All TMM Allied Camps Readers Regiment

Wendy McElroy: VOLUNTARYISM: Some Personal Reminiscences

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”4341″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Announcing: The Voluntary newsletter will be published in book form. Here is the preface

VOLUNTARYISM: Some Personal Reminiscences

By Wendy McElroy

1982 seems like a century ago, but some memories are fresh. One summer afternoon, Carl Watner, George H. Smith, and I created a movement. Or, more accurately, we revived and redefined a movement under a name we knew from reading 19th century British libertarian history. George explained that opponents of state-funded, compulsory education called themselves ‘voluntaryists’ – a term popularized by Auberon Herbert, a disciple of Herbert Spencer. We never imagined that Voluntaryism would become such a vigorous presence within the modern-day freedom community, however.

The meeting occurred during one of Carl’s visits to the apartment in Hollywood, California, that George and I shared. It lasted a few hours, with Carl and I sitting on the couch that pulled out to form Carl’s bed at night, while George spent much of the time pacing in front of us. Afterward, we dropped by a nearby coffee shop for dinner, where conversation continued unabated. Many radical movements have probably sprung from similarly humble beginnings, but it didn’t feel humble to me. I remember my fingertips were tingling – literally tingling – during part of the discussion; George had a restless energy, and Carl was smiling far more than usual. Voluntaryism felt electric then; it feels electric now.

But I am ahead of myself already.

What is Voluntaryism? The political philosophy was and is based on the non-aggression principle. That description is inadequate, however, because it does not distinguish Voluntaryism from mainstream libertarianism. The distinction: Voluntaryism identifies electoral politics as a form of aggression and advocates the use of non-political strategies instead. It returns to the spirit of 19th century American libertarianism, which was both profoundly anti-political and passionate about practical paths to freedom. (More on this shortly.)

The timing for an anti- and non-political movement was perfect. The Libertarian Party had been founded in 1971 and, following the 1980 federal elections, it became the third largest party in the U.S. Especially in New York and California, it spread rapidly. Formerly “hard core” anarchists started to join the LP – Murray Rothbard among them. They began to argue that voting, campaigning for politicians, and even holding office were the best ways to achieve a stateless society. Suddenly, anti-statists argued passionately for the state … as long as libertarians held the reins of power. The non-political anarchists were soon called silly dreamers, whose ideas of removing the state from our lives were impractical.

There was backlash against the LP, of course. Unfortunately, much of it was either ineffective or counterproductive. Samuel E. Konkin III (SEK3) – the originator of agorism – was loudly consistent in his attacks, but he and his associates could be strident and could sound unreasonable. For example, they descended on supper clubs and heckled libertarians who were running for political office. Robert LeFevre was a far better communicator, but his philosophy included a pacifism that many, if not most, people found to be unpalatable.

Carl, George, and I realized that a comprehensive, integrated rebuttal was necessary to counter what might become a turning point in the movement; that is, a turn toward electoral politics. More than a simple anti-state manifesto was required. Our advocacy of Voluntaryism had to present a clear and positive vision of how freedom would emerge from peaceful interactions. We needed to address modern issues through that filter, while, at the same time, presenting the history of how everything from hard money to customary law originated from people voluntarily interacting, not from governmental bureaucracy. We had to demonstrate how the state could be abandoned, and show how history was replete with examples of voluntary institutions that offered the services usually provided by the state.

The statement of purpose for Voluntaryism reads, “The Voluntaryists are libertarians who have organized to promote non-political strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice as incompatible with libertarian goals. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the state through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends.”

If I were to change the statement today, I would insert a sentence to emphasize the need for alternative paths to freedom.

The three of us had different strengths with which to approach the challenge of founding a movement. We were a good blend. This was evident from the first issue of THE VOLUNTARYIST which was published in October 1982. The feature article was “The Ethics of Voting” (Part 1 of an eventual three-part article) by George. It reflected his more theoretical bent and confrontational style. My contribution was the editorial “Neither Ballots Nor Bullets,” which was heavily influenced in both content and style by my research into the 19th century American individualist anarchists. Carl was more sophisticated about nonviolent resistance, having put it into impressive practice within his own life. Carl’s contribution was a book review of Gene Sharp’s remarkable three-volume work, THE POLITICS OF NON-VIOLENT ACTION. This and many other of Sharp’s books were to play an essential role in defining the non-electoral strategies embraced by Voluntaryism.

The libertarian response to Voluntaryism was immediate and divided. Many libertarians were intrigued or enthusiastic, especially because THE VOLUNTARYIST stressed hands-on activism. For example, Issue 5 (April 1983) featured an interview I conducted with Paul Jacob, who had been indicted on September 23, 1982 for failure to register for the draft. He chose to avoid prosecution by “going on the run.” THE VOLUNTARYIST was young, fearless, and filled with ideals. Some prominent figures in the movement, including the charismatic Robert LeFevre, were generous in their support. LeFevre’s article “How to Become a Teacher” appeared in issue 3.

Some responses were not so pleasant. Libertarian ‘politicos’ snickered about the name, claiming the movement was doomed because no one would be able to pronounce the word “Voluntaryism.” Other responses were more bizarre. For example, Murray Rothbard’s response to George’s anti-electoral stand, which seemed to particular rankle him.

In March 1983, the LIBERTARIAN FORUM ran an article by Murray entitled “The New Menace of Gandhism,” in which he lambasted libertarianism’s recent “non-violence fad.” He explicitly stated his motive for doing so. The “fad” had been “picking off some of the best and most radical Libertarian Party activists, ones which the Party could ill afford to lose if it was to retain its thrust and its principles.” In other words, Voluntaryism was making an impact. And, to his credit, Murray correctly identified the principle of non-violence and the practice of electoral politics as antagonistic forces that could not coexist. He knew an enemy when he saw one.

Murray’s article stated, “The time has come to rip the veil of sanctity that has been carefully wrapped around Gandhi by his numerous disciples, that … greatly inspired the new Voluntaryist movement.” Murray was a good friend of mine. But I must confess, to this day, I do not understand his criticism that Voluntaryism was based on Gandhi. None of us understood it. It was true that a quote from Gandhi headed the newsletter: “If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.” Gandhi was an influence on the Voluntaryists, but so were many other people, such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Robert LeFevre, and even Murray himself. As I remember, Carl was most influenced by Gandhian philosophy, and I came in second. Why George was singled out for attack when he was the least Gandhian of the Voluntaryists is also something of a mystery. I expect that George’s arguments were proving too persuasive.

I did not escape unscathed, either. At one point, Murray stated, “Smith, McElroy and others deny vehemently either that they are mystics or that they are courting martyrdom. I remain unconvinced.” Again, the accusations were so bizarre that it was difficult even to respond. If I have a regret about Voluntaryism, however, it is this: Murray and I experienced a schism that never quite healed.

It has been a long journey since that first issue of THE VOLUNTARYIST. I will always be proud of being the newsletter’s first editor but, frankly, I don’t remember how it happened. At the planning session for the newsletter, the three of us agreed to a revolving editorship, and the first shift went to me. Perhaps it was chance; perhaps I had available time. Whatever happened, within a few years, the task of editorship fell entirely upon Carl, who has done yeoman’s work in keeping it active and continuous. From time to time, George and I have made “appearances” in THE VOLUNTARYIST, but we have not been involved in its production for many years. Carl is the one who deserves applause for keeping it alive these many years. The fact that there is a Voluntaryist movement today (2018) is evidence of the strength and truth of its ideas and principles.


[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]TMM notes:

Please enjoy the above article at Wendy’s website —

The Voluntaryist Website —

Wendy’s Landing Page at TMM

Wendy’s Ongoing Book At Bitcoin —

Wendy’s Blog —[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

All TMM Allied Camps Boots on The Ground Pod Casts

TMM Jeanette Finicum DVD Project At Red Pill Expo 2018

[vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]by Elias Alias

G. Edward Griffin’s second annual Red Pill Expo began on the Thursday evening, June 21, 2018, prior to the two-day event at the Spokane, (Washington), Convention Center.

To launch the conference with a grand and spectacular start, the planners for the Red Pill Expo had decided to launch with a screening of part one of a major documentary film on LaVoy and Jeanette Finicum, their family, and the societal/governmental circumstances surrounding them as ranchers in contemporary America.

That film, which kept the audience spellbound during its premiere at the Red Pill Expo that evening, is produced as a benefit for the Finicum Family as well as for Western ranchers, farmers, miners, loggers and indeed, all property owners across America. Many Americans out West are presently under siege by UN-Agenda 21-sponsored NGOs which act through Federal policy-making agencies such as BLM, USFS, EPA, etc., and local initiatives to drive ranchers off Western lands over coming decades. They are doing this now, as the leadership of the Red Pill University and Freedom Force International know only too well. This film tells one family’s story, but loops into that family’s reality some other nationally-known family names, such as the Hammonds, who President Donald Trump officially pardoned this month after they have suffered several years of horrendous BLM abuses. See White House announcement HERE

embedded White House link — 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Mark Herr is the founder of the Center For Self Governance, and is the genius behind the film which premiered at the Red Pill Expo. His perspective is a righteous call for natural justice as the rightful conclusion of a major national tragedy, the assassination of LaVoy Finicum. A great asset in David Herr’s campaign to get the story of LaVoy Finicum out to a mass audience is David Knight, of InfoWars. David Knight hosts David Kerr for about twenty minutes in a must-see video. The following is a segment of a larger production from which the J Grady Channel has extracted just the section featuring David Knight interviewing Mark Kerr about this remarkable film. Enjoy![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”” el_width=”90″][vc_separator color=”blue” border_width=”2″ el_width=”70″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Personally, I was pleased to see how Mark Herr made sure that Jeanette Finicum had plenty of opportunity in this film to speak naturally, let her direct and honest way of talking carry her message straight from her heart. As does Mark Herr, I also want the world to get a closer look into the spirit and soul which is Jeanette Finicum. She is one of the purest individuals I’ve ever met, is full of her faith in the rightness of life, is the epitome of motherhood and family unity, has the strength of a dozen Sampsons, and loves our American way of life with an unceasing dedication which never falters. Jeanette Finicum is a model for all of us, yet is as humble and “real” as anyone you’ll meet. Jeanette Finicum truly is, just as LaVoy would want, the extended soul of a Dead Man Talking, but doing so in the visage of a charming, warm-hearted, all-forgiving, brightly sparkling wife of not just LaVoy Finicum, but of also a entire nation which should be properly called “Free America”. As LaVoy died for our freedom, even so Jeanette lives for it. She deserves all the support and respect we together can grant her.

And speaking of support and respect, I’m very proud to announce the success of a project The Mental Militia conceived while visiting with Jeanette Finicum at last year’s Red Pill Expo 2017, in Bozeman, Montana. I was so impressed with Mrs. Finicum’s dedication that I volunteered to have The Mental Militia pool together and produce a DVD for her online store. It would be a collage of YouTube videos, featuring some classic LaVoy Finicum videos along with Shawna Cox’s famous footage, the FBI’s footage, and Jeanette’s dynamic closing speech at the 2017 Red Pill Expo in Bozeman.  But the DVD I envisioned would be centered with the four “forensic” videos created by Curt Kruse of Montana — videos which pose serious questions regarding LaVoy’s assassination.

Jeanette Finicum gave me the go-ahead to create that video, and I put out the call to The Mental Militia, asking for volunteers and donations to fund the cost of producing one hundred videos for the Finicum family’s online store. Adam Ruff and Greg Jednack of California answered the call for hands-on production and other TMMers sent in money to pay for the ink, paper, plastic, blank discs, graphic work, postage, etc. All of TMM wanted to do this for Jeanette Finicum — and I am proud to announce that the DVD we made is now selling at Jeanette Finicum’s website. And to complete my joy, I got to witness Jeanette selling copies of this DVD at her table at the Red Pill Expo 2018. Richard Gage bought one, and Cynthia McKinney bought one, and I’ve no idea who else bought them, but Jeanette sold a goodly number of them at her table. We did it! Mission accomplished.

I will add this one small caveat — our DVD is by no means comparable with Mark Herr’s outstanding production, “Dead Man Talking”. His film is a true creative film, while our DVD is only a collection of various YouTube videos. But furnishing the Finicums with one hundred DVDs for selling, we’ve done something to help with her ongoing legal expenses. If a hundred people buy a copy, that will equate to a noteworthy donation courtesy of The Mental Militia. For a small psy-op group such as TMM, that’s something for which all can be proud indeed.

And here is yet more good news!

Jeanette reported this week that she has already sold more than one-half of the 100 DVDs which TMM is furnishing to her! That is awesome good news, for several reasons. One reason is that more than fifty people now have this DVD which contains the four “forensic” videos created by Curt Kruse of Montana. These forensic-style videos pose powerful questions which all Americans should see.

The other reason that this is good news is that current sales totals show that our project will indeed be of value to the Finicum family as they struggle to sustain their ranch and pay large bills for legal representation in Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful death lawsuit.  Please go here to get your copy —[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Jeanette Finicum Takes A Break From Her Conference Table To Visit With Elias Alias

Camerawork by Shari Dovale of Redoubt News

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”” el_width=”90″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

TMM DVD Project Report

TMM visits with Jeanette Finicum at Red Pill Expo 2018 Spokane, Washington


It had been a hectic month just prior to the Expo. I had made two five-thousand-mile round trips by car from northwest Montana to Tennessee. Arriving back in Montana the day before the Red Pill Expo was to begin, I was flat worn out and feeling my age, but there was no time to lament, as there were only a few hours at home before leaving for another trip, this time to Spokane, Washington, to attend the Red Pill Expo.

When I arrived, Jeanette Finicum had already arranged her table among all the other exhibitors. I quickly found her and gave her a box of the DVDs which The Mental Militia has made for her. I would like for each of you who sent in donations to make that DVD for the Finicum family to pause right here and pat yourself on the back for helping complete a job well done. I especially want to thank Adam Ruff, who was my “go-to guy” for getting the actual work done in producing that DVD.  Adam had previously sent the first batch of DVDs to Jeanette, and she had already added it to her online store (see below for link), but Adam had also shipped another box of DVDs to my address here in Montana, as we had coordinated over the phone while I was traveling, and I hit town here just in time to get that box from the post office before hitting the road to Spokane. So I delivered that new batch of DVDs to Jeanette Finicum’s table on Thursday evening, just before the Red Pill Expo fired up by featuring the screening of the new movie described above, “Dead Man Talking”.

Throughout the conference that weekend I was pleased to see that the DVDs were selling at Jeanette’s table. I want to thank every member in, and supporter of, The Mental Militia for a job well done. In a world gone crazy; in a time wracked by governmental insanity and disconnect; in a way many Americans are awakening to in horror, The Mental Militia found some way to humbly assist Jeanette Finicum and her family. While we can’t seem to change the world, we each did what we could do on the domestic scene, and therein rests a secret which flies at the top mast of the Red Pill Expo 2018 — doing something real with which to help our fellow man. The more we do to unite with our good neighbors, the more that wabbling old wicked world can change for the better.


Elias Alias

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Get your copy of this video at the Finicum family’s website store —[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

All TMM MindWar Readers Regiment

Wendy McElroy: Crypto as Class Warfare

[vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Elias Alias Note —

I make no claim to keep current with all that Wendy McElroy does. The lady is prolific, and I liken her to a fountain head from which gushes uncountable  currents and tides of brilliant writing.  TMM is deeply blessed to know Wendy, and I am pleased that Wendy is happy to have a landing page here.  Let me now post an updated mini-bio on Wendy which I found at bottom of the page from which I’ve taken the article immediately below.

Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder of the Voluntaryist magazine and modern movement in 1982, and has authored over a dozen books, scripted dozens of documentaries, worked several years for FOX News and written hundreds of articles in periodicals ranging from scholarly journals to Penthouse. She has been a vocal defender of WikiLeaks and its head Julian Assange.

[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”turquoise” border_width=”2″ el_width=”70″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Wendy McElroy: Crypto as Class Warfare


Originally published at Bitcoin on Jun 23, 2018 |

by Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy: Crypto as Class Warfare

The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations
Section 4: State Versus Society
Chapter 9, Part 1
Crypto as Class Warfare

“Antagonism between the classes will be removed. I do not envisage a dead and artificial level among the people. There will be a variety among them as there is among the leaves of a tree. There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day. I have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence in its full measure becomes the policy of the State, we shall reach essential equality without strife.”

-Mahatma Gandhi

Cryptocurrency is the realization of an anarchist dream that dates back centuries:  a free currency and a free banking system. Crypto is in its infancy, which means  its future applications are electrifyingly unpredictable, except in one regard: any successful application will fill a human need. No human needs are as acute as food and shelter, which require money and exchange. To control the flow of money and exchange, therefore, is to control life itself. And the financial flow is often captured by one word: banking.

In their quest for free banking, social reformers of the past made a distinction that is often lost today. Namely, banking is at the core of class warfare. The ramifications of that insight rests upon the definition of “class” being used: capitalist v. worker, nobles v. peasants, the political v. the productive. Crypto departs sharply from the meaning imposed by socialists centuries ago–capitalists v. workers–and expresses a 21st century form of financial class warfare: the political v. the productive.

The extraordinary crypto network is not a banking system, as traditionally conceived, but it can replace most banking functions. And future evolution within crypto applications may wipe out any remaining need for central banks.

Past Banking Experiments

19th century anarchists knew that freedom hinged upon what French radical Pierre Joseph Proudhon called a Bank of the People—a bank that served the financial interests of workers, not of the elite. Proudhon’s vision was a cooperative bank that provided low-interest credit and which issued notes based on labor instead of money based on gold.

The many attempts at free banking usually had a theme in common; they failed. Three factors played a significant role.

Ideology. Early anarchists accepted the socialist concept of a “Labor Theory of Value.” That is, the just economic price of a good or service is determined by the labor needed to produce it. The theory forms the linchpin of socialism’s condemnation of “the capitalist,” who steals the wealth earned by “the worker” when he charges and pockets more than the cost of production for a good. In short, socialists believe embedded labor, not subjective value or supply and demand, determine a just price. Banking experiments of the past tended to stumble and fall over this deeply flawed economic model. Not until Murray Rothbard fused individualist anarchism with Austrian economics, and popularized them both, did free-market anarchism emerge.

Structure. Many alternate institutions depended on the system against which they rebelled. Proudhon’s proposed Exchange Bank, which was intended to be an umbrella structure for smaller Banks of the People, is an example. The Exchange was meant to replace France’s central bank and to obsolete the financiers who preyed on workers. In his periodical Liberty, the iconic 19th century American anarchist Benjamin Tucker explained, “The Bank of Exchange was to be simply the Bank of France transformed on the mutual principle.” Thus, it was a vision of reform—radical reform, to be sure—but not a vision of revolution.

The alternate institutions that fared better tended to be part of a broader support system for a specific community, such as the social agencies operated by early labor organizations in America for their members. Those organizations exemplified the class awareness; for example, the Knights of Labor refused membership only to bankers, lawyers, gamblers, and saloon-keepers, who were viewed as the bane of working people.

Legal Opposition. Two circumstances that invited a backlash from authorities were intersection and visibility.

Intersection: In 1848, Proudhon approached Louis Blanc, a minister in the French Provisional Government, for assistance in transforming the Bank of France into an Exchange Bank. Proudhon was unsuccessful. But because his bank was partially based on government approval, it floundered. Today, so-called alternative financial institutions apply for licenses or otherwise comply with regulations. In doing so, they either go out of business or  cease to be alternatives; they become part of the problem.

Visibility: When an alternative financial institution threatens the status quo, and is seen to do so, it is dismantled. Transparency is not its friend.

A case on point is the massive network of voluntary labor unions in 19th century North America, which provided millions of workers with everything from credit to life insurance. The voluntary labor unions were also hotbeds of political dissent. President Franklin D. Roosevelt all but eliminated them by establishing a monolithic Big Union that enjoyed government privileges through legislation such the Wagner Act (1935); the fact that modern unions were backed by Big Business should have been a red flag. An article entitled “The Great Lie of the Modern Union,” explained, “The modern union that arose…” was “the opposite of what it claimed to be. It did not voice workers’ rights. It silenced them.” The decline of voluntary labor unions meant their financial safety nets evaporated.

Revolutionizing Class Definition

Cryptocurrency is not “new under the sun” in providing an alternative to government banking. It is not even new in providing a free-market one. But the dynamics of crypto are stunningly unique. The algorithms and blockchain are able to blow past three of the main pitfalls of previous alternatives—ideology, structure, and legal opposition.

Satoshi Nakamoto designed bitcoin and the blockchain to bypass a central banking system that served the status quo, not the individual. Given that the central banking system is not capitalistic but exists in communist societies, as well, the capitalist v. worker class analysis does not apply to crypto. Another form of class analysis fits perfectly.

Before discussing class analysis, however, it is necessary to define the word “class.” A class is a group of people or things with common characteristics. The grouping occurs because it is useful to whoever is defining the category. A researcher of financial habits might break his subjects into credit card users and non. A doctor studying drug addiction might split his patients into cocaine users and meth addicts. A classification can be defined by almost any shared characteristic: hair color, sexual orientation, preference in deodorant…

But if capitalists v. workers does not work well with crypto, what is the basis of crypto class analysis? It is the state v. society.

In his classic work, The State, the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer spearheaded an analysis of these key terms.

Oppenheimer defined the state as “that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power [force].” As well as the visible structure of politicians and bureaucrats, the state includes all agents (such as the military and law enforcement), affiliates (such as banks), and cronies (such as corporations and the mainstream media). Rothbard expounded on the concept. “I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as ‘taxation’; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.”

Oppenheimer defined society as “the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man.” Rothbard explained that a free society was “one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual.” Society was the total of human interaction that occurred in the absence of institutionalized force.

Force and the threat of force are necessary to the state because it produces nothing. Its only source of “income” is the wealth it grabs from others, including through taxation, confiscation, fines, fees, tariffs, inflation, bribes… To exist, the state must steal. By contrast, society consists of voluntary exchanges that produce wealth, whether in terms of money, culture, family, spirituality, and other human values. An exchange occurs only when all parties to a transaction agree to its terms, which means all parties benefit.  occur. Rothbard highlighted the difference between state and society. “If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute.”

Individuals who interact through force and privilege—“extra-economic power”– are the political class. Individuals who interact voluntarily are the productive class. The dynamic is political v. productive. The two are antagonistic because the political class is a parasite on the productive class, and it cannot exist otherwise.

Before crypto, even people who saw this class divide clearly were forced to use the state because so much of modern life was monopolized by it. Banking and the issuance of currency are fine examples. This essential realm of human interaction became a state monopoly. Little could be done about it; a bank account was almost a requirement of daily life, and it was extremely difficult to send money overseas without involving banks or other authorized institutions. No more. Crypto upends the state’s monopoly.

As with ideology, crypto is also able to answer the issues of structure and legal opposition that plagued prior financial alternatives to the state.

[To be continued next week.]

Reprints of this article should credit and include a link back to the original links to all previous chapters

Wendy McElroy has agreed to ”live-publish” her new book The Satoshi Revolution exclusively with Every Saturday you’ll find another installment in a series of posts planned to conclude after about 18 months. Altogether they’ll make up her new book ”The Satoshi Revolution”. Read it here first.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”mulled_wine” border_width=”2″ el_width=”60″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Return To Wendy McElroy Landing Page at TMM —

Wendy McElroy’s Website —

The Voluntaryist Website —

Wendy’s Reflections On Founding Of Voluntaryism

Wendy’s Ongoing New Book At Bitcoin —