The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Analysis posted Jul 18 2010, 10:09 PM Category: Commentary Source: InformationLiberation Print

11 Reasons We'd be Better Off with No Government at All

Chris | InformationLiberation

No government at all? Outlandish, you say?! After you read these 11 reasons, you'll be the first calling for shutting the whole shebang down!

1. We'd have absolutely no taxes. That means everything across the board would be cheaper and everyone would have about twice as much money.

2. We'd have no foreign wars. The US spends $1 trillion dollars a year on our interventionist foreign policy. If we shut the whole government down, that's $1 trillion dollars a year going towards computers, housing, food, technology etc., instead of being spent on bombs to kill people.

3. We'd have no corporate welfare. That means no more banker bailouts, no more handouts to the health insurance companies and big pharma, and no more subsidies for connected special interests. That translates to lower prices and more competition. Health care costs would drastically fall and housing would finally be more affordable.

4. We'd have no more drug war. The miserable drug war would come to an end and we'd stop wasting trillions of dollars to keep drug prices high.

5. We'd have no more police. That means instead of the government running a billion dollar protection racket with people getting abused left and right, we could take the billions we give to the government and instead pay private bodyguards to police our streets as an actual service to consumers at a mere fraction of the cost. The police would not be abusive for the same reason a private bodyguard doesn't beat up the person they're supposed to protect, they're dependent on you for their paycheck. Also they wouldn't have to enforce ridiculous drug laws which account for the majority of supposed crime.

6. No TSA! Let the companies themselves decide how to protect their passengers. If people want to fly in a jail cell and go through naked body scanners, so be it. If there is a market for it, the airliners could make special flights with extra security. As for the rest of us, we'd like to keep our clothes on, thanks!

7. Everyone could get a job in private industry. With private industry finally being able to keep the entirety of their earnings, everyone across the board would have more money. All corporations, big and small, would have double their current income, that means they can hire more people and put people back to work. Even a politician with absolutely no skills could get a job!

8. No more Federal Reserve. That means no more fiat money, no more business cycle, and no more inflation. Private industry could coin the money and have full reserve banks. We could move towards a %100 gold backed currency globally and give people truly sound money. No more devaluation of our money through the printing press, and no more silent corporate welfare through inflation.

9. No more artificially induced bubbles. Without the fed inducing the business cycle people would be able to invest wisely and the market could adjust faster to changes in the economy. Companies would be forced to adapt to serve consumers instead of merely adapting to gaming the system to get corporate welfare.

10. No more entrenched elite. The government's illegitimate monopoly on force is the only thing with allows a tiny group to stay in power perpetually through gaming the system and profiting off government handouts and grants of monopoly privilege. End the government, and you destroy their tool of conquest.

11. Freedom. What more is there to say? Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others. People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives. Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent, remove the rules and restrictions and give people freedom and you'll see a complete societal turn around, just read this!

Latest Commentary
- Let's Talk About...The Plague
- With Mass Shootings, The State Makes Us Less Safe
- Good News: 27% Of Americans Say Government Is Their 'Enemy,' Not Their 'Friend'
- Fear Is The Name of The Game
- This Thanksgiving, Let's Say 'No Thanks' to The Tyranny of The American Police State
- Donald Trump's Presidential "Heel Turn"
- Katniss Vs. Power: The Lessons of Hunger Games
- Tracking ISIS to DC's Doorsteps

Comments 21 - 40 of 94 Add Comment < Page of 5 >

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 5:07 PM

67139 With every power vacuum, something fills it. Warlords, religious tyrranty, or corporate power would file in, and take over. No government, is a corporate libertarian way of saying "Failed State".

The writer of this article, is ignorant of history.

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 6:44 PM

627 intelligent anarchy

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 6:49 PM

7413 This would have to be the most stupid list I've come across in a while. Of course without a government, everyone would only look out for themselves, and as a result there'd be no:

* roads
* common monetary system
* publicly accountable police force/system
* consistent import and export policy (any private organisations doing importing, would no doubt have fees, so in effect you'd still have import tax)
* etc.

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 7:01 PM

It's funny because to some of you it must be a mystery how people are able to get out of bed and tie their shoelaces without their own personal bureaucrat guiding them every step of the way. Government is responsible for more murders and genocides than anything in history, over 100 million people murdered by government in the last 100 years alone. No entity has stolen and destroyed more wealth, killed more people, and caused more human misery than government. But no, the idea our roads could be any worse than they are now is what terrifies you.

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 7:05 PM

128241 Anarchism is the most successful form of social/political/economic/educational/military "organization" in the history of human kind. Look up Celtic anarchism; it lasted 1000 years!

i would recommend people read a little on anarchism before the usual uneducated responses of "who would build the roads" or "who would defend the people".

Read "Practical Anarchy", "Everyday Anarchy", and "How to Achieve Freedom" here for free:

After you read these, then engage in some intelligent conversation. If after reading the true nature of the philosophy of freedom behind anarchism you feel it would not be worth fighting for, then go back and enjoy your current decrepit system of empire, moral and economic bankruptcy, educational deterioration, socio-political alienation, military aggressiveness that you currently call "freedom"...

and stay away from me.

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 7:24 PM

98247 Government is good. International central bankers who lend governments so much money that they essentially own governments, are bad. They are bad because their track record is horrible -- regularly sacrificing human beings and the happiness of people for power and wealth.

A republic is good because it takes care of the people and looks after their interests. Fascism is bad because it looks after corporate interests.

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 8:29 PM

128241 Government is not good. Government (the state) is the very reason why corporatism exists. Read this article (short and sweet):

Posted: Jul 19 2010, 8:35 PM

70233 Fix the roads, then we'll talk.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 1:14 AM

17418 Looks like Chris touched on a sensitive issue. They're out in force now trying to make it sound like a bad idea. I think those trying to maintain the current system are in a downward spiral and will never recover.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 4:01 AM

70171 "Look up Celtic anarchism; it lasted 1000 years!"

And the last hundred years have seen greater increases in technology and global standard of living than all thousand of those years combined. Organization gets shit done; anarchy stagnates.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 7:24 AM

195172 It's about time we we stood on our own two feet and over throw the government as life is getting unberable, what is wrong with people that they just follow like mindless sheep. Something must be done to end this oppression!

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 1:12 PM

72184 Chris: You are right and this is a great post for people to read. The idea of anarchy divides those who are actually awake and living from those robots who are guided by fear and propaganda (90% of our population). The latter category in unable to cope with the idea of being in control of their own lives and having responsibility. This attitude manifests in the grade-school arguments claiming, "taxes are good, without them we would have no roads" and "we need the government to protect us from each other" or "organization breeds progress."

This reasoning is of course ignores the fact that governments are murder machines and that "progress" means a consolidation of power for our masters. While I admit that humans have been reduced to a childish state in which most cannot be trusted with their own well being, this is hardly an argument in favor of government but rather the result of government. Many of the comments above expose just how dependent we have become.

In my opinion the human species can only reach its full potential after we let go of our fears. The fear of death and loss holds these robots captive in mental slavery, bound to whoever will promise to protect them from the world. The break this dependence we have to take back our morality, spirituality, and independence of thought. Only then will it become clear what we are capable of as a species.


The way to freedom does not involve violence or revolt against government, but against your own erroneous beliefs. I do not support violence.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 1:59 PM

99103 Wouldn't our nation be like Somalia? Shit seems to be going really well for them right now. Also on #2, no Foreign wars, Thats just stupid. War would still be going on. We would be fighting amongst ourselves. Or against foreign governments in smaller groups. And the idea to use the money from wars on computers etc. Who would decide how that money gets spent and where the computers etc go? Would it be a group of people chosen to dictate where the money goes? Wouldn't that be a government? Without rules and regulations what would keep that group from using the money for themselves?

Damned hippies. Go smoke some more pot, then try and write something that actually matters.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 3:57 PM

20959 Charles, one only needs to read Chuck's post above to confirm your point. Thank you.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 4:02 PM

20959 To Anonymous 70171 (from Wikipedia):

Celtic Ireland (650-1650):
In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century.

In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the Ibos in West Africa), pre-conquest Ireland was not in any sense "primitive": it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice.

Posted: Jul 20 2010, 9:27 PM

199247 On a side note who else here would happily hunt down and strangle the imbecile that keeps writing all in caps? On the plus side in a free society we could do it :), of course their are checks and balances. Such as any protection or revenge contracts he might hold with a mercenary company, or "private police force". Also their is the possibility of his family and friends retaliating. So you see, this is what a totally "free" society would be. It would come down to who had the most money or the largest family. A society run on fear, money and power. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Posted: Jul 21 2010, 12:55 AM

20959 A couple of passages from "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux:

1. "When people dismiss the possibility of anarchy out of hand by saying, “Oh, but how would roads be provided?” what they are really saying is that they support war, genocide, tax enslavement and the incarceration and rape of the innocent, because they themselves cannot imagine how roads might be provided in the absence of violence. “People should be murdered, raped and imprisoned because I am concerned that the roads I use might be slightly less convenient.” Can anyone look at the moral horror of this statement without feeling a bottomless and existential nausea?

Now, imagine that the reality of the situation is that roads will be provided far more efficiently and productively in a stateless society?

If that is the case, then the practical considerations turn out to be the complete opposite of the truth – that we are accepting murder, genocide and rape for the sake of bad roads, rather than good roads!"

2."I can confidently point towards a nonviolent society that you’re intimately aware of – you. I am guessing that you do not use violence directly to achieve your aims. It seems likely to me that you did not hold your employer hostage until you got your job; I also doubt that you keep your spouse locked in the basement, or that you threaten to shoot your “friends” if they do not join you on the dance floor. In other words, you are the perfect example of a stateless society. All of your personal relationships are voluntary, and do not involve the use of force. You are an anarchic microcosm – to see how a stateless society works, all you have to do is look in the mirror."


Posted: Jul 22 2010, 4:34 AM

199247 of course, their is a significant portion of the population that would happily do all the things that are described in part 2.

Now I should clarify I am not against anarchy. I just don't believe that it would be anything less than a world were only the "strong" survived.
Now having said that what defines strong relies heavily on the environment.

But in any system run by the strong you will have imbalance. No mater what happens, eventually groups of people will appear that will choose to be governed in some way shape or form. and they will believe their system is best and try to force it on others, which will force others to organize in defense. And when your fighting their is no such thing as anarchy it requires law and law requires 2 things; fear and strength. So I guess what I'm saying is that if the government was abolished true anarchy would last for a time, until people started to fight large wars again, or some other form of massive conflict, and from their a new government would arise. Weather this government would be better or worse who knows but it would happen.

Never kid your self anarchy is a means to an end not the end itself. It's the boiler plate of the social structure. it is responsible for forcing social change and eventually something good comes from it and it lasts until it rots and then anarchy and eventually , hopefully, something better.

One more note about point 2 above. Each human is an anarchic microcosm but look deep inside at the darkness and remember someone else didn't have to look all that deep to see what your seeing.

Posted: Jul 22 2010, 4:40 AM

199247 to number 20959, wrong their was a state of sorts in that the system was feudal. Now I've read a bit about this subject and they did have a very anarchic system but they did have law and honor which is just an other system of law. But within these they had more freedom than we do now. And for someone to say theses tribes never fought and never spent on war would be ignorant. These peoples fought on a regular basis. It was an advanced civilization yes but it was also violent and ruled only by the guy with the most and biggest warriors.

Posted: Jul 22 2010, 1:24 PM


To 199247: Read pages 36 to 42 on the link above to gain a better insight on all the points you bring up. Perhaps, this will change your self-fulfilling defeatism.

Here's a little excerpt:

"When one country invades another country, the primary goal is to take over the existing system of government, and thus collect the taxes from the existing citizens. In the same way that Bob will only invade Jim’s farm in order to take over his domesticated animals, one government will only invade another country in order to take over the government of that country, and so become the new tax collector. If no tax collection system is in place, then there is no productive resource for the invading country to take over."

"Thus the cost-benefit analysis of invasion only comes out on the plus side if the benefits are clear and easy to attain – an existing tax collection system – and if the costs of invasion are relatively small – a largely disarmed citizenry.

In a very real sense, therefore, a stateless society cannot be invaded, because there is really nothing to invade. There are no government buildings to inhabit, no existing government to displace, no tax collection system in place to take over and profit from – and, furthermore, there is no clear certainty about the degree of armaments that each citizen possesses."
Comments 21 - 40 of 94 < Page of 5 >

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27Drone Pilots Have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds For Exposing US Murder - 11/27World's Most 'Adorable' Drug Kingpin Is Actually The Daughter of Texas DEA Head Honcho - 11/26Pot Breathalyzers: Coming Soon to A Drug War Near You - 11/27City Settles After Police Chief Arrested Man For Calling Public Official A 'Liar' - 11/27Georgia Sheriff Puts Up Sign Warning People Who Disagree With Him About God to Leave - 11/27Bezos Beats Musk - 11/27Is Black Friday Racist? - 11/25

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up