Zion, IL
by A.B. Dada
—

Michael Vick is being villified in every mainstream and blog news and opinion piece I’ve found, other than a few rare pieces at the LRC it seems. He’s being tossed out for being cruel to animals, and he’s plead guilty on Federal charges with a chance that the state will also toss in some criminal charges, to boot. From what we can see in the media and blogosphere, Vick has no friends. I’ll be the first to stand behind him and offer not just my friendship, but my defense of an extremely talented entertainer with a long history of poverty and restraint by the State that says they’re only there to help.

Vick was raised in one of the worst ghettos in the U.S. — the Hampton Roads East End section in Virginia. Hampton Roads is a pure ghetto with subsidized housing, a lack of public protection by the police, and could be one of the worst places in the country to try to raise a family. His parents both were hard workers, and it is evident that even with all the odds against Vick, he succeeded in exiting an area where infinite welfare is the most common life of the typical resident. He went on to becoming one of the highest paid sports entertainers in the industry, with massive sponsorships, endorsements and fan support. I don’t have many heroes in my life, but I know how to pick them out after researching them. I’d rather have my future son want to be dedicated to succeeding like Vick than like Paris Hilton, that’s for sure.

Now Vick is on the verge of losing his career forever: Federal charges (felony and misdemeanor) on actions where I see no Federal power to make laws over. From what I can tell, Vick is being charged using a variety of RICO-era statutes. A quick browse of the Constitution shows that Congress can only pass crime laws covering piracy, counterfeiting and treason — Vick’s actions fall under none of these. RICO is an unconstitutional law, originally intended to go after the Mafia, but now used against common citizens for actions that should only be regulated (if at all) at the state and local level. I see no power of the Federal Government to judge actions against animals, or even actions against humans, in terms of murder or abuse. For the same reason I am against any abortion policy at the Federal level, I am also against any violent-crime laws at the Federal level.

What exactly did Vick do? He bred dogs to kill each other for sport. It sounds awful. I have 6 cats, and I am definitely an animal lover, but I am also an animal hater. I love a big, raw steak. I eat crawdads out of the river fresh and live. I’ll be the first to chomp on locally-gamed venison jerky, and I’ve hunted pheasant and turkey in my years. I’ve skinned squirrel and catfish, and I’ve run over more than one animal while speeding down US 41. It’s gruesome, but we’re humans, bred to survive and live healthily, and that includes the consumption of animals for both pleasure and sustenance. I even like to spend the day at the horsetrack, marveling at man’s ability to wage dominion over the lesser beings.

Do I support animal abuse? Absolutely not, but I also don’t support forcing my definition (or anyone else’s) of animal abuse on others. Our moral judgment allows us to withdraw from markets where we feel there is an injustice committed. Some people won’t eat meat, or even honey, because of the their stance on what defines animal abuse. Would you want hot dogs and bologna to be withdrawn from the shelves because of how animals are treated? Then do so by not buying it, and telling others your side of the story on your blog. Ever been to a chicken ranch or a turkey farm? You’be surprised at how vicious animals may be treated at the average meat-generating farm. It’s a fact of life, one that we’re quick to ignore when it comes to our own consumption. Again, I love to eat meat, so I accept that animals are not treated with the same respect as humans.

Again, we don’t just chase and kill animals for sustenance — we also do it for fun. On pheasant hunting trips, we always had dogs who were trained to chase and kill the birds, even if we didn’t slay them with a bullet. The dogs’ training sessions were not unlike what Vick did between dog and dog — these dogs were trained to kill the birds on sight and command. Away from the hunt, the dogs were surprisingly docile, and even friendly to other animals. But their sole purpose was the killing of another animal. I’m glad it isn’t a crime to hunt pheasant in that way, and the bonding relationships I formed with other humans was a rarity in my life.

While I don’t support dog fighting, I also don’t understand why it is all of a sudden a big news issue. In the area I live in (Zion, Illinois), there is a large African American population, and I’ve seen a few amateur dog fights taking place while driving past an alley in the primarily black parts of town. It happens. It may be cultural, it might be something that a particular segment of society sees no problem with. For me, the idea of a unanimocracy encompasses the ability of individuals within a group to decide what is right and what is wrong. If a bunch of retirees decide they want to sit in an alley and pummel each other for sport, it is not my place to set laws on that group as long as it is voluntary. Many will say that I am wrong in comparing this to dog fighting, but dogs are not humans. They are animals, with a history of being trained to kill, maim and defend themselves against other beasts. Sure, we’ve domiciled dogs as pets, but in many countries they’re still dinner, too. Is it wrong for a man to go and kill a dog, drain its blood, skin it, salt it, and hang it out to dry to serve dinner to his family? Again, sustenance. Is it wrong for a man to go hunting in the woods for wild dogs? How is it different from turkeys or squirrels?

After all my thinking, I still can’t think of what Vick did that was so terrible. His dog fighting business, while mostly disgusting to me, still had a market of willing participants who engaged in the fights. These people voted with their time and their dollars in what they thought was morally acceptable, and they hurt no humans in doing so. Our Constitution was written to protect the rights of the PEOPLE, not to give government endless power or protect the rights of beasts. For me, the best way to eradicate the market of dog fighting is to not partake in it, and don’t support those who do. You are free to start a blog and try to convince people like Vick that dog fighting is wrong, but sending this man to jail and ending his career makes no sense from a freedom perspective.

He hurt no human. He violated no human’s rights. He stole from no one, defrauded no one, and violated no contracts or agreements with anyone. To me, that is called a victimless crime, no more horrific than slaying a pig for pork sausages. Speaking of pork sausages, I’m off to my grocery store to pick up a fresh pound of bacon — and my body and soul will be pleased at the sustenance, the flavor, the entertainment of eating and the fun I’ll have inviting my friends over for a bacon BBQ. Maybe I’m just as evil as Michael Vick, but it is not your right to judge me as long as I’m not harming you directly, or taking away your freedoms.

Michael Vick: I wish I could tell you to scream “Get off my lawn” to the monsters who wish to enslave you and steal from you your livelihood. Slavery in America hasn’t ended, it just changed its name to “The Court, the Jail, and the Powers that be.”

I received a few e-mails from yesterday’s post/slashdot-crosspost, [Slashdot] Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges. Here is one such e-mail:

Greetings.
I noticed on a slashdot post you made.
I have been interested in anarcho-capitalism for quite a while but in discussion with my friends and others with such leanings a problematic question keeps recurring. What stops the development of overwhelmingly powerful private armies? I am familiar with the non-aggression maxim, but with the destructive capability of modern weapons systems couldn’t an individual with several billion dollars coerce just about anyone other than others with similar amounts of money? This is a problem that I can’t seem to find a good solution too. I apologize for the unsolicited e-mail but not many people at my university are familiar with anarcho-capitalism and I find that I am often the most educated one on the subject yet still had questions.

The main premise/question of a majority of the e-mails comes down to a debate-topic that has plagued the anarcho-capitalism debate since it started decades (centuries?) ago — will anarcho-capitalism devolve into feudalism?

If you do a search online for the two terms together, you’ll come up with a good foundation of the basis of the debates. The Austrian Forum has a good debate thread on the very topic, but I believe that debate, like others, fails to realize the basic comfort in the mind and heart of the anarcho-capitalist: we can’t care about you until we’re able to care for ourselves.

For myself, this is the most honest interpretation of anarcho-capitalism that I can provide to those who don’t understand why I want freedom to pursue my political/faith beliefs without intervention or force of others. It sounds callous and egotistical, but it isn’t. My life, my faith and my politics are based on one idea: I can’t convince anyone of anything except by example. My example of freedom is difficult to display to others because I am forced to support wars, welfare systems and force-structures that are counter to my “Utopian dream,” which is a term I really don’t like.

Let’s look into the main problem with this debate: you’re looking too large! When I ask for anarcho-capitalism for myself, the first thing that happens is people exclaim that it is impossible for the world to be free of the State. Yes, you’re right! But that isn’t what I am asking for. I am asking for the ability for myself and my brethren to be able to extricate ourselves from the madness that the State forces on us. We’re not asking for the world to be anarcho-capitalist, we’re asking for the ability to attempt anarcho-capitalism on our own. As online-friend J. David Blackstone has said, Secession is the right of all sentient beings. The basis for anarcho-capitalism is the right to declare your property as yours — not the State’s. I’m not asking for the entire world, nation, state or county to immediately be dismissed of the State — that would truly be nihilism, and I’m not a anarcho-nihilist. I’m asking for the ability to withdraw from the “social contract” and attempt to live life without the State within the boundaries of my property.

What would happen if I did it alone? I’d likely die, or I’d fail, or I’d mooch off the State by trespassing into it — the free rider argument. Yet that also is not what I am asking for. You could say that I want something akin to the Free State Project, but I think that is still Statist to a large degree. I’d call it the Free Stateless Project, maybe. Many friends of mine believe this would be similar to communism where all within this Stateless zone would be equal, but I think that’s wrong if everyone who joins the Stateless zone (leaves the State zone) understands the basic premise of anarcho-capitalism: no one will help you unless you can help them, but we’re all free now to try to help ourselves as long as we harm no one else. This means we are free to do what we want, even if it kills us, as long as it does not harm anyone else or their property.

So what of the volatility of a State or another anarcho-capitalist zone attempting to overrun our Stateless zone? Sure, it is possible. Some anarcaps believe that they can unite and hire a protection company to offer them defense against attack, but I don’t see this as reliable or even intelligent. If we’re truly anarcho-capitalists, we can not unite as one group for any reason — none of us are the same, exactly, and none of us agree perfectly on all subjects. Due to J. David Blackstone’s previous convincing arguments, I am a pure pacifist — I won’t use force against anyone, even in self-defense. But my neighbor might believe that it is wise to arm himself and his family and use defense against even a minor trespass. Since this is a risk that burglars/trespassers would have, I believe people would be much more cognizant of people’s property rights and avoid the risk of death. Today, people are taught that their property is not theirs (you pay taxes or you get evicted), and are also taught that the State can trespass on their land however they please — even without a warrant. In an anarcho-capitalist zone, you would have to be aware that if you are not on your land, there is a risk of death or pain. Is this the way we want to live? It depends — if you’re like me, you’d gladly accept that risk rather than pay 50%+ of your income to a State that uses force each and every second it operates.

What happens if a State decides to attack the anarcho-capitalist zone? There will be those who will fight to the death, and those who will just give up and hope to return to freedom quickly. There is no way to know what would happen without knowing how large of a force the Stateless zone is — not just in weaponry. The Internet today gives us many more opportunities to unite on some subjects — we’ve seen more pro-libertarian supporters in the last 2 years online than in all of history. Right now, though, there are absolutely no opportunities for anyone to secede their land out of the State’s zone, so we are unable to truly try to fulfill our trials.

As a sidenote, many anti-Stateless zone advocates will show Somalia and other parts of Africa as anarchy zones. This is untrue — they may be without a State, but they are not without State supporters. Since Somalia’s State crumbled, the U.S. and Ethiopia and many other countries have provided black-market weapons and support for a variety of pro-State leaders and warlords. The State fell because too many people wanted to create a new State their way. In my view of a Stateless zone, the people who would secede would not be looking to create a new State for others but freedom for themselves. The State surrounding the Stateless zone would be free to erect walls and barriers to entry (and likely would), but it would not be difficult to travel to lands via boat or plane. Remember: I’m not asking for all of the U.S. or the world or even the State of Illinois to all of a sudden crumble. I’m asking for the chance to extricate myself from your mess that you voted for, along with many 100 or so of my fellow colleagues, so that we can try (and fail or succeed). The chance of feudalism occurring with just 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people is unlikely — and the chance that the whole world will take notice of our successes and get rid of the State is completely non-existent. The average person LOVES the State, and we’re happy for them. We just want to help our own situation first before we can decide how we will help others.

By the way, this version of anarcho-capitalism is what I would call a Unanimocracy.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.