic in our favor. I expect this list will change over time as my own thought develops and better examples are found:

History is our first port of call:



Understanding Anarchy

Larken Rose


Who Believes In Doing That To Which They Do Not Consent?

Here, I subscribe to the view that if society was organized along the principles that it’s participants only engage in activity to which they have consented, many (but certainly not all) of the problems the World now faces would evaporate. Corollaries of this view are that no-one can assign rights to others that they themselves do not posses and the non-aggression principle (NAP – no initiation of violence)

When we understand that the principle of the State is wrong, it’s easier to see how we can easily fall into the trap of arguing in an unprincipled (State like) fashion.

“But principle has nothing to do with it. Statists have no principles at all. There cannot, for example, be any principled reason to cheer for the “war on drugs” while swigging a beer. There cannot be any principled reason to oppose random searches of people’s homes, if you accept and make excuses for random searches of people’s vehicles. There cannot be any principled basis for objecting to 99% “taxation” if you have already accepted the legitimacy and morality of 1% “taxation.” (Larken Rose)