The Road To Freedom

The Road To Freedom

Essays to Inspire, Inform and Motivate!

By David MacGregor
www.freedomconfidential.com

A 290 page compilation of essays written between September 2003 and

December 2006. All were originally published in The SovereignLife Report.

Copyright - All Rights Reserved – Freedom Confidential

Permission is granted to distribute this e-book in its entirety,

provided proper credit is given as to both the author, David MacGregor,
and the source, Freedom Confidential – http://freedomconfidential.com

1
 The Road To Freedom

CONTENTS
 Voluntarism vs. Compulsion ... page 4
 Think Outside The Prison ... page 7
 How to Defeat Big Brother ... page 11
 Reaching For Freedom: My Personal Story ... page 14
 Scams, Gambling & Investments - And How to Spot The Difference ... page 18
 The Coming Consciousness Shift ... page 22
 The Power And The Glory ... page 26
 The War on Terror: A Plot to Destroy America? ... page 29
 The Triumph of Business ... page 33
 War And Peace ... page 37
 What is Sovereignty? ... page 41
 The Law of The "C" ... page 45
 The Absurdity of Taxing Effort ... page 49
 The High Road to Freedom ... page 52
 Chaos Theory - In Practice ... page 56
 Dumping Your Old World View ... page 59
 V For Victory ... page 63
 The New Frontier ... page 66
 The Conspiracy/Paranoia Trap ... page 69
 Free Speech Quagmire ... page 73
 The Ultimate Ponzi Scam ... page 77
 Demon Democracy ... page 81
 The Power of The Lie ... page 85
 The Totalitarian Impulse ... page 89
 Gold and Freedom ... page 93
 The 'War on Terror' Scam ... page 97
 The Rise and Rise of China ... page 100
 Living in a Topsy Turvy World ... page 105
 Blowing Away The Illusion ... page 109
 Reinventing The Good Life ... page 113
 Fading Freedom of Speech ... page 117
 How to Escape The Cultural Matrix ... page 120
 Money Myths and Freedom ... page 124
 July 4: A Promise Betrayed ... page 128
 Think Different: PT FAQ ... page 132
 How Do You Know You Are Free? ... page 136
 Going For Galt's Gulch ... page 140
 The Death of Politics ... page 144

2
 The Road To Freedom

 The Tribal Gene of Love and War ... page 148

 The "Singapore" Factor: Towards Anarchy and the Market Order ... page 152
 The War on Terror is a War on Freedom ... page 156
 Strike For Freedom ... page 160
 Through a Glass, Darkly ... page 162
 The 7 Deadly Myths That Keep People in Bondage ... page 166
 Self Ownership: The Foundation of Freedom ... page 172
 Swastikas, Hypocrisy and Prince Harry ... page 176
 Choose Your Own Escape Route ... page 179
 Freedom FAQ ... page 182
 The Shape of Things to Come ... page 187
 A Most Unlikely Freedom Haven ... page 191
 How to Privatise Your Life ... page 195
 The Moral Case Against Taxation ... page 200
 How to Live Outside the Box ... page 203
 How to Escape the Prison Camp: A Manifesto for Personal Secession ... page 207
 Terrorism and the Decline of the Democratic Nation State ... page 211
 Undermining The Levers of State Power ... page 216
 Exposing The Criminal Mind ... page 220
 What Exactly IS Freedom? ... page 223
 A Troublesome Document - Musings on July 4 ... page 227
 A Dollar is The Only Vote Worth Having ... page 230
 The Right/Left Hoax ... page 234
 The Collapse of Control ... page 238
 Unleashing The Dogs of War ... page 241
 Income Tax: The Worst Tax of All ... page 244
 Being a Libertarian Can Play Havoc With Your Sex Life! ... page 247
 Smoke and Mirrors ... page 250
 Privacy is an Individual Right ... page 253
 Voting, Like Gambling, is a Rigged Game ... page 256
 How to Build Yourself a Second "Private" Income ... page 259
 The External Authority Scam ... page 263
 War, Wealth & Worry ... page 266
 A Personal Revolution for 2004 ... page 269
 Anarchy in The Real World ... page 272
 Democracy is a False God ... page 275
 The Passport Fraud: Nation States as Prison Camps ... page 278
 Revolt Against The Banks ... page 281
 Preemption is Better Than Cure ... page 284
 The Root of All Evil ... page 287
 Property & Freedom ... page 290

3
 The Road To Freedom

Voluntarism vs. Compulsion

The fundamental idea underpinning "offshore" strategies, is that the state has no
right to forcefully extract money (tax) for purposes which you do not personally
endorse. Whether this is for redistribution to persons you don't want to support; for
causes you do not like or abhor; or for wars you do not want to wage - the principle
is the same. No one should be able to force you to pay for something you morally
disagree with.

Put in simple language "your money is your own, and you have the right to secure
your own financial objectives.

Fair payment for goods or services is one thing, but having your pocket emptied to
the tune of 70% or more is entirely another!

In other words, if you're sympathetic to offshore strategies, then it's likely that you
also have a healthy distrust of big government and are likely to be politically a
"conservative", a "libertarian" - or even an "anarchist". Chances are, you are NOT a
left-leaning liberal, or a socialist/communist!

However, even amongst the natural audience for information on offshore matters
and strategies - there is a striking difference of opinion on many fundamental issues.

So, I'd like to focus on just ONE fundamental difference of opinion - the difference
between those who believe in "voluntarism", and those who believe in "compulsion".
For this distinction strikes at the heart of what freedom is all about - including
financial freedom.

Label-wise, only libertarians and anarchists embrace voluntarism 100%, with others
either paying lip-service to the idea, or only accepting it with limited application.
However, labels can be misleading, so a more basic means of evaluating someone's
position is needed.

Firstly, the "individualism" that underpins "voluntarism" is under constant attack.

It's interesting to note the criticism that is often levelled at libertarians by ideological
opponents - on both the "left" and the "right". We are accused of being individualistic
in the extreme; that we see only individuals and fail to acknowledge the social nature
of human beings, or "society as a whole". The underlying intent of this accusation is
to imply that "we" are cruel and heartless, while "they" are caring and
compassionate.

Well I want to set the record straight, and uncover the shabby little secret of all those
people who use this line of attack.

I don't know of any libertarian who doesn't appreciate the value of relationships.
Whether of an intimate or personal nature, social or business. Of course we gain
enormous benefits from dealing with one another - that's the whole basis of
civilisation. Otherwise we'd all be hermits living in the wild!

There's no doubt that a synergy can exist when people interact with one another -
whether it's the intense romance between just two individuals, or the enthusiasm,

4
 The Road To Freedom

energy and creativity generated by a group of like-minded people. And who in this
world would like to be without friends?

However, the essential difference between anarchists, libertarians and our

ideological foes, is that we believe ALL relationships should be VOLUNTARY, while
they believe that many should be COMPULSORY. And the reason we believe in the
importance of voluntarism is that the starting point of any sort of relationship is the
individual person.

Libertarians say that relationships exist for the benefit of the individuals who are part
of that relationship - not the other way around (that individuals exist for the benefit of
relationships). And this idea applies just as much to personal relationships as to
societal and business ones.

Give you a few examples:

Libertarians are against compulsory trade unions. Not because they're against trade
unions as such, but because they're against compulsion.

Libertarians are against the drug war. Not because they love or want to encourage
drugs as such, but because what a person decides to put in his own body is his own
business - and trying to force moral compliance in this way is totally wrong-headed.

Libertarians are against taxation. Not because they want to see people slide into
poverty and die in the streets, but because they're against being compelled to fund
social programmes they may morally disagree with. In other words, they are against
being robbed at gunpoint.

Libertarians are against the "welfare state". Not because they don't care about
people, but because they firmly believe that everyone should face the consequences
of their own actions. And where someone is suffering for something they are not
responsible for (like an accident, or being robbed, raped or mugged), then any help
offered should be on the basis of voluntary response.

Libertarians are against aggressive wars. Not because they are pacifists (they are
not), but because they believe in the "non-initiation of force" principle - which states
that the use of force is only justified in situations of genuine self-defence.

The essence of libertarianism is voluntarism. It means that we support any

relationship that is based upon free choice, and oppose all those relationships that
are based upon forced compliance.

Our opponents like to make us out to be heartless automatons. In their frenzied

attempts to discredit our ideas, they conveniently overlook the mean and vicious
idea at the the core of their own thinking - the idea that people should be compelled
to do things, even if only for their own good.

Trouble is, who should decide who should be the guardians of the good of others?

I put it to you that people who are driven by this idea of controlling others, compelling
others to live according to their agenda, are in fact the genuinely cruel and heartless.
It is they who have a twisted view of humanity. It is they who hide thoughts of hate,

5
 The Road To Freedom

envy and disrespect for others in their hearts. And yet, it is they who have the cheek
to pretend to be the champions of the downtrodden.

What despicable hypocrisy! Especially when you realise that all their "compassion"
is achieved by handing out OTHER people's money!

What can be a worse example of such hypocrisy than a stuffed up politician who
proudly boasts his concern for this or that - then proceeds to support it from the
PUBLIC purse instead of his own!

Don't be fooled by the caring-sharing drivel that comes out of the mouths of left-
liberals, socialists and other control freaks (which basically includes all politicians).
It's all a front.

And control freaks are a MORAL affront to all self-respecting and other-people-
respecting individuals.

Voluntarism vs. Compulsion - that's what most societal strife is about. What I mean
is, you can often reduce present societal problems to the issue of free choice vs.
forced compliance. And in this way, rather than relying on political or religious labels,
you can identify an ideological enemy from his basic adherence to one or other of
these diametrically opposed views.

And in this world, you NEED to know your enemy.

My advice? Shun all those who espouse the idea that people should be forced to be
good; should be forced for their own good; and should be forced to fit in with the
agenda of those, who for some reason, think they are above everyone else and are
exempt from such force.

If we could just get people to believe in this right to be left alone, as much as people
are willing to believe in God, then perhaps, just perhaps, the world would be a much
better place.

6
 The Road To Freedom

Think Outside The Prison

Anyone who has seen the movies "The Matrix" or "The Truman Show", will have
come away with a sense that these stories are in some way "true". Not literally - but
metaphorically.

I know I did, when I first saw them a number of years ago. I couldn't help see the
striking similarity to real life - the idea of being brought up in an artificially created
world (Truman), or of being trapped in a created "alternate" reality (Matrix).

And I'm sure that most of you reading this have at least had a hunch that in some
way you are being manipulated.

And that is most definitely true.

There is a popular, and hackneyed, saying - "think outside the square" - meaning,
think different. Think outside the parameters of your confined experience. Explore
and experiment with new ideas - and so on.

The phrase is usually employed in marketing or business, where innovation is such

a valuable and intangible asset. And where any brilliant new idea could return a
handsome profit.

The problem is that we are firmly stuck inside the "square" when it comes to our
personal lives - and no amount of urging seems to make much difference!
Take the example of religion.

I've been reflecting on the responses I usually get from people if I raise the subject of
God - or no God, external authority - or no such authority. Boy, does it raise a few
heckles. Some people even take the opportunity to preach to me - with a postscript
warning, that there would be "hell" to pay (literally), if I didn't listen up and change
my ways!

Of course I'm not troubled by all this, for I see no evidence for such a supernatural
God whatsoever, and therefore such threats are meaningless.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in our origins - and how all this life and energy
came about. But I simply don't have any verifiable facts - certainly not about any
supernatural creator.

I would find it more plausible to believe that aliens arrived on earth thousands and
thousands of years ago and did some genetic experiments on primitive humans.
That would at least explain the glaring gap in the fossil record between those early
humanoids and the later Cro-Magnon man, our ancestor. It could also explain how
consciousness arrived. It may also explain the origin of the "God" idea itself - as
such an impressive alien arrival would most certainly be considered a visit from the
gods.

I find that interesting - but it's still pure speculation.

7
 The Road To Freedom

What is not speculation is the fact you and I are alive, and we have to make the best
of our lives - and that we have to defend ourselves against those who would take our
lives away from us.

And this is where "thinking outside the square" becomes imperative.

But a limited/warped/controlled mindset is not a "square" - it's a prison! So let's

create some urgency here, and call a spade a spade. We need to "think outside the
PRISON"!

Ayn Rand, in a brilliant article entitled "The Comprachicos" gives an historical

account of a people who physically distorted the bodies of children - using various
confining techniques - in order to make them "freaks" for side-shows.

Victor Hugo (in "The Man Who Laughs") had this to say:

"The comprachicos (child buyers) were strange and hideous nomads in the 17th
century. They made children into side-show freaks. To succeed in producing a freak
one must get hold of him early; a dwarf must be started when he is small. They
stunted growth, they mangled features. It was an art/science of inverted
orthopaedics. Where nature had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where
nature had put harmony, they put deformity and imperfection. The child was not
aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face,
not in his mind. During the operation the little patient was unconscious by means of
a stupefying magic powder."

Ayn Rand (in "The New Left") had this to say:

"The production of monsters - helpless, twisted monsters whose normal

development has been stunted - goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the
comprachicos are smarter and subtler. They do not hide, they practice their trade in
the open, the results are invisible. In the past this horrible surgery left traces on a
child's face, not in his mind. Today it leaves traces in his mind, not on his face. In
both cases the child is not aware of the mutilation he has suffered. Today's
comprachicos do not use narcotic powders. They take a child before he is fully
aware of reality and never let him develop that awareness. Where nature put a
normal brain, they put mental retardation. To make you unconscious for life by
means of your own brain, nothing could be more ingenious. They are the
comprachicos of the mind. They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to
its contours. They place him into a school to adjust him to society."

Society has always tried to control its children by ensuring they are trained correctly
in the ways of society - to maintain the status quo - to retain the existing power base.

The two primary organs for this control are religion and the state.
In the past, religion was the primary tool of control - and people lived in fear of their
lives, lest they transgress theocratic directives.

Now, the state has taken over the role of religion as the control centre. And its tool is
state education - not just the schools, but the "content", the curriculum (what MUST
be taught).

8
 The Road To Freedom

You can discount private schools, for although they may provide a better "quality"
education, the content is identical to that of a state school - because they too are
controlled and forced to comply with the state curricula.

To break free of your personal "prison" requires an enormous amount of intellectual

effort and honesty. And it is no surprise that Jesuits used to say, "give us a child until
he is seven, and he will be ours for life" (or something very similar).

To undo your mental conditioning (escape your prison) is almost impossible to do

100% - as our very desire and will to do so is also infected by our conditioning.
The only way to fully undo it is not to start it in the first place!

This requires a full rejection of the state education model, which is much worse than
religious education, because of its monopoly status.

And I would suggest that this (along with relinquishing control over the money
system) is one of the primary objectives of anyone who seeks a free society - the
complete and utter destruction of the state education model.

Our "educators" have been remarkably successful in creating a prison for each of us
- a prison for the mind.

But that doesn't mean you can't escape - just like the hero(s) in the Matrix or in The
Truman Show.

Humans have a remarkable capacity for survival, and to fully survive we need
complete and utter autonomous control over our minds and thinking processes. We
need a complete revolution in our thinking as to what education is supposed to be,
and how it should be made available.

Well, in keeping with my previous commentaries, the only model for education is the
market itself - 100% free from any political control. A separation of state and
education, just as there is a separation of state and religion (and for the same
reasons).

Once the state is out of the "mind-prison" business there will, of course, always be
others trying to peddle something similar, but they will not have the monopoly power
to force children into state brainwashing centres. And that is the important
distinction.

If there was one political act I would support - it would be to take away the
compulsory nature of state education, to make it at least optional. And given the
sudden freedom this would create, then a myriad of alternatives would suddenly
emerge. For where there's a market - there's a way.

The internet itself, is probably the most likely medium for such an education
revolution - providing a myriad of alternatives in a vast range of subjects, and
delivered in increasingly innovative ways.

When this happens, our children will be able to grow up without the shackles already
in place, and be in a much sounder state of mind to tackle the issues of living.

9
 The Road To Freedom

One radical idea I'd fully support, would be to promote private education that
includes (from an early age) an understanding of money. What it is. How to manage
it. How to invest it. How to make it by being in business for yourself. The current
state education model turns out "employees" - people who think the only option in
life is to get a job. It's only later, as a result of their own efforts, that some people get
an education in money - and usually as a result of costly mistakes along the way!

This idea alone would revolutionise a whole generation, making them

entrepreneurial, self-supporting individuals capable of innovation and wealth creation
- to the advantage of the whole of society.

For the rest of us - the already-grown-up - the task requires much more effort, but it
can be done. You can free yourself from much of your mental conditioning by
exposing yourself to radical ideas, ideas from outside the prison you live in.

As a starting point, may I suggest three thought/life-changing books - which are

readily available from Amazon or Laissez Faire Books - which rocked my own
previously long-held beliefs to the core:

1. Atlas Shrugged - by Ayn Rand

2. Sic Itur Ad Astra (This is the way to the stars) by Andrew Galambos
3. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World - by Harry Browne

I only mention the above three books, because in those pages you'll probably find
enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life!

The price of escape is as little as the cost of those books, and the willingness to read
them - small effort really, but amazingly beyond most people.

But I guess some people just like being prisoners after all - as this quote from
Johann Gottleib Fichte, in an address to the German nation in 1808, clearly shows:
"Resistance to the full-scale institution of government compulsory schooling will only
last for one generation. The first generation affected will accept it as a natural part of
growing up."

10
 The Road To Freedom

How to Defeat Big Brother

George Orwell's "1984" is the story of a "future" society where individualism has
been eliminated, where propaganda is used to control the masses, and where
perpetual war is being waged to maintain the peace. It's a world where false is true
and wrong is right, where history is constantly being rewritten - and where Big
Brother watches your every move.

But even in the middle of this totalitarian "utopia", there is one man - Winston Smith -
who dares to question authority, and who seeks to make a life for himself.

The parallels between our modern world and that of George Orwell's 1984 are
uncanny. The Ministry of Truth, the Thought Police, the political manipulation of
language to distort reality, the hidden censorship of political correctness - and the
fatuous "war on terror", all echo George Orwell's 1984. So much so, that reading the
news headlines often makes 1984 seem disturbingly prophetic.

1984 is ultimately a depressing story. Winston Smith, the hapless hero, believes he
is thwarting Big Brother - particularly when he meets the character O'Brien, whom he
believes to be a member of the underground resistance lead by Emanuel Goldstein.

But in the end, Winston is simply a pawn in a vast conspiracy. A conspiracy which
cheats him of his love, Julia, and ultimately of his own sanity - when he is
incarcerated in the Ministry of Love, and finally subject to the horrors of Room 101.

1984 is a chilling read for sure (there is one part of the book where I simply have to
put it down because of the horrifying power of the words), and implies that the
omnipotent state will ultimately win.

However, even as Winston Smith lives out his days in diminished manhood, he
clings on to one idea - that if there is any hope at all, it lies with the proles.

Now, the "proles" were the ordinary people - the masses, the great unwashed.

These people were cannon fodder, and largely ignored by the powers that be.
Smith's hope was that one day the proles would "wake up" - and in so doing, would -
by force of numbers - sweep away the vast illusion and apparatus of totalitarian
state power.

Orwell lived before the internet was even conceived. In "1984" the TV screen is a
medium of one way communication - from Big Brother to all the subjects of IngSoc.
And it would be interesting to know what Orwell would have made of the emerging
world culture that is the internet.

Make no bones about it, the internet is a revolutionary tool. It is a first in the history
of mankind. Never before has there been a medium of communication which links
the whole world - and where ordinary individuals can both read and say whatever
they like.

11
 The Road To Freedom

In 1984, the ordinary people were completely subjugated because of the state's
control over information. The control was so total, that even history was constantly
updated in order to square with the current "party line".

In contrast, the internet bypasses the state information apparatus. On the 'net, one
has access to nonofficial news sources and opinions. It is literally impossible to
censor the bulk of what goes on online.

The internet also provides a communication medium for other freedom-promoting

technologies - like sound and image files. Previously, news images were the sole
domain of the professional media. Not any more. Now, anyone, anywhere, can
upload a photo, a sound bite or a video, and make it available to the whole world in
minutes.

In this way, the modern aspiring "total" state has serious competition - because it
cannot fully control the flow of information - as was the case in Orwell's 1984.

The internet is also changing the nature of relationships. Pre-internet, people

identified with the traditional groupings of family, society and nation. But these
historic bonds are being loosened, as people forge new alliances and relationships
via the internet. Relationships based on commonality of interests, values and beliefs.

As ordinary people (the proles), have increased access to uncensored information,

and find themselves making connections with people from all over the globe - it
becomes more and more difficult for any state to micromanage the lives of its
citizens.

The state has lost control of the information so vital to maintaining control over
people. It may not be far off, before the "proles" wake up - and insist that the
Emperor has no clothes.

In 1984, the road ended depressingly in Room 101. But in the real world - the world
as it is - you have the opportunity to take a different road.

Sure, Big Brother's tentacles are everywhere. But he is not as omniscient as he

would like you to believe. There are many ways to thwart Big Brother and his
constant machinations to enslave you.

But the first requirement is that you "wake up". Yes, you need to wake up from your
state-induced, state-educated torpor and realise what is going on. You need to
become aware of how much freedom has been lost in the last 5, 10 and even 100
years. And more importantly, you need to do something about it.

I'm not talking about voting or protesting or writing letters to the editor. I'm not talking
about joining an organisation, or donating to a cause. Save your energy and your
money for something far more important - learning how to escape Big Brother as an
ultra-personal, life-changing strategy.

Yes, it can be done. There are many ways you can minimise the influence and
impact of the pernicious state on your life. You just need to know where to look and
how to get started.

12
 The Road To Freedom

For me, the starting point was back in 1996 - when I read a startling book called
simply "PT". That enigmatic title stood for "Perpetual Traveller" - and outlined a way
of living that provided a realistic and legal way to escape the worst elements of Big
Brother's control - including taxation.

I paid US$100 for that book, by the legendary WG Hill, which was quite a sum 10
years ago (at the USD/NZD exchange rate at the time). What's more, I was broke
when I ordered it and could hardly justify the expense.

I can recall when it arrived in the mail (from Scope Publishing in the UK). It was in
large hard cover format, red with gold lettering - and heavy. But within those pages I
found a new lease of life. It was as if a light had been turned on in my head, as I was
exposed to a completely new way of thinking.

I felt I'd been admitted into an exciting secret society - a place where forbidden
knowledge is revealed and exciting lifepossibilities abound.

It's no exaggeration to say that the $100 I spent back then has earned me more than
5,000 times that much - in the sense that the ideas, inspiration and strategies
allowed me to set a completely new course for my life.

Since then I've shared many of those ideas with thousands of people on the internet,
and constantly get emails from thankful readers as to how such information has had
a positive effect on their own lives.

However, such information sharing is never as powerful as getting it from the horse's
mouth - direct. But there's only one problem, it's virtually impossible to get one of
those hardcopy editions of PT anymore. And even if you do (perhaps on eBay?),
many of the strategies suggested may not be suitable for our increasingly totalitarian
post-9/11 world.

Fortunately, there is a new 3 volume set of books which takes up the "PT" mantle,
and reinvigorates the PT philosophy and strategy for the post-9/11 world.

If you're the sort of person who is longing for positive change, who strongly desires
to climb out from under the dead weight of the state's ever-increasing control, and
who wants to learn how to live as free as possible, within the law - then you need to
get your hands on this new publication.

It has the potential to do for you, what PT did for me back in 1996. Within its pages
you will find the keys to a new world, a new way of thinking, and a new way of
acting.

This large format set of three hardbound black books (nearly 800 pages) is called
appropriately "Bye Bye Big Brother" - and the title clearly speaks for itself. Within its
pages you will find the ways and means to do exactly that, wave "bye bye". It's not
cheap, but it's worth its weight in gold.

13
 The Road To Freedom

Reaching for Freedom: My Personal Story

Looking back, quite a number of years now, I'd say my life has been defined by a
series of disruptions - events which turned my life upside down in some way. But
with each disruption, new vistas and possibilities opened up. And I think what I've
learned is worth sharing - because if I'd known, earlier in life, what I know now -
then I could have accelerated my journey to freedom, and had more time to enjoy
the fruits of my labours. But that's life.

Life is a learning process. And, regardless of your age, gender, race or creed, we
are all looking for the same thing - freedom and happiness. But the path of life is
strewn with false sign posts and dead ends - not to mention dead bodies!

So, if I could condense my experiences, to distil them into the essence of what is
important - then perhaps the following true story would be the result.
My life has been interesting.

I won't bore you with all the early details, save to say I grew up in a working class
family; emigrated to a new country when I was nearly 10; spent my teenage years
hating school and playing in bands; and spent the first 15 years of my working life as
a professional musician.

But music was a hard way to earn a living - unless you were to become famous. So I
took a shot at starting up a retail business - but it failed after 6 months.

This had some unfortunate ramifications for my personal and family life - and I
suddenly found myself drifting - with no rudder.

Then one day, I saw a book on a friend's bookshelf entitled, "Who is Ayn Rand?"
Who indeed! This event was indeed a disruption.

I decided to read Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. It was to be the most
tumultuous reading experience of my life. I was left speechless, dumbfounded - and
utterly stressed and confused. The reason? Through the telling of a story of a man
who literally caused the world to crash, by persuading all the people of ability to go
on strike, I came face to face with an alien philosophy. Alien to what I had always
been lead to believe. Alien to everything society apparently stood for - and
promoted.

At the core of this philosophy was a simple proposition. Your life is your own. You
have a right to happiness. Self interest is the natural and proper human condition.
Self sacrifice is evil. Wow!

That got me all fired up - and my life rocketed ahead. I published a philosophical
newsletter. I started the first of two very successful mail-order publishing businesses.
I started a political party. I read all I could about self-improvement, goal setting,
business and success. I was on a roll.

After 10 years of successful business, I sold up, and confidently embarked on a new
business venture, also in publishing. It failed one year later. I started another one - to
do with self-improvement. It also failed. I started another, sort of like a distribution

14
 The Road To Freedom

franchise - and it failed too! By this time (three years after selling my previous
successful business) I was literally broke. I'd lost all my previous confidence. I was in
debt to the tune of $35,000. I had no income, and had to sell my house.

I visited the bankruptcy court to see what was involved - but rejected that option as
it involved giving away what little self esteem I had left. I cried myself to a fitful sleep
every night. I was a big mess.

Then I remember something I had heard on a Tony Robbins tape - regarding a

Charles Givens, who, when confronted with the burning down of his life's ambition (a
recording studio that was uninsured), stood in the ashes and cried. He then had an
epiphany. As he stood in the ashes, he realised he still had what he always had - his
mind.

That picture came back to me - and I awoke from my depressive stupor, found a job
teaching computers - and began immediately to think of creative ways to climb back
up into life.

It was then that the next major disruption hit me.

It was another book - called simply PT (short for "Perpetual Traveller"), by a

mysteriously named Dr WG Hill. It was bound in red leather, with the letters "PT"
embossed in gold - and a hefty US$100 price tag! But the ideas in that book shook
my world yet again - and gave me hope at exactly the time I needed it. It was the
best $100 I ever spent.

I had been morose, pondering my stupidity and my fate - which, for a man in his
forties (to have lost everything), seemed like an impossible situation. I couldn't
imagine HOW I could climb out of that black hole. Every time I considered the idea
of working hard, even having two jobs, in order to pay back my debts AND pay my
way - I was consumed with despair. Why? Because I knew the harder I worked - the
more I would be financially punished by the government, via the tax system.

Sure, I could have declared bankruptcy, handed in my passport, and become a ward
of the state. But as someone who wanted to work my way out of debt - it appeared
the system was stacked against me. That's where this inspiring book came in. It
showed me a way to escape, a way to build a new life - without the dead-weight of
government restriction and taxation. It was my lifeline.

I was immediately aware this information was dynamite. Why hadn't I ever heard of
such a strategy before? Why had it taken me so long to find out that such ideas
actually exist? There and then, I realised I could build a "new" life on the basis of the
ideas in this radical book. I could also use my own experience in doing so, to build a
new business - and help spread this valuable knowledge to others who might equally
appreciate it.

That was at the beginning of 1998. Within one year of working full time and starting
my new business, I'd paid off all my debts. Within two years, my new business was
earning three times more than my day job. So I quit the job - to focus on my passion.

15
 The Road To Freedom

Within three years I had saved over US$150,000. By then I was ready to plan the
next stage of my strategy - to exit the "old" world and enter the new, by becoming an
international citizen.

Everything was in place. I had spent three years reading voraciously. I had worked
my butt off. I had paid off my debts. And most importantly, I had created the means
by which I could support myself financially - anywhere.
It was time.

I'll always remember that first day in my new country. I arrived at the apartment
building I had found on the internet - and was busy unpacking my single suitcase of
belongings. I was truly travelling light.

I went outside and walked down the road - deciding to check out my new
surroundings. The sky was blue and the sun warm on my face. It was like I was on
drugs. A "freedom high". I was literally bouncing along, with a big grin on my face
and an ecstatic sense of the present moment. It's a feeling I'll never forget.

Since then life has been up and down - and sideways. I have dealt with sharks. I
have discovered lifelong friends. I have strengthened my resolve. I have refined my
ideas. I have consolidated my life as an internationalist - and there is nothing else I'd
rather be - or do.

My life is my own. I go where I please. I work when and how I wish. I deal with life on
my own terms. I can work from anywhere in the world. All I need is a laptop
computer and an internet connection - and I'm "in business".

To wake up in the morning and know that within you, you have the means to support
yourself - doing something you are passionate about, and have the freedom to do
this anywhere you like - is one the most wonderful feelings. It's a feeling of gratitude
that such a life is possible, and a feeling of hope, knowing nothing is really
impossible - if you think, plan and act.

And what have I learned from my life experience so far?

Well, never trust anyone who says, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

Never trust anyone who uses guilt to persuade you to grant them some favour.

Never trust anyone who declares they know better than you how to run your own life.

Never trust anyone who says he speaks for "God". And never trust anyone who
promises you something for nothing.

One more thing. Never give up hope - for without it, you won't even have the energy
to get out of bed in the morning!

Becoming a Sovereign Individual means throwing away a lot of comfort blankets.

You have to assume 100% responsibility for your life. You are the boss - so the buck
stops with you. You must come to the realisation that you have the right to your own
life, and the products of your life's energy; that no one has the right to force you to

16
 The Road To Freedom

do anything against your will; that the only civilised way of living is one which
involves voluntary interaction with others - not force.

Like it or not, government is not your friend. And government education is more
about brainwashing than preparation for life. Finally, you have to realise there is no
legitimate external authority over your life - whether, family, friends, church, society
or the state. You are, in reality, sovereign. But, at the end of the day, you have to
assert it and defend it. If you don't, someone will assume that power over you.

If you can gain even one insight from what I've written of my experience - then you're
most welcome to it.

P.S. I have found that certain ideas have changed the course of my life - and mostly
these ideas have been discovered in books. If I were to reduce this list of books
down to the most influential, as far as altering my fundamental thinking goes, then I
would put the following on my short list:

Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World: Harry Browne

PT: The Perpetual Traveller: WG Hill

Sic Itur Ad Astra (This is The Way to The Stars): Andrew J Galambos

Perhaps the one most responsible for my present lifestyle - and the very existence of
SovereignLife - is PT. Although this book is still available (mostly in e-book form) in
some quarters, it's starting to show its age a little. And while it still truly inspires,
some of the advice is more pertinent to a pre-9/11 world.

Fortunately, someone has stepped up to the plate and published a worthy successor
- Bye Bye Big Brother (BBBB) - which takes up the PT philosophy and 5 flag
strategy, and adds a 6th flag - as well as updating what works and what doesn't in
this post 9/11 world. And at nearly 800 pages, in three handsome hard-back
volumes, it is a weighty successor as well!

17
 The Road To Freedom

Scams, Gambling & Investments: And How to Spot the Difference

The internet is a wonderful source of information - both good and bad. It's also a
playground of profitable possibilities for would-be and seasoned shysters and scam
artists.

Apart from pornography, one of the most prevalent types of content one can find on
the web is in the moneymaking category. And I guess, like sex, money has universal
appeal!

Now, this leads to all sorts of potential problems, especially when easy money is
promised.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to learn how to spot the difference
between a legitimate moneymaking proposition and a scam. And I can tell you it's
not automatically that easy.

At least it's not easy if you allow yourself to be mesmerised by the promise of
something for almost nothing.

The starting point in getting to grips with this conundrum is to realise that greed
plays a big part in human nature. Sorry to be so blunt, but it seems we're wired for it.

You see this played out over and over - whether it's women battling each other to
grab the best garments in a crazy sale, or crazy people queuing up to get financially
fleeced in some hair-brained pyramid money game.

The motivation is the same. Something for nothing - or almost nothing. And that
desire is fuelled by greed.

If you can accept that you may have a built-in propensity to seek the easy route, to
get your hands on easy money - and factor that into your decision making - then you
will be in a much better position to more rationally appraise various moneymaking
opportunities.

There are two main generic scams continually circulating on the internet. One is the
"advance fee" scheme, and the other is the "Ponzi" or pyramid scheme.

The first is epitomised by the "Nigerian Letter" fraud - which is essentially a promise
of big bucks in exchange for some "help" to retrieve the money. The strategy is to
suck you into the scenario to such an extent that you become emotionally wedded to
it. Then, when you are asked to put up a fee to make things happen, you are already
hooked and part with your cash without a whimper. Never to be seen again.

The ponzi scam is named after Charles Ponzi who came up with the novel idea of
enticing investors with the promise of very large returns - and paid them out of new
investors' money. In the end, of course, the last investors lost their money, and the
whole thing was exposed as a complete fraud.

Some ponzi schemes are very crude - like the original chain letter. You'd think we
would have risen above that one - but it keeps on resurfacing. However, most are

18
 The Road To Freedom

now more sophisticated, often disguising themselves as an "investment" with

unusually high returns.

Over the last few years such ponzis have sharpened their act, and now present
themselves with smart, professional looking websites - plausible wording and an
enticing sales pitch. The primary hook, apart from the promised returns, is the
referral fee - if you recommend others. In this way, the modern ponzi can harness
the viral marketing power of the internet in ways impossible in the snailmail age.

Now, I have nothing against people playing money games as such (it's their money),
provided they know the rules of the game, and understand the old maxim "buyer
beware". You see, I'm very much of the opinion that people should be allowed to do
what they like with their own money - and not have some bureaucrat tell them what
they can or cannot do.

However, when you remove bureaucratic oversight, you have to take responsibility
for your own decisions, and realise what you are getting into.

If you know the risks, then it becomes like gambling - where it is clearly understood
that there are winners and losers. And I certainly don't advocate that the state should
criminalise gambling.

However, it does appear that some people can't tell the difference between gambling
(in all its forms), a ponzi, and an investment. And this fact is often used by the
authorities as an excuse to enact laws to protect people from themselves.

For example, it's imperative to distinguish between ponzi schemes and gambling.
And it shouldn't be hard.

Gambling involves taking a stake in a money game where there are clear rules and
directives as to who becomes the winner. Luck is the usual arbiter in gambling - and
this is managed in various ways. It could be lotto, where numbers are drawn from a
barrel; it could be a lottery where one person has the lucky ticket number; or it could
be horse racing or sports, where you place a bet on the outcome of the race (where
"form" and luck both play a part).

The point is that in gambling, you know there will be winners and losers, and you
know the means by which this will be determined. You have full disclosure
Not so with a pyramid or ponzi.

If a ponzi is disguised as an investment, then it is likely to offer high returns (to

appeal to greed), and use referral fees to get people to spread the word.

Now, the explicit message is that everyone who joins up will make say 10%, 20% or
even 100% per month on their money. However, the truth is that only the early birds
will catch the worm and walk away with the loot. Why? Because the funds to pay out
the promised returns come from the new players.

So, the pertinent question is, do these new players fully understand they are funding
earlier "investors", and so they realise they could lose their shirt? Probably not.

19
 The Road To Freedom

If a moneymaking scheme states that it is a "game", makes no guarantees, and

openly declares that your money is paying those before you, then you know the
rules before entering - and cannot cry over spilt milk if you lose your money.

On the other hand, if money is taken using terminology that indicates a legitimate
investment is being offered - which later turns out to be a ponzi scam - then clearly
the participants have been defrauded, because they were not told the true facts.

In a situation like this, one should be able to pursue legal action to reclaim the lost
funds - because such money was taken under false pretences.

However, such a retroactive course of action does not mean one shouldn't exercise
rational judgement before entering into any form of investment - even more so, if
exceptional returns and referral bonuses are being paid!

This brings up another dilemma. You've all heard the old maxim: "If it sounds too
good to be true, then it probably is". It's one of those well-worn slogans that is
sometimes more confusing than helpful.

The first problem is to determine "too good to whom?". This is very subjective, and
the answer will vary as much as people vary.

If I offered you 100% per year - would you consider it "too good to be true"? Or
would you automatically presume I was presenting you with scam?

Well, I can tell you that such an offer is certainly not too good to be true (under
certain circumstances) - and yet there are many, many people who would swear
black and blue that it was.

You cannot simply fob off an offer because, in your own opinion, it offers high
returns. You would need to do some digging to discover whether such returns were
possible or justified. So while the maxim is useful, it is not a cure-all or catchall
strategy for dealing with real life investment opportunities.

So you have gambling, which clearly discloses the risks inherent in participating;
ponzi/money games, which usually don't, and are essentially fraudulent offers; and
finally you have real investments.

Of course, putting your money into legitimate investments does not eliminate the risk
of losing your money - it's just that such a structure is not set up with the purpose of
defrauding you! When you invest your money you should demand full disclosure as
to the inherent risks of the proposition.

However, no investment is 100% safe. Even government bonds depend finally on

the state's ability to forever tax its citizens - something I personally wouldn't want to
bet on!

And this is where we come across yet another old maxim - "the higher the potential
return - the higher the risk". Once again, this is a useful indicator - but not infallible,
as there are obvious exceptions.

20
 The Road To Freedom

So, to recap: the essential difference between a scam, gambling and an investment -
is that the "rules of the game" are known in advance, and you participate in the full
knowledge of the risk you are taking.

A ponzi scam deliberately misleads, whereas gambling and investing offer

disclosure as to the risks.

You cannot avoid risk - it is part of life. You will never find a truly risk-free
investment. Even money in the bank, in most countries, is deemed "unsecured" -
and therefore at risk, should the bank fall over.

So accept risk as part of life, and concentrate on weighing up the risk - according to
your own requirements and your psychological response to such risks - against the
perceived benefits you may receive.

Some people literally can't sleep at night if they feel financially exposed. While
others are like adventurers, wading through shark-infested waters, with their eye on
the end prize.

There's no doubt some people get lucky and make money from gambling, or get in
early and make money from ponzis. But there's no doubt that most people lose
money from such "opportunities".

The challenge for you, is to keep your head on, stay calm, don't be driven just by the
promise of a quick buck, but to assess the offer in the light of your financial position
(whether you can afford to take a risk or not), and make a reasoned decision.

Don't be panicked into action - panic is never a good emotion. The best advice, if
being rushed by someone, is to withdraw and give yourself time to evaluate
something with a cooler head.

Something else will always come along, so don't be fooled by someone claiming that
you will lose out if you don't say "yes" now!

The world (and the internet in particular) is bursting with opportunities - and once
you have a clear idea of what you are comfortable with, you will have plenty of time
to participate and profit.

And remember, you alone are responsible for the decisions you make. Caveat
Emptor! "Let the buyer beware".

21
 The Road To Freedom

The Coming Consciousness Shift

The trouble with living in, and commenting on, present society is that it is very
difficult to get a birds-eye view of what is really going on.

We are all products of our intellectual and social environment to some extent, and
this severely limits our ability to see alternate developments outside the square of
accepted opinion and media bias.

Historians have got it over current media commentators precisely because when
looking at present events, they should be able to take a longer view - and perhaps
discern trends which may be missed by others.

And it certainly requires such a perspective to be able to spot an historically

significant event, at the time it is actually occurring.

I recall when I first read "The Sovereign Individual" - by Davidson and Rees-Mogg -
one of their predictions certainly stood out. The collapse of the Berlin Wall was really
an historic turning point, a verdict on state socialism and on any central planning,
and this event would be seen as such in the future.

I agree.

I also see something else of major significance - that mostly goes unnoticed by world
media - the rise of the "market" as the model for creating economic and societal
success.

To explain this, I need to distinguish between two modes of action: The "political"
mode and the "market" mode.

The political mode is in essence the use of force to achieve desired ends - disguised
somewhat behind the facade of democracy, which seeks to give some moral
credence to the use of such force.

But force is no doubt the primary tool of politics - democratic or otherwise. The
process of applying this force involves negotiating, dealing, bribing or lobbying to
ensure one's own particular notion of how such force should be used - and for it to
become public policy.

Just one example: farmers the world over (except New Zealand and Australia to my
knowledge) are notorious for wanting special political favours - i.e., protection for
their particular industry.

At a political level this is easy to achieve, because rural areas are usually well-
represented in government - giving clout to the farmers' demands. And of course,
food is an emotional issue - "we must look after the farmers, as they create our
food!". The end result is that farmers are mostly successful in lobbying the state to
keep out (by force) the food produced by farmers in other countries - in order to
protect their own patch.

22
 The Road To Freedom

In this example, farmers, who should be relying on the market mode of operation,
are instead relying on the political mode - the use of force to achieve their desired
ends.

Democracy is the "smoke and mirrors" trick that is used to legitimise such force - by
saying, in effect, that this is what the people want.

However, most people, if given a true choice, would much rather pay less for their
food, than to prop up their own farmers at a premium - notwithstanding the
propaganda about buying your own countrymen's produce.

And it is this ready access to the levers of force that is the engine of corruption.
If you can pay a million bucks to have your particular notion of how such force
should be deployed and taken up as state policy, then you are able to buy yourself
ongoing financial success. You will have greased the wheels of the political (force)
machine to do your own particular bidding.

Yes, force is the primary tool of politics. And here's the essential point - it's also the
antithesis of the market.

The free market is distinguished by the fact that a win-win situation must occur
before a deal can be struck. If you remove force from the possible strategies for
achieving what you want, then you are left with one simple alternative - to win others
over to your point of view by offering something in return. In other words "trade"
becomes the method of achieving one's goals - not the use of the gun.

If I, as a businessman, want to sell you something, then I have two possible choices
- employ the political mode, or the market one.

If I go the way of politics (as far too many "big" business people do), then I can lobby
for quotas and tariffs on my competitors' products - to create a guaranteed market
for my own. Or I can lobby for taxpayer funding to develop or subsidise my business.

A good example of using the political mode of business is in the alternative energy
field. The market is teeming with hopefuls peddling everything from wind to solar
power. And most of them have one thing in common - they are so convinced of the
benefits of their particular technology, that they want to bypass the market's
judgement in favour of preferential treatment, tax breaks and direct subsidies,
courtesy of the hapless taxpayers.

If I go the way of the market - then I have to find customers by winning them over.
This requires such things as offering what they really want, at an acceptable price -
and of the best quality. If I can't successfully do this, then I simply go out of
business.

Thus the market operates in the realm of voluntary action - and politics in the realm
of coercion.

Now, here's the interesting thing. Throughout history, politics has always been the
main player - and the market has always been controlled by it.

23
 The Road To Freedom

Those who earned a living through the market (the merchants, the traders, the
producers) have always been despised for earning money via voluntary exchange.
While the kudos and social acceptance has always been reserved for the politicians
- the purveyors of force.

But that is changing. Sure, the change may be slow, but such change also
represents a world first!

These last few years has seen an increasing acceptance of the market model for
doing things. Business people are more often in the news. The business of
"business" is permeating the culture more and more.

And it's no wonder.

When a company like Microsoft or Apple makes capitalists out of its employees (by
offering stock), then a fundamental change has taken place.

No longer are "workers" and "management" two distinctly different entities - but
instead co-owners, with a stake in the profitability of the company they work for.
It doesn't take too much of this new status and attitude to completely alter the basic
mindset of people - especially when you also consider that more and more people
are becoming what used to be called "self-employed".

At the same time we are witnessing the ascendancy of the market, we are being
bombarded with images of political corruption and incompetence - the downgrading
of the political mode of action.

Hardly a night goes by, when watching world news, without some politician
somewhere being accused of corruption or involved in some scandal. And to make
matters worse, such politicians always appear to get off scott-free.

While ordinary people are being fined for driving too fast, or imprisoned for enjoying
a quite puff of dope, the political class are committing crimes of such magnitude that
it defies belief - and yet walk away squeaky clean.

The public perception of politicians and the political process is at an all-time low.
At the same time, the market is continually delivering "good" news. And some of the
big good news stories these days are to do with the breakthroughs in genetic
research - which have the potential to lead to cures for all sorts of serious illnesses.

Now, this really is big news, because us humans are particularly vulnerable to dying
too early - and hold our future health in high regard (mostly). So, when we read or
hear of some major breakthrough that could save our lives in the future, or even
save the life of a loved one now, then this has a big emotional impact. And you know
what? Politicians are out of the loop on this one. They are not the ones who can
deliver such good news.

Of course the market is delivering a vast range of good news stories every day - but
because our media is mainly concerned with "bad" news, such stories are not given
the prime space they deserve.

24
 The Road To Freedom

Whether its about computers, entertainment, medical advances, transportation, or

even healthier food - the fact cannot be ignored that the market is the good news
machine, while politics is the bad news machine.

Eventually, all this "good news" sinks into the public consciousness. The market
delivers the "goodies", while politics delivers the "baddies". Sure, the enemies of the
market are always trying to depict business or capitalism as rapacious and evil. But
this is a media image - not necessarily what ordinary people actually think. And while
there are always bad apples in any environment, these are usually rare in business
and pale into insignificance when compared with the crimes of the political class.

Okay, it takes time for such a consciousness change to fully take effect. But when it
does, it could bring about a swift transformation of society - as rapid as the fall of the
Berlin Wall.

No one expected that. Politicians and political thinkers everywhere were caught with
their "pants down".

What happened, in the case of the Berlin Wall, was that "politics" finally caught up
with reality - the reality inside people's heads.

The Berlin Wall was a political edifice that couldn't withstand a fundamental mind-
shift in the people standing either side of it. When the wall, and the people's view of
it, were finally separated by a chasm of fundamental difference - the wall simply had
to go.

The "wall" was the essence of the political mode of action - the use of force. And its
collapse represented a turning point.

My thinking is that the reality inside people's heads is changing again, and that at
some not-to-distant time, events could conspire to bring about a major collapse in
the political mode of action - and finally unleash the full power of the market as the
only viable alternative for human interaction.

In fact, with the political mode of action fighting a rear-guard action already (by
resorting to its ultimate end game strategy - war), that day could be closer than we
think.

And when that occurs, the market process will win the day, and the concept of
voluntarism, win-win outcomes, trading value for value and the abolition of force in
human relationships will finally be the only mode of action worth pursuing.

Meanwhile, you can begin that process now - by ignoring politicians, (dinosaurs
really), and shaping your own life according to the "market" mode of action - and
grab a foretaste of freedom.

25
 The Road To Freedom

The Power And The Glory

Memory is a fascinating thing. I'm often in awe of how memory works, and how it can
hold on to such things as words, images, feelings and even sounds and smells.

A few years ago I read a challenging book called "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" - by Julian Jaynes. The author postulated that
we originally heard literal voices in our heads (one part of the brain talking to the
other part), and that when these voices ceased (due to the increasing complexity of
life), we turned to those who still heard these voices - and so religion was born.

In the course of laying out his thesis, Jaynes touches upon such phenomena as
hypnotism and schizophrenia - and suggests that these are residual elements of our
bicameral (two chamber) brain.

Anyway, he also quotes a number of experiments that have been conducted at

various times - on the brain itself. And one that particularly fascinated me was where
a person's brain was stimulated in certain areas with a mild electric current. The
result of these experiments was to activate memories from the subject's childhood.
But not just memories as is "thinking" about something that happened - but rather, a
sensory replay of the original happening, complete with emotions and a vivid sense
of reality. In other words, an effective reliving of the original experience.

The conclusion of these experiments was that every experience is fully recorded in
our brains - even though we may never fully access them again in the future.

At the time, that got me thinking about memories of my own - and whether there
were any "deep" memories other than the ones I was fully conscious of. But without
having my brain wired and tickled with electricity, I guess I'll never know!
But even without such electrotherapy, I do recall vivid memories which carry
significant emotional impact.

One early memory sticks vividly in my mind. I was four years of age, or thereabouts.
I had been to church - for perhaps the first time. And I was obviously impressed by
what I saw and heard. In fact, I was so impressed that I immediately came home and
began to role-play the part of the minister.

But it wasn't the minister so much that impressed me, it was the words he had
uttered. In particular the words "The Power and the Glory!" Now, it seems (from the
way my mother described it) that these words had a profound effect upon me - in
that I began to stand up and pronounce them around the home. I liked the sound of
the words so much and believed the words carried some innate power of their own.
My mother told the story so often, that it's obvious it impressed her also. And many
times over the past few years I've recalled the memory in an attempt to recapture
what was on my mind at that time.

Why was I mesmerised by the words "power and glory"? What was the emotional
state it induced in me?

26
 The Road To Freedom

You know, it's enlightening to try and put yourself back into your childhood world - to
try and get a feel for what was on your mind. And to grasp in some way how the
world appeared to you at the time.

For me, the words "the power and the glory" held aloft a promise of something
important. A promise of great things to come. A promise of an extraordinary life and
world. It captured the essence of "expectation" of "wonder". In fact, it captured the
essence of how children often see the world - the belief in their ability to recreate it in
some way, to their advantage.

Don't you remember when you used to dream of what you could become when you
grew up? At that age, anything seems possible.

"Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?", asks mother. "An astronaut"
is just as likely to be the reply. Yet, how many boys end up as astronauts?

A young girl may say, "a ballerina" or "film star". But how many end up as ballerinas
or film stars? How many, instead, end up living in what's more like a prison camp of
mediocrity? How many people have their dreams squeezed out them - piece by
piece, until there is no dream, no hope left?

What happened to all that childhood wonderment? Where did we lose it? Don't you
ever ask yourself that question? I do.

You see, I believe our lives are entirely the result of the vision we hold of ourselves.
Our lives become what we believe they will become. We smile at the dreams we
held as children. We think of them as childhood naivety - something to be put away
with childhood toys. And in many cases we carry that over to the way we respond to
our own children's dreams and hopes.

But not everyone does.

Haven't you ever wondered how someone like Britain's well known multimillionaire,
Richard Branson (of Virgin Records, Virgin Airways), got to be where he is today.
What sort of "difference" in his life caused him to end up living his dreams? How
come he is living the sort of life that we as children may very well have imagined -
but that he has somehow pulled off?

I know the answer. It's so fundamental that we overlook it. We become exactly what
we believe we will become. If our lives are less than we had hoped for, then it's
because our dreams and hopes became "less" than we hoped for. Somewhere
along the line, we may have given up believing that anything is possible. We may
have decided that our childhood hopes were "fantasy" and that in the real world
these things are not possible.

Why? So many reasons. Maybe we were discouraged or put down at home and
school. Maybe we were too influenced by those around us - those who laughed at or
disparaged our dreams.

But, whatever the reasons, somewhere, somehow, our dreams faded - and our lives
followed.

27
 The Road To Freedom

When I think of those words from my childhood, "the Power and the Glory", they
inspire me to once again capture the dream, and to realise that with the vision,
anything is truly possible.

And there's the rub. Just as it's possible for me and you to realise our dreams - it's
also possible for everyone else!

This wouldn't be a problem in a free society, where property rights are sacrosanct.
But it can certainly be a problem in society as it's currently conceived and
configured.

You see, when someone realises their own dream, it must usually impact on others.
Just take the Richard Branson illustration - or, to add another dimension, that of Bill
Gates.

Both of these visionary men have realised their dreams - and in so doing have
impacted on the world around them. In my mind, for the better. Their dreams (and
the dreams of all productive people) always impact positively on others. And in a
free market this must always be the case.

But there are other "dreamers" also - the "political" dreamers - those who have big
dreams of a different nature. Hitler, Lenin and Mao Zedong come to mind. Their
dreams and visions lead them to create the reality they aspired to - and to annihilate
millions of people in the process.

Dreaming of a life as an inventor, who brings forth a new form of energy device
which everyone can benefit from, is of a completely different order to someone who
dreams of power over others - and brings forth chaos, mayhem and death. And yet,
both dreams originate in human consciousness.

Given the power of human consciousness, to literally create what has not gone
before, it behoves us to understand the nature of such power, and to be able to
identify the crucial pivot point upon which dreams are to be considered good or bad.
The world we live in now is the result of a lot of different people's dreams.

We have cars, planes, computers, movies, museums, music, art, dishwashers,

restaurants, wine, gardens, books, boats and super markets - to name a few. That's
the good. But then there's the bad and the ugly also - the weapons, the nuclear
bomb, the secret services, torture, totalitarianism, dictatorship, poverty,
imprisonment, war, graft, propaganda and censorship.

The first set of dreams is realised in the environment of free interaction - what we
call the market, that place of voluntary exchange of value. The second set of dreams
is realised in the environment of force and fraud - that essential breeding ground of
the party political process and the resultant slave state.

The day we wake up to the essential difference in these types of dreams - and how
they impact on our lives - is the day we can move forward to a truly free society. A
society where only good dreams can come true.

28
 The Road To Freedom

The War on Terror: A Plot to Destroy America?

Watching the rising chorus of "protest" against Iran's nuclear ambitions is like
watching a rerun of the lead up to the war in Iraq.

I won't bore you with all the war-drum-beating details that lead to the Iraq war,
except to say that events have proven it to be an unmitigated disaster.

And George Bush's "stay the course" mantra is but an admission of failure from a
man who has no answers - because he is asking all the wrong questions.

But right now I want you to imagine you've just arrived on the scene. Perhaps you've
awoken from a six year coma or, like Dr Who, have recently arrived in a blue police
telephone box!

Whatever, just imagine you are not aware of what has transpired since 9/11, and
see if you can make any sense of the world you see around you.

As a keen traveller, your first action is to book a flight to the USA - that great haven
of freedom and opportunity. However, you are shocked by the treatment you
receive. First you are harassed at the airport. Asked to remove your shoes. Asked to
hand over your bottle of mineral water. Asked to check in 4 hours before your flight.
Asked to stand in unending queues to get on board your plane.

On the flight you are given a metal fork, metal spoons and a plastic knife to eat your
meal. You wonder if there was a metal shortage, while you attempt to cut your steak
with this toy of a knife.

When you arrive in LA International Airport, you wonder why you are treated so
suspiciously - and are offended by the demeanour of the customs officer, who
appears to be treating you as a potential felon, instead of tourist coming to spend up
large and boost the local economy.

Welcome to the "New Brave World". Your uneasy discomfort is but a foretaste of
things to come. Things like:

When you renew your passport, it will be new high-tech one with all sorts in intrusive
devices implanted.

When you want to transfer funds overseas, you will be required to submit various
forms of ID and jump through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops - just to move your own
money around. And when you actually transfer it, using the SWIFT system, it will be
scanned and reported to the US government.

When you want to open a new bank account, you will be required to produce a ream
of documentation, including proof of funds, to make sure your money really IS yours.
When making phone calls overseas, you will be aware that the government is likely
to be listening to your conversations.

But this is just the minor, irritating stuff.

29
 The Road To Freedom

When you turn on the TV, you are confronted with facts and scenarios you cannot
understand - which point to a much bigger problem.

You learn that Israel has just bombed the bejesus out of Lebanon - schools,
hospitals, ports, airports, transport systems, energy sources - not to mention
hundreds of civilians. And you learn that this was started when two soldiers were
kidnapped and some others killed, in a cross border skirmish with a private, non-
state army called Hezbollah.

When you enquire further, you learn that Israel hoped such bombing and wanton
destruction would be blamed on Hezbollah, and that the suffering Lebanese would
"root them out".

But you note, without surprise, that it has had the opposite effect. You well recall, at
school, how much you hated being punished as a class, for the mischief of one or
two OTHER individuals. Times haven't changed much.

But Lebanon is just the beginning. Next you note how a war was waged on Iraq - on
the pretence of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and getting rid of a dictator
- and, on the bright side, to bring freedom and democracy to that country.

But having visited Iraq at an earlier time, you cannot fathom the reasoning for such a
project. You remember all too well that Iraq was one of the freest Arab states - a
place where you could do business, walk around without dressing funny, buy a beer,
and generally lead a normal life. Sure, you couldn't criticise their leader, Saddam
Hussein, but what's new? The same can be said for the leaders of Cuba, China,
Zimbabwe, and a host of other countries.

Besides, there was more freedom in Iraq than in Saudi Arabia - which is a friend of
the USA.

You turn on the news, and note how Iran is now being accused of wanting to build a
nuclear bomb. They deny this, saying they just want to exercise their rights under
the NNPT to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

The US leadership (and Israel) insist Iran is lying, but offer no proof, or any real
reason why their assertions should be taken seriously - especially when they were
so wrong on Iraq.

Besides, Israel is armed to the teeth (by the US) and is not a member of the NNPT,
and has nuclear bombs, so you're not sure if the pot is calling the kettle black.

When you dig deeper into these seemingly unrelated happenings, you learn that all
this started when the Twin Towers in New York were destroyed by terrorists on
September 11, 2001.

You learn that subsequent to that act, which was blamed on Osama bin Laden
(although he didn't claim responsibility at the time), a war was waged on Afghanistan
- to rid it of the Taliban, who were said to be shielding bin Laden. But it appears that
most of those responsible were Saudis - nationals of the country that America
supports.

30
 The Road To Freedom

You also learn that this war is ongoing, and that bin Laden has not been caught yet.
Then you learn that Iraq was also attacked because of 9/11, as it was widely
reported (and believed) that Hussein was somehow involved or even responsible.

Slowly, the big picture is coming together. The reason why your travelling is now so
onerous, why your financial transactions are of so much interest to the state, and
why even your personal phone conversations are of importance to others - is all
because of what happened on that fateful September day.

It seems that after that day a new world was born - and a whole new lexicon was
created to define it.

There is the phrase "war on terror", which you find hard to understand (apart from its
Orwellian overtones), because terror is a tactic, an alternative means of war - so a
war on terror is a "war on war". Sounds even more implausible than the failed "war
on drugs", you think.

There is the Department of Homeland Security - which sounds more like a phrase
borrowed from Nazi Germany than anything a true patriotic American would think up.
Then there's the term "enemy combatant" - that unhappy state of being where you
can be accused without evidence, and end up in a legal limbo with no rights and no
recourse.

And rising up above all this apparent chaos and change is an overriding new political
principle and goal, to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world - starting with the
Middle East.

You listen carefully to George Bush, and how he passionately believes in what he is
doing. In fact, you learn that he is also a born-again fundamentalist Christian - you
know, those people who believe Jesus is coming back and that the "end-times"
scenario involves a mighty war called "Armageddon". The war to end all wars. A war
in the Middle East - involving Israel.

It reminds you of the Crusades and how, perhaps, the Christian and Islamic
fundamentalists are at it again.

Rev. George asserts that 9/11 was caused by persons of Islamic belief who "hate us
for our freedoms". You note how he makes no mention of the possibility that they
hate us for our ACTIONS. Actions like the constant meddling in Middle Eastern
affairs (for the oil no doubt), the support of Arab tyrants and one party states - and of
course the carnage wrought by the ongoing military adventures.

Then there's Palestine - that festering sore of Middle Eastern reality. You wonder
why a nation created to escape the historical reality of dreadful persecution can turn
around and become the persecutor. And you note America's uncritical support of
Israel and its complicity in the continuing plight of Palestinians.

But now the fog is clearing from your befuddled mind - slowly.

You look at America's standing in the world, and note how much different it is to
when you last were aware of it. You notice how less and less people are making the

31
 The Road To Freedom

USA a holiday destination - and conversely, how more and more Americans are
feeling decidedly "unwelcome" overseas.

You remember it as the land of the free. The one country founded on the principle of
individual rights. A country of hope and inspiration, and a beacon to the
downtrodden of the world. You wonder at how much it has changed in just six years.

You look at the costs of maintaining such an expansive military machine. You look at
the overall economic condition of the U.S. - with its endemic indebtedness, its
dependence on foreigners (in particular the Chinese) and it's collapsing dollar.

You wonder how long such economic mismanagement can continue, before it eats
up every last dollar of residual seed capital - the capital that made America
economically powerful in the first place.

You note how the Chinese are engaged in vigourous and expansive "dollar
diplomacy" - making friends around the world by doing business (what the USA used
to be good at), while America is instead making enemies by force of arms.

You wonder at the leadership of America, and whether they truly have their country's
best interests at heart.

Then you wonder no more. You realise that you are witnessing the strangulation of
America - of its values, its freedoms, its wealth, its generosity, its reputation, its
capacity to impact for good in the world.

You see it happening, but you don't know why. Are Americans asleep at the wheel?
Can they not see how they are being lead like sheep to slaughter? Are they not
aware of how much their country has lost, on every front, since 9/11? Can they not
see through their vacuous leader's propagandist rhetoric - and question those so
called "patriots" who believe they have the power and the right to ignore and trash
America's great constitution?

To all intents and purposes, everything that is happening is having the opposite
effect to what it has been declared to achieve. If this is "winning" the "war on terror",
then god help us if we lose it!

To your eyes, eyes that have not witnessed the gradual erosion of freedom since
9/11, all this cannot be a plan to "win" at all. Rather, it seems like a diabolical plot to
undermine and destroy America - by running its economic engine to a standstill,
grinding its military capacity to dust, and obliterating the once positive image of
America around the world.

But then you slap yourself on the face to remind you of the fact you are awake, and
that there are no conspiracies.

There must be another reason. You hope.

32
 The Road To Freedom

The Triumph of Business

Business used to be a dirty word - and still is in many places.

It wasn't long ago that rich-by-inheritance types would sneer at those who were rich-
through-business, especially in the "old" world.

We've still got a long way to go, but there is no doubt that business is winning. And
for that we have the USA to thank - for providing truly inspiring business leaders,
and the social climate where making money through business is not only "okay", but
admired.

This business "model" is spreading throughout the developed world and the internet
is accelerating its progress.

In fact, the internet is perhaps the greatest business "educator" out there.

Just consider one of the main advantages of the net. It's the possibility it creates of
doing business with the whole world. This leads entrepreneurial types of all shapes
and sizes to try their hand at online business.

Whether it's of the gargantuan PayPal or eBay variety, or the humble work-at-home
mom, peddling her favourite recipes via a self-published e-book - the opportunities
are staggering.

However, like any business environment, there are no guarantees, and there is no
free lunch. Being successful online is no easy option. But it is achievable, and more
importantly, it's an environment where everybody gets an equal chance.

It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor; educated or uneducated; white or

black; good looking or ugly; fat or slim - the internet offers opportunity to all comers,
regardless of so many of the factors that influence success and failure in the "old"
world.

The internet and its driving business philosophy is opening doors which were locked
shut before. Now you have get-up-and-go types in India, the Philippines, Asia, and
even Africa, who are able to use the internet to equalise their opportunities with
people in the rest of the world.

Just as America was the "land of opportunity" for the millions of migrants in past
decades - now the internet is the new promised land, offering equality of opportunity
to all comers.

The internet is bringing the philosophy of business into ordinary homes in ways that
state schooling never did. It's exposing people to the business "way of thinking" -
and making heroes of those who rise to the top.

Think for a minute. If you want to get rich, what are your options?

Well, you can become a criminal; you can rely on chance - like lotto - or even an
inheritance; or you can make money in business.

33
 The Road To Freedom

Even from a cursory glance at such options, you can see that business makes the
most sense, and is the only rational choice - if you want to control your own destiny,
AND stay out of jail!

However, the fight to improve the image of business has been long and bitter - and
is not yet over. But things are definitely improving.

It's interesting to look at how business and "moneymaking" is perceived. And there
are many cultural clues to point the way.

Consider the following:

In most countries, if you win at lotto or at the gaming tables, your winnings are tax-
free. But if you "win" at business, you are penalised by taxes.

The hidden "message" is - get money by luck and that's okay. Get money by work,
and we'll punish you!

In most countries, the main way of raising revenue is to tax work - which is indirectly
a tax on business itself (as all workers are employed by some business or other -
except non-workers in government!). Think of income tax as a "fine" system. It fines
business success.

In most countries, sports and media stars are more popular than business "stars".
They appear more glamorous - and their riches are not considered as "bad" as a
successful business person's.

In most countries it's "cool" to put sport stars, pop stars and movie stars on a
pedestal, but "bad taste" to offer similar accolades to those successful in business.
This lack of admiration for business comes down to a bad attitude about money and
work. Business is about making money. And to many people money is still "bad".

Crusty old phrases and sayings like "filthy lucre" and "love of money is the root of all
evil" come to mind, as does the Biblical line, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
(Jesus, as quoted in the gospel of Matthew)

It's not hard to see how religion has had a negative impact on the popular view of
business and money.

It's also "bad" to the intellectual elite of all countries - the ones who create (and
infest) the educational systems and thereby influence the culture.

Such "intellectuals" hate money - because they don't know how to make it. And
considering themselves the intellectual elite, they despise the people who CAN
make it!

So business has been, and still is, constantly attacked by the twin fortresses of both
organised religion and state education.

34
 The Road To Freedom

This is what makes the triumph of business all the more remarkable, because it is
winning against all odds. It is winning despite being considered "unworthy". It is
winning because of a hard dose of reality.

And what is so ironical about all this, is that business is perhaps the most MORAL of
influences on society and the individual.

Just consider what it takes to be successful in business:

Commitment; persistence; passion; discipline; integrity; honesty; self responsibility;

trustworthiness; vision; optimism; loyalty; intelligence; skill; resourcefulness, self
esteem; confidence, creativity, energy.

And I could think of more.

The point is, becoming successful in business is like attending a school of hard
knocks - where you learn by your mistakes, and succeed to the degree that you
assimilate the characteristics above.

Business demands the very best that is within you - and more. The profit motive is
the driving force. And I don't just mean profit in a purely monetary sense - but profit
in every way, where you are able to gain and keep those things which are valuable
to you.

Everybody has a profit motive - no exceptions!

The highly successful business person exhibits extraordinary human qualities -

qualities that are not handed out on a plate, but which must be "self-made".

The business person is a "creator" - the alchemist who turns dreams into reality.
The successful business person is a hero - and for perhaps the first time in history,
we are seeing an awakening recognition of that fact.

My optimistic side sees this development as incredibly important as we move

forward - as it is the business mind, the business morality, that will get us out of the
political/educational quagmire we have made for ourselves.

I also see hope in the rise of China as a counterbalance to the negative influence of
our western religious and educational philosophies.

Why? Because China has a long history of "doing business", and more importantly,
a complete absence of the antibusiness mentality that has plagued most other
societies.

Now that China is on the rise, its business-minded ethos will be a major competitive
force in the emerging new world. This competition from China - with its low taxes,
hard work ethic, get ahead philosophy and minimal legislative overhead - will impact
on every country on earth.

It will provide a stark choice for the decaying socialist welfare societies - that of
either putting up or shutting up.

35
 The Road To Freedom

Under competition from the emerging Chinese mega-economy, each country will
face a choice: either to also embrace a more business-friendly environment in order
to get ahead, or to reject such changes and fight a rearguard action in order to
maintain the status quo.

The outcome, however, is clear. The world-to-come (should it survive the totalitarian,
war-mongering end game) will be no place for socialist namby-pambies, power-
driven politicians, or envy-driven intellectuals.

Rather, it will be a place where the qualities of the rational business person will
become commonplace, and as a result, the world will become more peaceful,
progressive and prosperous.

The world desperately needs the dreams of the busines person. For it is these
dreams which have produced all the material goods and services that make our lives
so enjoyable.

We've had enough of a world based on the nightmares of the political and religious
class. It's time for a radical change.

36
 The Road To Freedom

War And Peace

Some readers may wonder what a discussion of war has to do with their personal
freedom, their efforts to achieve financial independence, or their desire to open an
offshore bank account and gain more financial privacy.

And my answer is, "A lot!".

War is the opposite of peace. And peace is a prerequisite for freedom.

In fact, war undermines freedom at every turn. Just consider the following:

War demands the expenditure of huge amounts of money. Amounts so large that the
average human mind cannot even conceive of such numbers. Take the US war
expenditure in Iraq as a current example. The numbers are mind-boggling.

Where does this money come from? It comes from the bottomless bank account that
funds all government activities. This bank account is constantly replenished by three
forms of revenue.

Taxes, borrowings and money creation.

Your government has absolutely no money except for what it can steal off you,
borrow off others, or simply print.

This massive economic irresponsibility can only be undertaken by governments, as

only they have such money-generating powers.

To put this in perspective, imagine you went to "war" with your neighbours and
wanted to up the ante with a financial war chest. What would be YOUR options, as a
private citizen?

You could use your savings. You could borrow money. You could sell off your
assets. Two things you couldn't do would be to print money or steal off other people.
And no matter how you did it, your ability to wage "war" on your neighbours would
finally come up against the limits of your own capacity to sustain it. And of course,
you'd likely be broke at the end!

On the other hand, the state has unlimited resources at its disposal - which is source
the the state's power to wage war.

This war-waging power alone impacts on your freedom in many ways, including the
fact you are taxed for such wars, and that you also pay "again" for such wars by
virtue of the ensuing inflation that is caused by the state creating money to fund the
war costs.

So war undermines your financial position by making you carry the financial burden
of it - even when you have no desire to support it.

War also undermines and even eliminates other freedoms - like the freedom of the
press, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.

37
 The Road To Freedom

In times of war, the state undermines the freedom of the press, it engages in outright
propaganda, and it enacts various forms of draconian legislation to "protect" you
from the enemy.

The only people who profit from war are those in power, and those who support
them (including all the war-profiteering industries).

War is an instrument of the state. In fact, war represents the highest pinnacle of the
state's reason for existence. If one believes that the only legitimate purpose of
government is to protect you - from thieves, murderers and external aggression -
then it's obvious that the state's highest purpose is fulfilled when it is at "war" - on
behalf of its people.

This is the whole justification for the bogus "war on terror".

People all over the world have swallowed this idiotic concept hook, line and sinker.
But it doesn't even stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

To realise the absurdity of the notion, just consider the words being used - "war" and
"terror".

War can be considered as military action undertaken by one territorial entity against
another. World Wars I and II come to mind.

In all such wars, ordinary civilians get hurt. In fact, during the two world wars,
targeting civilians was the name of the game - as the bombing of London, Dresden
and Hiroshima clearly showed.

Terror, on the other hand, is military action conducted by a non- state entity against
a state - and once again involves the killing of innocent civilians.

Some people will split hairs and suggest that terrorists deliberately target civilians,
while states only do so by mistake - "incidentally", as collateral damage, and not as
a matter policy. However, history and reality say otherwise. Governments have killed
far more innocent people than terrorists ever will.

The difference is one of semantics. State entities wage "war", while non state
entities wage "terror" - or war by non-state means.

So, a "war on terror" means in effect - a war against war. A war of one type, against
a war of another type. As you can see, this is like running round in a perpetual circle
- and no straight thinking can arise from it.

The war on terror can thus best be understood as state military action against non-
state military action - and as such, is a doomed idea and strategy - and certainly not
an idea worth losing your freedoms for.

Consider the present war between the state of Israel and the non- state of
Hezbollah. In this war Israel is confounded. They cannot take on Hezbollah without
waging war on the state of Lebanon - a country which they are supposedly NOT at
war with, but which is bearing the brunt of its "10 eyes for an eye" religious and
political war philosophy.

38
 The Road To Freedom

The world is also confounded. We're witnessing the slaughter of innocent people in
the name of a "just" war. But most people's gut feeling is that it's not just at all. The
Lebanese did not initiate any war - but they are primarily the ones suffering under it.
The US government insists that Hezbollah started this war - by capturing Israeli
soldiers. On the other hand, a longer view of history (even recent history), shows
that Hezbollah was taking what it sees as a legitimate action in defence of their
"brothers" in Palestine. The roots of the Middle East conflict do indeed go much
further back than Condi's smiling face stepping off a plane last week - or George
Bush's most recent smirk!

We may call Hezbollah terrorists - but they are seen by their own people (and
increasingly by most in the Middle East) as freedom fighters.

What's worse, this situation has all the necessary ingredients to morph into a much
wider conflict.

Contrary to the US's and Israel's assertions, the notion that the application of
excessive force can solve the problem is likely to be exposed as nonsense - and
result in a much bigger problem.

It's entirely possible that as Israel increases the use of force, in response to
Hezbollah's stubborn refusal to "lose" - it will inflame more of the Arab world and
lead to Syria and possibly Iran coming into this war.

In other words, the kidnapping of a couple of Israeli soldiers could escalate into
World War III.

Talk about the law of unintended consequences!!

What's worse, ordinary people are powerless to stop it - at least they are powerless
because they don't know HOW to stop this madness.

For the sake of a minor military skirmish between two entities, that hardly concerns
the rest of the world, we could be plunged into chaos and mayhem. All as a result of
the irrationality of war and the mentality of those we have voted in to represent our
vital interests.

But this "skirmish" could have other consequences besides. It could completely
destabilise the Middle East, causing existing "friendly" regimes to be toppled by
angry mobs. It could cause a surge in global energy prices, and plunge the world
economy into a major economic depression. That, in turn, could cause millions to
lose their jobs, their homes and their very lives.

And all of this because we have trusted politicians to look after our best interests.
Through all this militaristic madness, I'm hoping that enough people will wake up and
realise the con they have been subject to - that governments are there to protect us.
If you look at the facts, you'll realise that the state is only responsible for chaos, war,
poverty, corruption, economic decline and moral degeneracy. The state has no
redeeming features at all. And yet it continues to exist - because we, as individuals,
continue to demand that it exists.

39
 The Road To Freedom

And the root of this demand is the refusal to grow up and accept responsibility for
our own lives. Our relationship with the state is like our previous relationship with our
parents. We simply grew up and left that dependent relationship, only to enter
another one - with the state as "parent".

We ask it to look after us. We ask it to protect us - from all sorts of harm (including
from harming ourselves!) We hand over our money and nature-given sovereignty to
thugs and con men - those who assume the power to "lead" and control us - in the
mistaken belief that our lives will be better and safer as a result.

So I just want to leave you with this thought - as you watch the images of innocent
men, women and children being killed around the world - in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq,
Afghanistan - and dozens of other hellholes.

It is worth it? What has the state really done for you except bring destruction on a
grand scale?

In all of history, there have only been three forms human action that have lead to
human progress and peace - and government is NOT one of them.

These are science, technology and business. Science, because it is the ultimate
engine of all progress. Technology, because it has applied the findings of science -
and business, because it has brought that technology to the mass market, so we can
all benefit from it.

Everything that makes life better is a result of the truly human trinity of science,
technology and business.

If you add to these the human spirit itself, and its expression in all the arts - you have
what it takes to create a peaceful, productive and free society.

The state is but a parasite. It is but a drag on human progress - but more
dangerously, it has the potential to completely destroy us - its host.

If there is any light at the end of the tunnel, it's the hope that any impending or future
war has the potential to wake people up - to make them realise the true nature of the
beast, and to reign it in once and for all.

40
 The Road To Freedom

What is Sovereignty?
Words can change their meanings over time, so I'll start this essay by stating that I
use the term "sovereignty" as it is now understood - both in terms of national
sovereignty and individual sovereignty.

In essence it means - self determination or self government.

When a nation talks about "sovereignty", it means its right to determine what goes
on inside its borders. Its right to exist as a self-determining, self-governing
geographic area.

When an individual talks about "sovereignty", he means his right to determine what
goes on in his own life.

The word has taken on more significance in recent years - especially since the
publication of that groundbreaking book, "The Sovereign Individual" by Rees-Mogg
and Davidson.

To understand what is meant by sovereignty, let's go back a little, and see how it
arises.

In the world as it now stands, all "terra firma" is the sovereign territory of one nation
or another, except the arctic regions which are controlled by international treaty. The
oceans of the world, apart from territorial waters, are also covered by various
treaties.

If you wanted to have your own sovereign piece of real estate - I'm afraid you'd be
out of luck.

At different times and places people have said to me, "Wouldn't it be great if we
could just buy an island - and run it according to our own freedom ideas!"

However, the problem with this idea is that it misunderstands sovereignty. Sure, you
can purchase an island - there are many around the world for sale. However, when
you part with the cash, you are NOT buying sovereignty, that still resides with the
country whose jurisdiction extends over the island.

Put it this way, you'd soon find out WHO was sovereign if you tried to eliminate
income tax on your own island!

If you REALLY wanted to claim your own sovereign territory, you'd need to keep a
watchful eye out for the emergence of completely NEW land - say an undersea
volcano erupting into a new land mass.

Now, such a new land mass (provided it was outside existing territorial waters)
would indeed be "unclaimed" land. And this is where we get to the nub of what
sovereignty really is.

41
 The Road To Freedom

Suppose such a new island appears, in the middle of an ocean somewhere, and you
rush by helicopter and land on it. All you would need to do is put up your "flag" - and
you would have claimed sovereignty over it.

Unfortunately, you may not be alone. While you are rushing all by yourself to the
new land mass, it is highly likely that some nearby nation is dispatching a landing
party - claiming some "special case" as to why it should be theirs. And if push comes
to shove, they may simply remove you by force of arms!

And the ensuing potential "conflict of interest" encapsulates the entire history of the
world - the battle for territory.

So, to recap, you can certainly claim sovereignty over such a "new" piece of real
estate - but you also need to be able to DEFEND such sovereignty.

In these "enlightened" times of course, one may expect that "might is not always
right", and that some international court may arbitrate on such an issue. But it
doesn't change the basic fact that sovereignty must first be claimed - then it must be
defended.

If sovereignty over territory didn't need defending, then no country would be in need
of armed forces.

So what does all this mean for individual sovereignty?

The first step is to realise you need to stake your claim to it. You have to be
prepared to assert it - not simply act like someone else's slave. But having asserted
it, you need to take steps to defend it also. For without defence, your sovereignty is
at the mercy of anyone or any organisation who disputes it!

The very reason an "offshore world" exists, is as a tool of such defence. It's a way of
protecting your sovereignty. It's really not enough to simply stand up and declare it -
because those who oppose you may not play the game by your rules and use force
to deprive you of it.

Of course, this offshore "tool of defence" is constantly coming under attack - from
other states. But that just creates an incentive to make better defence tools.

Ultimately, your sovereignty is your own responsibility. And you must take it
seriously. Ask yourself, is your life your own? Is it worth defending? If you answered
"yes" to both, then you are a prospect for offshore defence technology.
And the good news is that such methods of "defence" will rapidly become more
effective as the technology improves.

This has a parallel in military defence. Right now, a terrorist can cause mayhem -
using highly sophisticated weapons. It is no longer necessary to raise a standing
army or be a "country" to assert oneself militarily.

The same applies to asserting and defending one's sovereignty. The "tools" are
downsizing, and the "weapons" are becoming more high-tech and sophisticated.
In the coming years, we will witness new forms of sovereignty defence systems - to
replace those under attack, or those that are no longer effective.

42
 The Road To Freedom

Your task, if you take your sovereignty seriously, is to keep abreast of

developments, and to make use of whatever defence tools you can lay your hands
on.

It's YOUR life - so protect it!

However, I cannot discuss the issue of "sovereignty" without addressing another

related issue, which is peculiar to the USA.

Each week I get letters from readers and members asking about my opinion of the
so-called "sovereignty" movement in that country.

Basically, the essence of this interpretation of sovereignty is that it's granted by law,
and protected by the constitution or some other legal apparatus.

Therefore to "defend" it, one is supposed to face-off the nation state and take your
case to court.

Now, I know there are people who say this can be done - that you can file certain
papers, make certain arguments, and that you can reclaim your "sovereignty" by
such means.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

When you put yourself at the mercy of a legal system which has been established by
a sovereign nation - in order to defend your own sovereignty - you are in fact giving
up such sovereignty.

You are recognising that the state has ultimate sovereignty and that your task is to
assert your "rights" as you assume are guaranteed by such a state.

This argument puts you at great risk. If you use it, you are putting your life on the line
and saying, in effect, that your sovereignty is guaranteed by some law, and that all
you have to do is to refer to that law and have your day in court.

My concern here is that all law is written with the "victors" in mind, those who wield
the power. To assume you have rights under some constitution is to assume that
sovereignty is handed out by the state.

However, you are not granted sovereignty by virtue of being born in the USA (or the
UK, or any other country for that matter). You are sovereign because of your status
as a human being - by virtue of you having an independent mind. And because
without the full and free use of that mind you cannot live your life as a human.
You are already sovereign - but a "prisoner" of a larger, more powerful sovereignty -
the state.

So, trying to defend your sovereignty by referring to such a state is a fundamental

mistake in my opinion. A mistake that could cost you dearly. You see, even though
you may perceive that some law, some constitutional article, can "save" you - you
are ignoring the fact that the state can simply rewrite laws and constitutions for its
own benefit.

43
 The Road To Freedom

Let me give you just one example.

Let's take the assertion that income tax is "unconstitutional". I'm not saying it is.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that isn't the point.

If enough people were to assert this and refuse to pay their income tax on these
grounds, how long do you think it would take politicians to find a way to change the
law?

Do you think they'd sit by and watch their entire revenue base disappear up some
constitutional argument's "backside"?

Of course not. The tax base is sacrosanct to the nation state. It cannot exist without
it. So any serious challenge to such funding would simply be cut off at the knees.
So much for the "protection" of the law or constitution.

No, your sovereignty does not depend on the state. You would have it in the state's
absence. Your task is to learn how to defend it APART from the laws of your nation
state.

Of course, in the present world, there is no free nation. No place where you can fully
assert your sovereignty - unless you had your own physical territory of course.
However, you can reclaim a high degree of it, if you choose, by learning how to
practise self-defence. Not defence based on the laws of your nation state, but based
on your own capacity to outwit it and out-manoeuvre it.

You can play off one nation state against another - by using various "international"
strategies known as "offshore" - and thereby use the laws of a country that doesn't
have the capacity to fully control you, to mitigate the laws of the country that does.
As awareness of true human sovereignty spreads around the globe, and
disillusionment with the nation state grows, there will arise more and more means of
increasing one's practical freedom, one's sovereignty.

Until then, you can become a "freedom fighter" - one who grabs whatever freedom is
currently available, and is on the constant lookout for further means to enhance it.

44
 The Road To Freedom

The Law of The "C"

It is interesting to note how the "space" between nations has been managed. The
space I refer to is, of course, the sea. And I guess it was pretty important to find
some way of managing it, as it represents the largest percentage of the earth's
surface.

And so, over time, there has been developed what is known as the "law of the sea".
It is a codified system of rules that are designed to deal with the obvious need to find
common ground between nations, as to how to treat the sea - and what goes on in
and under it.

The current Law of the Sea developed from an older concept known as "freedom of
the seas", which dates back to the 17th century.

Under that earlier system of codes and rules, a nation's territorial rights only
extended 3 nautical miles (6 km) - leaving the rest as "international waters".

In the 20th century, these territorial limits have been extended to allow greater
control of such things as fish stocks and mining rights for minerals - and have been
codified by the United Nations.

The most well known "laws" are those which grant certain rights to coastal nations,
like the 12 nautical miles of "extended" sovereignty given to such nations. Then
there is the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which extends up to 200 nautical miles
from the coast - for the purpose of economic exploitation.

A full disclosure of these laws can be found at:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

What's interesting, of course, is the fact that such sovereignty has proscribed limits -
12 and 200 nautical miles respectively. And both of different degree.

Once you are "outside" such limits - then you are no longer subject to the
sovereignty of any particular nation. In other words, the sea is considered beyond
and outside such control.

That is why, when ships go to sea, you can enjoy such things as duty-free goods
and gambling - unhampered by silly national laws.

A similar phenomenon is seen while flying - hence the offer of duty-free goods while
in-flight between earth-bound destinations.

Such cooperative agreements as the "law of the sea", are inevitable - as a means of
settling potential disputes, and stopping any one country from claiming more water-
based sovereignty than is their right.

The only way any one nation can "stop" another nation from monopolising the
oceanic resource is to agree that ALL nations will give up such a claim.

45
 The Road To Freedom

In this way, the sea is a law unto itself. Professional seafarers know this of course -
as do those who live their lives at sea.

The sea has always been equated with "freedom". When you are at sea you are
under no national jurisdiction - and for a short time can enjoy the benefits that such
freedom brings.

Which brings us to the other "C" - Cyberspace.

It is helpful to view the internet (cyberspace) as of similar "kind" as the sea - a

territory outside of any individual nation, common to all, but not beholden to any one
in particular.

It is obvious that ONE country cannot "claim" sovereignty over the whole internet.
So, while trying to grapple with economic issues arising out of the cyber-economy,
these nation states are going to have to accept that apart from "traffic" within their
own "space" - the internet is very much like the oceans of the world - or the space
above the world. Common to all - and owned by none.

What this means is that cyberspace must be "neutral" and apart from the nations of
the world. In other words, an independent territory just like the ocean. A place where
certain agreed rules are applied - but NOT the rules of individual nations.

So in cyberspace, as when at sea, one can imagine buying goods WITHOUT duty or
taxes, and gambling WITHOUT state interference. And so it is - right now! What's
more, as with the sea, one can imagine earning a living on the net - without the
crippling burden of a national income tax.

One of the built-in protections against supranational monopoly is the very fact that
we have nations in the first place. And not only that, but an increasing number of
nations each year - which all have their own interests and territory to protect.

The advantage in this is that while delineating their own "sovereign" territory - they
are also excluding all that which cannot be included: such as the oceans, the air
above the oceans and space itself.

And cyberspace can claim the very same extra-nationality.

Which brings me to the issue of the increasing pressure nation states are being
brought under - regards their tax policies.

This doesn't just apply to "tax havens", but all countries which are perceived to have
low tax rates.

The well-established welfare statist countries are all concerned by the issue of "tax
competition" - where lower tax countries can siphon off both capital and labour, for
obvious reasons.

This has lead the OECD to call for "tax harmonisation" - which is simply another
word for everyone increasing their tax rates so they equate with Germany or
Denmark!

46
 The Road To Freedom

What the "big-brother" countries are really saying is, "We don't want to have to
compete taxation-wise with other countries. We don't want other countries having
different tax rates to ours."

Now, imagine how this idea would work out in other areas.

Say you live in a country that produces computers. It's like saying, "We don't want
you selling computers cheaper than us." Of course, in many cases countries DO try
to limit such ordinary competition through the use of tariffs (taxes on imported goods
to increase their local market price - so they don't out-compete locally made goods
of similar nature). But this doesn't justify the practice.

Let's move the idea to another area - pay rates for various skills.

Imagine one country saying to another, "You can't pay your computer programmers
$300 per hour when we are only paying $50. It's not fair, you will attract all our best
programmers!"

The usual and correct response would be - "Tough!"

So let's take our imaginary computer programmer - and look at his options. He is
working in country "A" for $50 per hour - and is offered a job in another country for
$300 per hour. Naturally, he is tempted to take the offer and move. This is normal
practice. It goes on all the time - people moving somewhere else to improve their lot
in life.

Okay, let's look at another scenario: This time our computer programmer is earning
$150 per hour in Country "A" - and paying tax at the rate of 35%. He gets an offer of
work in Country "B", with the same hourly rate - BUT a lower tax rate - 15%.
He is tempted to take this offer, for the very same reason he is tempted to take the
first offer - because it will put MORE money in his pocket!

And that's it. In essence, whether you get paid more, or simply get taxed less, it's all
about what's left in your pocket at the end of the day. And "competition" in tax rates
is every bit as legitimate as competition in wages and conditions - and anything else
for that matter!

The dangerous notion of "tax harmonisation" is that somehow it is "right" to have

everyone paying a uniform rate of tax - to prevent the movement of people and
capital outside a country's borders.

It's dangerous because it is in effect a "slave" notion - that you have no right to seek
a better environment for your life - and that no other country has the right to try and
offer such an environment to you.

On the face of it, it looks bleak - knowing that the high-tax countries are fighting a
"war" with the low-tax ones. However, human nature doesn't change. People will
always seek ways to preserve what is theirs - and if one door is closed, then that
simply provides an opportunity for someone else to open a new door.

47
 The Road To Freedom

I expect that, just as some tax-havens and low tax jurisdictions may give in and
comply with the "big-brother" directives from other countries, others will see a golden
opportunity to increase their market share!

I also expect to see the arrival of much more sophisticated ways around the taxes
levied by these "slave states". And the increasing pressure on existing low tax
countries can only make new options all the more profitable and likely.

What's happening is more and more people are discovering the benefits of securing
financial privacy - and the demand for such services can only increase.

As far as I'm concerned, the "noisy complaints" of the old established nation states
are emerging proof of their tax-base decline - and impending panic!

This, in my opinion, will be particularly evident in the rapid emergence of China and
South East Asia as the world's next major economic power bloc. They have already
well-established low income tax rates,like 17% in Hong Kong and China, and 15% in
Singapore.

These countries impose a very low tax overhead on their people, and as a result,
entrepreneurship is on the rise. Not only that, but there is already a skills and capital
influx into these countries - due to such financial incentives. This naturally impacts
on the taxation bottom line of the higher tax countries. And long may it continue!

On one hand all this tax harmonisation stuff could be seen as "bad" news - for if all
such low tax countries were to disappear, then what could we do to protect
ourselves from the outrageous protection racket called "tax"?

On the other hand, it's a sign of the times - that all is not well in "high-tax" land.
I believe technology will come to the rescue - in the form of cyberspace (already),
and perhaps even "real" space in the future.

If cyberspace can be delineated and "outside" the sovereignty of any one nation -
then it is only a matter of time before such a territory will be able to deliver economic
services from WITHIN cyberspace - in other words, not beholden to the laws of any
one nation.

As an example, we could see the deployment in space of special purpose

"economic" satellites - carrying the full ability to offer banking services for example -
and managed from earth-bound cyberspace. A "bank" in space is not such a far-
flung idea. It's only a matter of time before full wireless internet will be the norm - and
the ability to bank with "SpaceBank" will be a real possibility.

And as space, as well as cyberspace, belongs to no particular nation, then

jurisdictional rules would not apply.

In other words, while "behind-the-eightball" nations are fighting each other over their
various tax rates, technology could provide the ultimate solution - one permanently
outside the control of any one (high tax) nation.

And that day may arrive sooner than you think!

48
 The Road To Freedom

The Absurdity of Taxing Effort

One of the major problems one has, in challenging the status quo, is that people are
wedded to "what is" - and have great difficulty in seeing past accepted norms to
"what could be".

Taxation is one of these "accepted norms".

We were all born into a world where people pay tax. No one fundamentally
challenges the system. Sometimes people put forward various "reforms", but no one
seriously puts the whole taxation issue under a clear spotlight.

Let me first make my own position crystal clear. Taxation is immoral. Taxation is the
forced appropriation of another's property. Taxation cannot be likened to payment for
goods and services - which is the result of a voluntary transaction. No, taxation is
theft pure and simple.

So, dithering about discussing various "forms" of taxation is a worthless exercise -

without discussing the fundamental premises on which taxation rests.

I'd like to look at just one of these premises - which form the foundation today's
"modern" tax systems - and expose the stupidity of it.

The Premise: that taxation of effort is a viable way to raise revenue for the state.

Consider this: If you work (expend effort) then you will pay tax. The harder you work
(more effort), the higher the rate of tax you pay. This is known as "progressive"
taxation.

The two statements above form the basis of nearly all taxation systems. So to make
this whole tax thing (and its underlying premise) clearer, let's consider the principle
of taxing effort, and the logical consequences. And to do this, let's move tax into a
different realm - not work, but sport.

Okay - here's the deal: You're invited to become a member of a world-class sports
team. It doesn't matter what, take your pick: football, rugby, baseball, cricket,
basketball.

You are presented with the contract, which in effect, offers you a certain amount of
money - under certain conditions:

1. For each win you will have a certain percentage deducted from your income.
2. The greater the win - the more will be deducted.
3. If you win the whole season - and come out as "top team", then each player will
have a further lump sum deducted.

So, what would be your response?

Well, part of you wants to win because that's the competitive nature of the sport -
and the main reason you're involved. However, because of the financial penalties for
winning, you'll always be mindful of the fact that if you're "too" successful - then you'll

49
 The Road To Freedom

only receive a small percentage of your earnings - after the "success tax" has been
taken off.

You will have a conflict of interest! And the end result is that you'll be tempted to take
the "middle road" - not too much success, and not too much failure, to satisfy your
need for both money and self esteem.

Madness you say? Why on earth would you tax sporting success? Wouldn't that lead
to overall mediocrity in sporting performance? Wouldn't that lead to people skiving
off their best sporting effort? You bet!

Well, this is the very same principle that is applied to the "sport" called work.
If you put in years of effort in order to get a good "job" - which pays a higher than
average salary - then you will be penalised for that effort, by having to pay more in
tax.

If you spend your evenings planning a business - in order to quit your low-paying job
and finally make more money - then the reward for your initiative and effort will be
that you'll pay more in taxes.

So the rules of this "game" are:

1. The less you work, the less tax you will pay.
2. If you don't work you will receive bonus payments (welfare or "negative tax").
3. The more you work, and the more successful you are, the more tax you will pay.

I put it to you, that this is the ultimate recipe for economic decline. For who in their
right mind will work harder or smarter - when they know they will be penalised for it?

And that is the essence of the tax system - a huge barrier to initiative and effort, the
very things that should be encouraged.

That is the nature of the society you inhabit - one where your best effort is penalised.
Now this is entirely "legal", but is it moral? Of course not!

You wouldn't consider it moral if applied to sport - so why consider it moral when
applied to work?

No wonder people are always looking out for ways to avoid taxes - doing "cash"
work, not reporting "extra" income, working in the "black" market, banking offshore
and generally trying their best to hang on to what is rightfully theirs.

And if you have any self respect, it's the obvious, common sense thing to do!
Remember, there IS a distinction between what is MORAL and what is LEGAL. They
are certainly NOT always the same thing.

Okay, you might be thinking, but what about a flat tax, or a sales tax?

Well, a "flat" tax would remove one element of a corrupt and perverse system - the
payment of a higher RATE of tax for higher rates of effort. But it in no way addresses
the fundamental issue of the absurdity of taxing effort. A flat tax is still the taxing of
such effort - but on a level playing field.

50
 The Road To Freedom

A sales tax, on the other hand, has one distinct difference from from income tax - in
that it taxes consumption (enjoyment?), instead of effort.

This would have certain macro-economic advantages, in that it would encourage

people to save and be frugal. It would encourage people to stay home and watch
TV, instead of going out for a night on the town. So, in the greater scheme of things,
a sales or consumption tax would likely increase the national rate of savings and
lead to a greater national prosperity.

Of course, the nay sayers would criticise a consumption tax on the grounds that it
would penalise the poor most. And that's probably true. If a guy earning $100,000 a
year manages to save $25,000 and spend the rest, he is clearly ahead of the person
on $25,000 a year with no savings and not enough money to even enjoy life.

But a flat tax and a consumption/sales tax are both beside the point. Yes, either one
would be an improvement on the means by which the state finances its operations
(and transfer payment systems). But this would hardly impact on the underlying
immoral imperative of ANY tax system - that it is money expropriated by the threat of
force.

But you might ask, "where is 'force' a factor in a sales or consumption tax - seeing as
my income is not being taxed, and I'm not being 'forced' to buy anything?"

Well, there's two answers to that question: first you cannot get by in life without
buying something. And second, with a sales tax force IS being applied - to those
who collect such taxes, the businesses that provide all the goods and services.

Under a sales tax regime (no income tax) it's business people who become the new
tax collectors - proxies for the state. And if they refuse, then THEY get thrown in jail.
All this does is shift the burden of tax collection from you, the income-earner, to
those in business.

No, whatever its form, taxation is taxation, and is still the forcible expropriation of
someone's property without their consent.

No free society can exist where such a taxation system exists. The two are
incompatible.

A free society can only come into being when ALL transactions are based on mutual
agreement and contractual undertakings - both of which are entered into voluntarily.
The essence of freedom is your right to do business and enter relationships with
people and systems of your choice. In other words, the all-important element of
voluntarism.

Anything else is just a charade.

51
 The Road To Freedom

The High Road to Freedom

Many years ago, FA Hayek wrote a fascinating book entitled, "The Road to Serfdom"
- in which he outlined the end result of socialist thinking (very prophetic).

That road is so well-worn now, that no one would need to ask "how to get there?"!
What is needed more urgently though, is a road to "freedom" - and, in essence, that
is the primary goal of this ezine, to get you thinking about taking that particular
journey.

Of course such a goal is not without competing or alternative "roads" - although they
are not mutually exclusive.

Like the old Scottish song goes, "Well, I'll tak the high road and you'll tak the low
road, and I'll be in Scotland afore ye..." (or something like that!)

What I want to outline here is what I believe to be the essential basics of achieving
"real" personal freedom. And I'm the first to admit that such a strategy has costs,
which not everyone is prepared to accept. This is one of the reasons there are
various strategies to choose from - based on people's differing needs.

In a previous article I wrote, I talked about four different roads to freedom, and
defined them as:

• Untaxing - redefining one's legal tax status/tax protester

• Disappearing - hiding one's tracks and going "underground"
• Structuring - utilising various legal structures/shelters
• PT - becoming a non-resident for taxpaying purposes

I also gave my preference for PT, becoming a Perpetual Traveller. And in this article
I want to expand on that option - and explain why it is becoming not only more
necessary - but also much easier to achieve.

The problem with the first option is I believe it's not really viable - as it depends on
various interpretations of law, which in the end can be manipulated by the state.

Options 2 and 3 are only "part" solutions. Sure, they will give you more freedom than
you have now, and that may be all you want at this stage. But you will also be
exposed to various risks. So if you want to escape the clutches of Big Brother and
his henchmen to the greatest degree possible, then you have no option but to
physically escape the land of your tax-slavery. In other words, cut the ties that bind
you.

To many people this appears radical - and it is! It's also a remarkably simple strategy
in that instead of constantly fearing "exposure" or arrest, or worrying about constant
law changes that will affect your existing plans - you can live your life in peace.
Something well worth the "price" of expatriating I believe.

When the PT idea was first put down on paper - by Harry Schultz and WG Hill - as a
strategy worth following, the world was quite a bit different from what it is now. It was

52
 The Road To Freedom

pre-911; pre-Patriot Act; pre-war on terror. In other words, the original PT strategy
was conceived in a world far less burdensome than it is now.

However, there is one other BIG difference. We now have the internet. So while Big
Brother has grown in power, so has our own power grown - to outwit and
outmanoeuvre BB.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that because of the internet many of the
obstacles to achieving a PT lifestyle have been overcome. So much so, that this
option is a REAL possibility for anyone with enough desire for freedom.

Moreover, the expansion of state power has given this option a renewed sense of
urgency.

What exactly is meant by PT? Well, try Perpetual Traveller; Prior Taxpayer;
Possibility Thinker; Prepared Thoroughly; Post Tyranny; Permanent Tourist; or
Privacy Tactician. Never have two letters contained such a wealth of options!

You can also think of it as becoming an international citizen, or a "cyber-gypsy".

However you conceive it, it has just a few basic ingredients - which you can mix
together into your own personal "recipe".

So what are they?

It's really a case of "globalising" yourself, and placing various parts of your life in
different places.

For example: you should ideally have more than one passport - giving you more
flexibility as to where you can legally reside. You should maintain your business
base in a different place. You should set up your financial affairs in yet another
place. You should also have a place of "residence" with little or no tax obligations -
while your actual place of living (from day to day) is yet another place.

In other words you spread yourself around a bit!

With the internet it is easy to set up an offshore bank account, or an offshore

business entity. And it's easy to research second citizenship options - not to mention
suitable places to call "home".

All of these things have become a lot easier to achieve. You no longer have to visit
some offshore bank to open an account (your briefcase stuffed with cash!). Starting
an offshore corporation can be almost as easy as forming one at "home". These
obstacles have largely disappeared.

And the previously biggest obstacle, how to work internationally, is now not so big -
thanks to the internet.

Certainly, the most frequent question I've been asked on this subject is, "how do I
work - if I'm not staying in one place? What do I do? How can I carry on my career?"
All perfectly legitimate questions.

53
 The Road To Freedom

Now, I'll be straight up. This "PT" thing is NOT for everyone. But it is within the grasp
of more and more people - as they find themselves capable of working in "portable"
occupations.

Briefly, how you "earn a living" as a PT falls into a few different categories:

• You can work casually - finding whatever work is available wherever you
happen to be.
• You can do the sort of work that is portable by nature - like consulting or
import/export, computer programming etc.
• You can have sufficient investments that you can live off the income produced
and therefore not have to work. Or you be an active investor earning your
living - and doing it from anywhere.
• You can create internet-based income, allowing you to live and work literally
anywhere you can plug in a laptop computer!

It's this last possibility that has now become a real option for any motivated
individual. There are literally hundreds of ways to start earning money on the 'net -
and create for yourself a "business in a suitcase".

The rapid developments in communications, internet access, financial transactions

etc., have all made it much easier to literally pack up your case and go.
And what's the point of this strategy?

To become free of any particular jurisdiction - legally! Yes, this is a completely legal
option. Unlike becoming a tax protester, or building complex offshore structures, or
running and hiding, becoming a PT provides you with virtually tax-free status -
without having to deal with Big Brother on his terms.

If you stay in a country less time than is stated by law for you to become a "taxpayer
by residency", then you are in fact simply a tourist. The local bureaucrats have no
interest in tourists (as long as you keep your nose clean), as you are not one of their
tax-targets. In fact, as a tourist you are much more likely to be treated well.

So, the strategy is that you never stay longer in a country than the allowed period -
which in many cases is 6 months. What this means is you can remain for say 180
days in one place, then move on to another. You can arrange your life around two or
three favourite destinations. And if you feel the need to stay longer, well, there are
even ways around that!

By becoming literally a "citizen of the world", you remain hostage to no particular

country. As a "tourist" you are looked upon favourably by the countries you visit -
and why not? After all, you are spending your overseas' earned money there. You
are probably also paying sales taxes of various sorts. So you are an "asset" as far
as your temporary host country is concerned. You will have upgraded yourself from
tax-slave status to "welcome guest" status. Way to go!

So what do you need?

Mostly, you need ATTITUDE. This is the vital ingredient - the willingness to toss
aside the old and embrace the new. The determination not to be bound to your

54
 The Road To Freedom

country of birth - out of some misguided "patriotism" - but to see yourself as truly a
citizen of the world. The tools are there. The strategies are known. The option is
freely available. The choice is yours.

However, this strategy only applies to those people whose home country doesn't tax
them when they leave and live somewhere else. And unfortunately, this doesn't
include US citizens - who are still required to file tax returns (and pay taxes), no
matter where in the world they reside. (Although US persons can apply for a tax
exemption on overseas earnings while living overseas - up to a specified maximum
amount.) You see, the US taxes people on the basis of both residency AND
citizenship - something which 99% of the rest of the world does NOT do.

For the US citizen, there is only ONE way to permanently get Uncle Sam off your
back - and that's to expatriate, to rescind your US citizenship and turn in your
passport. Now, this may seem like a drastic action, but more and more Americans
are doing it - or seriously considering it.

You need to become a citizen of a country that doesn't tax you when you leave it.
And for Americans, the ideal country is just next door – Canada.

Canada is high on the "most-favoured" list of countries to emigrate to for many

different nationals - and it has a lot to offer. But for the expatriating American, what it
offers is the chance to get a "first world" citizenship - which can then be used to go
and live elsewhere, without having to "report back" to Canada. In other words,
Canada does not tax the world-wide income of its non-resident citizens.

Who would qualify for Canadian permanent residency? Canada operates a points
system (like Australia and New Zealand - two other options), which takes into
account such things as language, education, occupation etc. You can also apply
under ancestry provisions. Finally, you may also be able to apply under the "special
class" of investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed - where you will be required to
invest a certain amount of money.

If this is a strategy that appeals, then it is necessary to get proper legal advice - as
you would not want to fall into the category of "expatriating for tax avoidance
purposes". For under current law, any US citizen suspected of giving up their US
citizenship for the purpose of avoiding US taxes, can still be taxed on US-sourced
income for up to 10 years after leaving the country!

Ah, the advantages of living in the land of the free!

Sure, this is a drastic strategy and certainly not for everyone. However, there are an
increasing number of Americans who are seriously looking for an "out". And this two-
step process of expatriating, taking up another citizenship, and then being free to
live anywhere in the world - without your new home country's tax tentacles following
you - certainly has its appeal.

For everyone else, the PT option is less painful - and more easily achievable. But
like I said, you need to really WANT more practical freedom before you're likely to
move out of your "comfort zone" into the wide, wide world of PT. Yes, you need a
Personal Transformation!

55
 The Road To Freedom

Chaos Theory - In Practice

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "the world is going to the dogs" - or something
similar. This is the usual reaction of those who see long-revered institutions and
ways of living going down the drain of history.

Recently I watched a TV programme regarding the decline in traditional church

attendance, and some weak attempts to both prove and disprove this - not to
mention various explanations as to why.

Evidence of "moral decline", some people would shout. "Proof of the decadence of
modern society", others may opine.

And yet this is but one piece of evidence of societal upheaval and change.
The fact is, everything is in flux. Everything is changing so fast that many people are
in "future shock" - to use Tofler's famous phrase. And to a large percentage of
people, this represents the beginning of a descent into chaos.

If you charted the history of progress and societal change on a graph, then it would
start off low and slow - and rise almost imperceptibly until around the Industrial
Revolution. Thereafter, the graph would begin to rise ever steeper - to the point
where now, we are getting very close to a near-vertical line.

It's not just that society is changing, but that the rate of change is accelerating. A
couple of hundred years ago, you could be born, go to school, get a job, grow old
and die in the same village - without ever setting foot outside your home ground.
Now, we all expect to be doing business anywhere, perhaps living anywhere, and
certainly like the idea of travelling anywhere.

The rate of change is quite mind boggling, when you sit down and think about it. Can
you imagine life without the internet? Can you imagine life without your iPod, DVD,
or plasma TV? Can you imagine life without cheap international phone calls? All of
these things are relatively new, and certainly were not part of most people's human
landscape in 1996 - just 10 years ago.

This rapid rate of change has brought us to a point in history where a "change-
climax" is about to take place - right smack in the middle of a world where 95% of
the people are unaware or unwilling for such a change to occur.

The end result is that the world is headed for a "steep divide"- between those who
embrace it, and those who reject it, and try to fight it.

Tradition is under attack at every turn. Sure, it didn't start yesterday, but its
momentum is gaining ground. The "old ways" of doing things are being questioned.
Even our very political system is being challenged - as evidenced by fact that more
and more people are choosing not to vote. That's not apathy, it's an awakening!
To a 'conservative' minded person this is all very disturbing. What will replace all
this?

It's this fear of "chaos", of losing control, that drives many people to adopt a bunker
mentality and become reactionaries to change. And some of the most reactionary

56
 The Road To Freedom

people on the planet right now are the leaders and politicians of nation states. Not
surprising really, as they are there as a result of being voted in by a fearful populace.
Our very political system is based on the idea that we can "control" everything.
Petrol price too high? Well, how about legislating a fixed price? Drug use out of
control? Let's make tougher anti-drug laws. Companies making too much profit?
Let's tax them to oblivion. Too many poor people? Let soak the rich to get some
"equality".

There's a very interesting book, that's been around now for a few years, which
explains the free market economy as an "ecosystem" - a self-organising "chaotic"
living entity similar to a rain forest. Its title is "Bionomics" by Michael Rothschild.

What fascinated me about this book, when I first read it, was how different this
analysis was from the prevailing Marxist one - which views the economy as some
sort of "machine".

But no, free market capitalism is not a "machine" that can be tinkered with by
politicians and other central planners - but rather a delicately balanced "ecosystem" -
where one intrusion can easily lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences.

In "Bionomics", the free market system is viewed just like a rain forest - intricate and
interdependent. And just like in nature, if you remove, disrupt or fiddle with even one
essential element to such life, you can destablise the whole system.

To a politically-inclined person, such an analysis of how the economy works leaves a

lot to be desired - particularly as it suggests that "tinkering" is no longer a valid mode
of operation! I mean, if this is true - what do we need politicians for?

If the economy is in fact a self-organising system, one which cannot be controlled

externally, then our whole political edifice is based on a false assumption - that we
can engineer our way to equal prosperity for all.

It's the same with the internet. It literally has a life of its own. No single entity controls
it - and yet, it is growing exponentially, complete with its own internal controls.

The internet is a society without government as we have know it, and yet it is the
fastest growing social phenomena in existence. Have you not noticed that no one is
running for "President" of the internet? Have you not noticed the lack of political
democracy? And yet the internet is indeed a viable and thriving community.

More than that - it is bringing together diverse, but similar changes in other fields,
and providing a catalyst for even more rapid change. The internet is providing an
essential information clearinghouse - one which accelerates even faster the various
changes already under way.

And what are some these changes?

In essence they are science/technology driven - things like the latest developments
in medicine and genetics, which hold the promise of eliminating so much disease;
advanced commercial space exploration; communications technology; the
continuing growth in scientific enquiry and discovery; and of course the multitude of
technological developments which are changing our very lives day by day.

57
 The Road To Freedom

The one thing all these have in common is they represent a major challenge to the
status quo. And the most common cry of "alarm" is that we "acting like God" by
going where no humans have gone before.

Precisely! We ARE acting like God. In fact, humans have always acted like God - as
the creative force present on this planet.

Just stop and think for a moment. If you took all the man-made things off this earth,
what would be left? Sure, you'd have mountains to look at, forests to walk through
and sea to swim in. But what about your life? Can you imagine your life without the
myriad of products, services and technologies created by man?

No buildings. No electricity. No cars. No aircraft. No medicines. No TV. No movies.

No computers. No music. No art. No plumbing. You get the picture!

We stand on the brink of truly exciting events - such as rapidly expanding life spans
(150 years and more), and rapidly declining terminal diseases. But we only do so by
challenging all of our short history's moral presuppositions and religious traditions.
We are entering the phase of human evolution where we must stand up and
acknowledge our godlike character and potential. We must realise that we are the
creative power driving this planet. And just as truly, we must realise we have the
potential to destroy everything.

Coming to grips with the essential "chaotic" nature of our universe and our place in
it, is a vital forward step on our journey to true human progress. And until we drop
our love of "control" and control for control's sake - we will be doomed to repeat all
the errors of past socities and civilisations.

For most people on earth, this time must appear as nothing but chaos - as cherished
beliefs and ideas come tumbling down (including the idea of the nation state!). But
for the minority who can see (even dimly) across to the other side, we are living at
the most exciting time in the history of humankind.

Warning: do not discount the possibility of RAPID change. Do not think the existing
order can only change "slowly". No, sometimes change is dramatic and profound -
and can happen by tomorrow's news headline. Remember the Berlin Wall?

"It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times" - said Charles Dickens in the
opening line of "A Tale of Two Cities". That may have been written a long time ago,
but such a statement is very apt for our present time. And depending upon your own
viewpoint, you will already know which side of the great "divide" YOU are standing
on.

58
 The Road To Freedom

Dumping Your 'Old World' View

Make no mistake, the world out there is changing before your eyes. You are
witnessing the death rattle of the nation state and the ideas that support it - and
cracks are starting to appear everywhere.

The USA is losing the war in Iraq. Just consider that for a moment. The world's
greatest high-tech military power cannot beat a low-tech street-smart insurgency. It's
David and Goliath all over. The USA is also losing the economic "war" with China.
No matter how much their law makers moan and groan about the trade deficit - the
truth is China is keeping the USA afloat, and any attempt to start a trade war with
them can only end up hurting the USA more.

France is losing the war against even modest economic reform. The French enjoy a
coddled welfare state life, so much so that they bristle at any attempt to change it.
And such has been the case with this latest attempt to amend labour laws to allow
French employers to more easily hire and fire young people. French youth and
unions would have none of it, and came out into the streets banners blazing. The
government caved in.

China is losing the war against the free flow of information. Yes, they make a lot of
noise, censor certain online content and blacklist certain domains - but the savvy
Chinese hacker knows how to get around all of that. But the real achilles heel of the
Chinese government's information control policy is the English language itself -
something they have been actively encouraging their young people to learn. If you're
Chinese and speak English, then there is virtually no control over what you can say
and read online.

Zimbabwe - that country headed by one of the world's greatest tyrants, Robert
Mugabe - is falling apart at the seams. With inflation heading for 1,000% it is in
economic free fall, and all that remains is to literally turn out the lights and close the
door. Unfortunately, there will be a massive amount of human suffering as a
consequence.

The Solomon Islands, and many other South Pacific nations, are on the brink of
economic and social collapse - and Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has
already admitted that without considerable military and economic support, these
countries are doomed to become "failed states".

I could go on and on. The daily news reads like Armageddon in the making - and I
haven't even mentioned the biggest flash point of all yet – Iran.

If the USA or Israel attack Iran, then all bets are off as far as global stability is
concerned. In fact, such an attack could be the catalyst for a global economic
meltdown. Some people are saying that our "leaders" aren't stupid enough to start
such a war and trigger all those unintended consequences. But I'm not holding my
breath.

Yes, there's plenty of evidence out there for the collapse of the "old" order. And
there's only so many fingers that can be put in the global "dike" to stave off various
forms of disaster.

59
 The Road To Freedom

The world "out there" is certainly changing before our eyes. Trouble is, most
people's perceptions about the world aren't changing fast enough, or even changing
at all.

It's the world "in there", in our heads, that also needs to change dramatically. We
need to bring our world view up to speed with what is really happening out there in
the real world.

What's a world view? In short, it's the way you see the world. It's the way you were
"taught" to see the world. It's the way those in authority want you to see the world.
Right from your first steps, to your first day at school and on to adulthood - you have
been meticulously fed a particular world view.

It changes slightly with your cultural background - but not that much. And it changes
slightly with each generation - but only incrementally. However, this is the first time
in history where external reality demands that it undergoes serious fundamental
change.

The existing common world view is based on a basic assumption - an assumption

that is past its "use by" date and is no longer relevant or even helpful.

No matter what race or cultural background you come from, what religion you were
brought up in, or what country you grew up in - one thing's for sure, you were taught
that your life is not your own. You were taught that you owe a debt somewhere. A
debt to society. A debt to your race. A debt to your family. A debt to your
government. Even a debt to some supernatural power. In other words, your life was
already mortgaged from the day you were born - to be paid off by serving the needs
of others for the rest of your life.

I call that world view the "slave" assumption.

And how were you to repay that debt? By being a good citizen and doing what you
were told. By obeying authority and not rocking the boat. By not questioning the
status quo. And, of course, by paying your taxes!

You see, the "tax" issue is the crux of this problem. Tax is the system that funds the
existing world order. It's your financial "contribution" that keeps it all going.

Have you ever stopped to think what you really get for your taxes? I can tell you, it's
both a lot more and a lot less than you bargained for!

Here's a short list of "benefits": roads (often badly designed and maintained);
medical care (if you're lucky); education (if you can call it that); police protection
(what?) and justice (you hope!); the military (ostensibly to defend you in case of
attack, but in reality a means of endangering your life via ongoing war).

All the above are the "poster boys" of the tax system - what you are told your money
is used for. However, there are also all the "hidden" extras like: military build-up and
war mongering; welfare transfer payments to support families other than your own;
financial support for causes you may not agree with; grand schemes to bolster your
leader's status; massive and wasteful bureaucracy; invasions of your privacy;

60
 The Road To Freedom

erosion of your rights; interference in business; meddling in other nation's affairs;

fiddling and corruption on a grand scale.

In fact, if you really think about it, what you get for your taxes - just the "poster boy"
stuff - is pathetic, and the rest of the "package" is downright scary.

But, like sheep, most people don't protest - because tax is built into their world view.
The injustice of tax is not even noticed, because its justification has been drilled into
the subconscious corners of everyone's mind. You must pay tax because you "owe".
It forms part of some "social contract" that you never signed up to - but are expected
to comply with.

You don't believe me? Well, consider this:

Imagine you have a neighbour called "Joe". Imagine that one day he turns up on
your doorstep and says, "Hey listen pal, I'm having trouble making ends meet - and
I've noticed that you seem to do okay money wise. Well, it's simply not fair. So I want
you to give me 40% of your income each week - so I can get by with some self-
respect! And don't even think of not giving it to me, or I'll bring round some of my
heavy friends to lean on you!"

Of course, you'd call this extortion. And you'd be right.

So, ask yourself this question: what makes the above scenario "extortion" when
ONE individual demands your money because he needs it, but "social responsibility"
when the same demands are made collectively by ALL the "Joes" out there - via a
third party called the state?

Morally there is simply no difference. So the next time you get a twinge of guilt about
paying as little tax as possible - remember you are simply responding according to
the world view you were indoctrinated with. It's a knee-jerk reaction, that's all.

But change is in the air. The idea that your life and your cash is not your own is
undergoing a revision. People are standing up and questioning this primitive
morality. The very existence and growth of the offshore industry and more private
forms of online commerce and communication is proof that individuals are taking
their money and privacy seriously - and guarding it accordingly.

More and more people are questioning the authority of governments. More and more
people are beginning to see the light - that they don't need what most governments
are offering. The poor service and shoddy goods priced like an extortion racket, and
the swathe of hidden and unwanted "extras".

The internet is making such thinking even easier to act on. Not only does it provide
for the spread of information that liberates people - it also provides the means of
achieving the personal and financial freedom that beckons those with the courage to
step outside their old world view.

The old world view is one which sees you as a slave - a slave to a system that
claims your life and property, and does this by taxing your effort, ambition, success,
persistence and creativity.

61
 The Road To Freedom

The new world view is one which sees you as an autonomous individual - a unique
person who should be free to lead your life as you wish (provided you leave others
alone to do likewise), and to keep the results of your efforts and creativity. It's a
world of unlimited possibility - a world of increasing wealth.

And that's precisely why those in power don't want you to achieve such freedom. If
you are autonomous, wealthy and free, then you simply don't NEED them. And what
would they do then?

If you're standing on the fringe, fascinated by the possibilities of asserting your own
sovereignty, but haven't taken the plunge - then don't wait too long. Don't become a
spectator, simply watching events unfurl around you and being carried by the tide of
history. Change your world view. Become a participant in the "new order".

Make your own history!

62
 The Road To Freedom

V For Victory
The movie, "V For Vendetta", is causing quite a stir among libertarians. Reviews and
commentaries are popping up all over the place - mostly to praise the fact that such
a movie about ideas was even made at all. Better still, a movie about the ideas that
libertarians care about.

It's also causing a stir amongst freedom's enemies - as it's not often they have to
confront a popular film that has the potential and capacity to change the minds of
those exposed to it. Or at the very least, to cause people to question their presently
held assumptions.

"V For Vendetta" is such a film.

I'm not going to disclose the plot or review the movie here, save to say that it's about
a guy who, having suffered terribly at the hands of the state, decides to take revenge
on the perpetrators in a rather spectacular way. And more importantly to use his
"vendetta" as a catalyst for something even more significant.

What I'm more interested in doing is outlining and exploring the major theme of the
film - and how it applies to our present day situation.

There's no doubt that V is an avenging hero - someone on a moral crusade to rid the
world of scum. But it does raise important questions about what means are
acceptable in the drive to achieve certain ends.

Some detractors have attempted to portray the film as a mindless glorification of

terrorism, and are clearly upset by the moral premises the film explores. And I'm not
surprised - as serious questioning of the idea of terrorism is something our dear
leaders would rather we didn't get into.

However, if terrorism is defined as wanton acts of violence against innocent people -

as a strategy for seeking to achieve certain political ends - then V's actions are not
those of a terrorist. Firstly, because he does not target innocent people, and
secondly because he is not fighting FOR some political cause, but AGAINST the
political status quo - the evil system he lives under.

V himself sees his actions as the application of justice - and that those he targets (in
a most violent and bloody way) are simply getting their just desserts. He uses force
as defence against the initiation of force - and sees himself as totally morally
justified.

But this does bring up the question as to what is a rightful response to the initiation
of force. For libertarians this is not a problem, as we see the initiation of force as evil,
while any use of force to defend oneself against such initiation as morally right.
Libertarians are not pacifists.

However, V's strategy is not to use such force to overthrow the corrupt system
directly - but to use spectacular, symbolic acts of force to act as a catalyst for raising
the awareness of the masses, so they realise they have the power to simply say
"no".

63
 The Road To Freedom

This puts V's strategy into an interesting category. He is not a freedom fighter who is
out to replace the bad guys with his own "gang" by all violent means possible. His
vendetta is not the equivalent of a violent political revolution, which only ends up
replacing the existing violent order with another one - like most such examples in
history.

No, his violence is extremely targeted. He targets those who were personally
responsible for his own tortuous incarceration, and targets the political symbols of
their power - like the final denouement involving the Houses of Parliament.

Then again, V is not a pacifist. He is not like Ghandi who did not believe in using
violence to overthrow violent oppression. Ghandi was a pacifist and believed in the
power of non-violent action. And there is an element of truth in Ghandi's position, in
that if the masses really do rise up peacefully against their masters, then short of
destroying total populations, such a strategy could work.

There is a risk here of course, and that's the assumption that no one is so evil as to
wipe out an entire population who has the gall to rise up in opposition. History does
not give us such assurances, and pacifists could be accused of having too-rosy an
image of human nature - at least the nature of some of humanity's worst examples!
What V does is use violence as a wake-up call, a trigger to mobilise the masses.
Unlike a typical pacifist or violent revolutionary he understands the power of
symbols. He understands the power of the media. He understands the power of
ideas. And he understands the archilles heel of those in power - their reliance on the
sheep-like behaviour of their subjects.

So V is the archetypal "thinking man's" revolutionary. He is well read. He loves

books and music and all things cultural. He has a passion for his cause - a passion
borne in the crucible of personal pain. He is a totalitarian's worst nightmare.

Ultimately, his goal is to make the forlorn citizens of this "future" fascist state wake
up and realise their innate power, and in so doing confront those in government with
their actual powerlessness.

As V states in the film, "People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people." In a way, that statement
encapsulates the theme of the film and the underlying ideas that drive it.

And this is what makes the movie so interesting. It presents as its theme the idea
that we, the people, should NOT be afraid of our government. That to do so is to
invert the reality of the situation. The fact is, they should be very afraid of US.

That's a far cry from reality of course. Government in the modern world is
intimidating and ruthless. Yes, they smile and kiss babies while seeking election. But
once in the seat of power, they willingly tread over all your rights. They bully and
cajole. They frighten and intimidate. They blackmail and punish.

The smiling face can quickly turn into an Orwellian Big Brother grimace, complete
with the totalitarian tools of violence and oppression - if you step over the line.
And "stepping over the line" is becoming easier and easier to do.

64
 The Road To Freedom

Are you doing drugs? Are you trying to sell drugs on the side to make money? Are
you selling your body for sexual favours? Are you building an addition to your home
without permission? Are you doing "cash" business to avoid tax? Are you driving
faster than permitted? Are you using inside information to financially benefit
yourself? Are you trying to defend yourself against potential muggers and intruders
by having a firearm? Are you seeking to end your life because you are terminally ill?
Are you seeking to leave your country - or enter another? Are you hiding money in
offshore bank accounts to avoid taxation or litigation? Are you trying to protect
YOUR property? Are trying to avoid conscription? Are you trying to keep the money
that is rightfully yours, and stop it being used for things you find morally
reprehensible?

Welcome to the club! Welcome to the world of the "outlaw" - the world of all those
who are made such by the ever-widening definition of "crime". Yes, we're all outlaws
now!

What keeps governments in power is the facade they present to the public. They talk
"service" and act "oppressive". They can make a example of anyone who tries to
stand up to them - and inculcate fear into the heart of anyone else considering doing
likewise.

This is where the movie "V For Vendetta" provides a clarion call and inspiration. It
shows the truth of the matter - in a way that only a work of art can. It presents us
with truths that evade us when simply stated in words. But when presented using the
art of cinema - a gripping story line, a raising of emotions, a building of tension, the
release of relief - such truths take on a new meaning. They present themselves in
ways that can seep into one's consciousness and take hold.

That is the power of a movie like "V". Not only can it cause those who don't normally
think about such things to go home pondering life's bigger questions, but it can
cause those who espouse freedom to go home and think about how they can really
achieve it.

"V For Vendetta" is also "V For Victory" - for that is what it is. It is the story of one
man's victory over a vicious, inhuman system - and even more significantly, a victory
that's ultimately shared by everyone.

The essential and hopeful message of the film is that if one man, with the courage of
his convictions (and a vast range of martial skills!), can bring a totalitarian system to
its knees - then imagine what the masses could achieve if only they had that same
passion, those same ideas, and that same conviction - and the courage to stand up
for what they believed in.

V's vendetta is inspiring stuff - the sort of thing to get a freedom loving individual
standing up and cheering. There is nothing quite so sweet as to see a political thug
finally brought to a place where he is a whimpering mess begging for mercy!
If you like a good story. If you like movies that make you think. If you like movies
where good triumphs over evil. And more importantly, if you love movies that
champion the cause of freedom in fresh and innovative ways - then I thoroughly
recommend you get yourself down to your local cinema pronto - and see this movie
for yourself. It will inspire you to stand up and be counted.

65
 The Road To Freedom

The New Frontier

All of you reading this are in the vanguard - the first wave of troops in the world's
next major battle arena. You are on the internet. You are one of the "early adopters",
adopting new technologies and new ideas ahead of the majority. Your thinking is
being changed and your world view is being radically altered. You may not know this
- but it is happening all the same.

In the "old" world politics rules. The politics of envy. The politics of power for power's
sake. The politics of right and left; Republican and Democrat; Conservative and
Labour. The politics of the old world. The world of dinosaurs.

But the internet represents a "new" world. A self-organising world without

government - a world that poses a real threat to the old world. In this new world,
people do as they please. They organise themselves (without being told what to do);
they police themselves - to maintain the order required for things to work; they read
what they like; they form opinions outside those proscribed by the mainstream
media; they say what they like; they trade; they exchange goods, services and ideas
- without bureaucratic interference. They live a life outside of imposed, involuntary
government.

This is a radical concept, and hardly anyone realises it. The internet is a tool for
sure, but it is much more than that. It is a completely new way of doing things. A new
way of organising things and a new way of dealing with each other - without the
dead hand of the state.

That's why the conventional media is obsessed with linking the internet (in the old
world's public mind) to such things as pornography, violence, bomb making, death
cults, drug trafficking and money laundering. They want to discredit it. They want to
portray the internet as something dangerous - rather than liberating.

To them, the internet represents anarchy. And that is true, for anarchy means "no
government". It doesn't necessarily mean lawlessness - although that is how it is
always defined. Anarchy is anathema to the status quo. That's why you always hear
about anarchists "throwing bombs" and causing mayhem. But the media dare not
talk about how well anarchy works on the net - how much gets done without the
force of compulsory government behind it.

This anarchy on the internet is a major threat to the old world. Just think back a few
years - to before the Berlin Wall came down. Back then, in the days of the Cold War,
information was something that governments had tight control over. Most countries
had nationalised media services (like TV and even newspapers). The totalitarian
ones (the Soviet Union, China etc.), had sealed borders as far as information and
news was concerned.

The internet has abolished such controls. Information is in free flow - and the
powers-that-be don't like it. Yes, the Chinese government is bending over backwards
to control the flow of information. But even they know they cannot abolish the
internet - but hope to control the content instead. They will fail. They are already
failing. There are multitudes of ways to bypass the clumsy censorship attempts of
the Chinese Communist Party. Even learning English achieves this!

66
 The Road To Freedom

Sure, some of the information on the net is maybe worse than useless - thereby
putting more responsibility on the reader to assess its truth or falsehood. But this is a
good thing, not a bad thing. People should bear that responsibility, for if they do not,
who will?

What is happening on the internet has never happened before. We are seeing the
birth of a completely new world-view, a new culture. We are seeing the true
globalisation of the planet - not according to "one-world-government" views, or the
"New World Order", but according to the self-interested actions of millions of
independent human beings - all going about their business, and creating a revolution
while they are at it.

This is what's so remarkable. It is not a PLAN. It is not a conspiracy. It's chaos in

practice.

If Adam Smith, the great Scots economist and moral philosopher, was alive today
he'd recognise the internet as the optimum example of his much quoted "invisible
hand". In his book, "The Wealth of Nations", Smith claimed that within the system of
capitalism, an individual acting for his own good tends also to promote the good of
his community. In other words, when people are given free reign to further their own
interests and ambitions, there is the unintended consequence of this also benefiting
everybody else.

The truth of this claim is proven each time you take a look at the real world. Take Bill
Gates, for example. In his pursuit of his own dream and passion he revolutionised
personal computing on a grand scale. He delivered new tools to the masses in such
a way that for a couple of hundred dollars, people were able to vastly improve their
productivity.

Take Steve Jobs of Apple fame. Not only did Apple's original Macintosh operating
system become the inspiration for Windows, but Jobs has made a "second coming"
with the huge success of the iPod. This little box is delivering previously unheard of
musical benefits to millions of people world wide.

One man's dream can turn to everyone's advantage. That's the invisible hand. And
the internet is now the prime driver and showcase for the validity of this theory.

In previous essays I have said how the money system and education are the two
areas of public life that need to be wrenched from state control - as they represent
power levers that allow for all sorts of abuses and manipulations. Prior to the internet
it was almost impossible to conceive of any realistic challenge to government
monopolies in these two areas. But with the net, both education and the money
system itself could be radically overhauled.

Of course, this hasn't happened yet, but there are clues and signs of the potential for
this. Just take the ongoing growth in e-currency systems. Now, while e-gold is still
limited in its use because of the need to convert to fiat money, imagine how rapidly it
would grow if more and more people decided to treat gold as money - and if shops
and merchants accepted it.

Same goes for education. With the capacity and capability of the net growing year by
year, and with the new faster download technologies gaining broader acceptance,

67
 The Road To Freedom

it's easy to see how "distance learning" could be taken to a whole new level. Just
imagine signing on for some educational course or other, to be delivered by internet
- using live and recorded lectures and lessons. There really is no limit to what could
be achieved using this medium.

But the really interesting thing is how this possibility opens up the whole education
market to the FREE market in so many innovative ways. And more importantly, it
allows new ways of education to gain traction, and to compete head-on with the old,
tired state systems that abound.

Another major battle arena will be in the area of privacy - the right to keep your
personal and financial affairs private. For the first time in history, technology is
making it possible for the ordinary person to outwit the government, to use the latest
technology to enhance his own life - on his own terms.

It appears that George Orwell ("1984") may have been wrong, when he envisaged a
future world where technology gave governments the absolute power they craved -
and allowed them to completely enslave the masses. Instead, it appears technology
is providing the necessary tools of liberation. But the powers-that-be will not give up
their position easily. There will be a real battle. They do not want you to be free.
They do not want you to keep your affairs private. They do not want you to get to a
point of view where you see THEIR function as not only unnecessary, but downright
dangerous.

The "old" world is right now up to its old tricks, with "wars and the rumours of wars" -
the oldest tactic of diversion ever known. We have the war in Iraq. We have the
threatened war with Iran. We even have rumblings of future conflict with China. And,
of course, we have that most ridiculous war of all, the war against "terrorism".

This has to be the biggest hoax of the 21st century, a war against an idea, a tactic. A
war against nobody in particular. A perfect war with no possible end. And what's
really interesting is that the opposition to such wars is coming from the internet
world. The free world.

The mainstream media have become irrelevant - with their ongoing state-
encouraged propaganda and mindless outpourings of car accident data, trivia and
sensationalism. Just ask yourself, do you really expect to learn what's really
happening by turning on your TV, or buying the daily paper? Of course not. That's
not where the real information action is. It's on the net.

Whether you realise it or not - YOU are part of this drama. You are caught up in
history's writing. Get smart. Be part of the solution. Move now to protect yourself and
prepare yourself morally, intellectually and practically. We live in perhaps the most
exciting period in human history. It's the end of an age - the death throes of the
nation state.

But it's the beginning of something much better - the shift to a new way of social
organisation. A way which will encompass a recognition of the rights and power of
each individual. You see, contrary to popular wisdom, it's individual people who
matter, not those trussed up, pompous idiots who call themselves our leaders.
Welcome to the emerging world of the self-governing, autonomous human being -
the Sovereign Individual.

68
 The Road To Freedom

The Conspiracy/Paranoia Trap

I recall, back in the early 80s, how I got "hooked" by a number of serious conspiracy
theory books. Everything from tomes on the Illuminati and the Freemasons, to a
Jewish global financial hegemony and New World Order. There were the small
conspiracies. Then there were the large conspiracies. And finally, there were the
conspiracies within conspiracies, and even the super- conspiracies. Of the latter
much has been written of late - including putting all these "lesser" conspiracies
under the umbrella of a super-cosmic one, involving aliens from other planets. Take
your pick, or pick them all.

One of the attractions of conspiracies is their claim to be able to explain things -

those things that appear unexplainable. They are also exciting, pregnant with
looming danger and addictive - as you find yourself moving from lower level
conspiracies to higher ones.

Of course, on the other side of the fence sit all the perpetual sceptics - those who
believe there are never any conspiracies, and that all such talk and theorising is
nonsense. And this only serves to fuel ongoing research and belief into exposing
ever more diabolical plans.

Regardless of your belief or otherwise in "master" conspiracies, there is no doubt

that real conspiracies abound. They are everywhere - although it appears we
generally only believe them well after the event.

When something happens in the present, the general public seems less inclined to
believe it could be the result of some sort of conspiracy. However, if an earlier event
is later shown to be the result of a conspiracy, after some digging and historical
research, then people are more likely to believe it.

We know, from looking at historical facts, that a number of major world events have
been the result of conspiracies. We accept this in past events - but mostly refuse to
consider such revelations to have any application or relevance to what is going on
today.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was just one such example - where, by the wide
publication and repetition of a lie, the Vietnam war was started. It was a conspiracy.
Then there's the serious revisionist assertion that officials in the US Government had
prior warning of the Pearl Harbour attack - but chose not to react, in order to force
the USA into World War II. That would certainly be a conspiracy.

History is replete with real examples of conspiracy. It happens all the time. Geez, as
we speak, your own government is involved in all sorts of conspiracies - mostly to
your disadvantage!

However, if you cry "conspiracy" regarding a current event - like just after 9/11 - you
are dubbed some sort of crazy. The fact is, 9/11 was most certainly a conspiracy.
There is no argument about that. The argument and speculation is purely about the
identity of the conspirators.

69
 The Road To Freedom

Yes, conspiracies exist and have always existed. But what is in question is the
scope and extent of such behaviour. Most of the conspiracy theories in existence are
not content with exposing isolated events, but more interested in finding ways to tie
them altogether into one grand unified theory. This is where the going gets tricky and
where facts can give way to fantasy.

But more importantly, belief in master conspiracies (whether true or false) can have
detrimental consequences for the believer.

Back to my original statement, that I got deep into conspiracy books in the early 80s.
Yes, I was serious. In fact, it became all I could talk about, and I'd raise the subject
wherever I had the opportunity (rather like a religious zealot raising the subject of
God). I would bring it up at dinner parties. I would bring it up over a glass of beer.
And I would discuss it with my work mates. You see, I had information they needed
to know about!

It all got to be a bit much. Then one day a thought hit me. If all these conspiracies
are in fact true, and all pervasive, then I may as well top myself now, and put myself
out of misery! You see, I came to the realisation that belief in such theories was
actually a form of mind-warp - and means of turning off one's sense of personal
power. When one is consumed by some theory or other, then its power is all-
encompassing. There is no escape. If these shadowy figures are as powerful as you
believe they are, then you are at their mercy.

By believing, you enter into some murky netherworld - a place where reality
becomes elastic, and where paranoia flourishes. A bit like living through your own
"Illuminatus Trilogy".

It was at that point that I threw all my conspiracy books away. Not because I had
proven them wrong, or because I had suddenly rejected their theories outright, but
because they were infecting my soul with a sense of powerlessness. I've never
looked back. I'm not saying conspiracies don't exist, but that fanatical belief in them
is disempowering. It puts you in a place where you are the ultimate cosmic victim.

This state of mental affairs has a counterpart in modern day politic reality - and
people's attempts to buck the system in their desire to be free.

Just take one example - Echelon. Echelon is the global system of surveillance that
can listen into and record all significant communications. If you phone someone and
start talking about "bombs" and "bin Laden" or something equally incriminating, then
that word or phrase could trigger a chain of events that gets your phone call tagged
for further analysis.

Take another example. The Financial Action Task Force. This ominous-sounding
organisation is deeply involved in setting up strategies and enforcement procedures
to enable the tracking and identification of "suspicious" financial transactions. It's
part of the war on money laundering, which is seen as part of the wider "war on
terror".

If you walk into your bank and deliberately seek to transfer funds just under the legal
reporting limit ($10,000 in one day in the USA), then your attempt to thwart such a

70
 The Road To Freedom

reporting trigger is sufficient to get you reported. You are reported for seeking to
avoid being reported!

Now, this - and a lot more - could get you feeling quite paranoid and jittery. In fact,
many people become paralysed by fear of such things, and live their lives in
constant shadowy attempts to avoid being seen and heard.

The dilemma is this: you become aware of the powers that be, and how they are
attempting to reduce your privacy and freedom of action in various ways. These
powers are real enough, so taking proper precautions is not only sensible, but
necessary. However, it's just one small step from taking such steps to becoming a
slave of one's fear - the fear of powerful "others".

I shouldn't have to say this, but this is exactly what those in authority want. They
want you to be in fear of them - because without such fear, they really don't have
much else.

There is a paradox here. The state's many conspiratorial activities are rarely
designed to benefit YOUR life. On the contrary, you can probably bet your bottom
dollar that its actions will lead to personal deprivations of some sort. At the same
time, the state depends on "appearances" to maintain its power. It depends on the
image it throws out. It depends on "voluntary" compliance - which can only be
maintained by lies, propaganda and the generation of fearful emotions. These are
the tricks our dear leaders employ to convince us of their necessity to our lives.
They are projecting the impression that they all-powerful. But the truth is, they are
fundamentally impotent. The way you see them, as all-powerful or impotent, has a
direct impact on the quality of your life.

The trap for many a seeker of freedom is to grant the powers-that -be far more
respect and fear than they deserve. You must remember that those drawn to public
office are drawn by the basest of human instincts - the desire for power over others.
Sure, they won't admit this, and will waffle on about "serving" the community. But
you and I know that is all tosh. The name of the game is power. Those who seek
power over others are drawn to a role in public life as surely as bees are drawn to
the honey pot.

The paradox is this: even though such people seek to exercise power, they can only
be successful to the extent that other people grant them that power. They have no
power in and of themselves - only what we give them by default.

What this means for the aspiring freedom seeker is profound. If you seek to be free,
then the worst thing you can do is fall into the pit of despair and fear, brought about
by paranoia that the state is "after" you. Yes, they are after you - but you are falling
into their trap if you grant them far more capacity to exercise their power than they
actually have.

To be consumed by conspiracy theories and paranoia is not any sort of freedom, but
a form of self-imposed imprisonment. If you allow this mindset to develop and
flourish, then to the extent its power grows, your own power diminishes.

The correct and healthy attitude to have towards one's own freedom, is to come to
the realisation that those who seek to exercise power over you are a bunch of

71
 The Road To Freedom

lowlifes. They are leeches on the social and economic life of society. They are not
movers and shakers - far from it.

They are not responsible for the creation of wealth. They are not responsible for
rises in general health. They are not responsible for any form of social progress at
all. No, all this is done by individuals acting voluntarily with others, in what we call
the free market. Our dear leaders are simply parasites who seek unearned wealth,
power and influence - and do so by setting up their grand charade, in order to
convince us of their importance, so we will support them.

Let me tell you, the world you see every night on your TV news - the world of wars,
lies, propaganda, not to mention the minutiae of constant road deaths, petty
squabbling, and the nauseous silliness of most stuff passed off as news - is not the
real world at all. It's not the world as it really is. It's just a distorted illusion. It's an
illusion largely designed to confuse and immobilise people. Now there's a conspiracy
of the highest order!

There is a much more interesting and true story going on in the background. World
events are not moving according to some grand master plan, run by diabolical
politicians and shadowy backers. It's moving forward according to what has always
moved it forward - science, technology and business, the strategies devised by
individual thinking people, in their quest to make life better.

These are the drivers of our world - not politicians, their backers and their plots.
Sure, they like to think they can change the course of history, and they can and do
change specific events that make up part of history. But they have no real power to
circumvent the much larger picture, which is fuelled by the power of individual
people acting to improve their own lives. They have no power to prevent
"unintended" consequences, and sudden historical shifts caused by radical changes
in thinking, perception or technology.

We do ourselves an injustice when we grant our leaders any real significance - like
the constant following of their actions and words on the daily news. This facade
maintains and supports the illusion that power resides with them. Where the truth is,
power resides with you.

My advice, if you want a freer life, is this. First dump any sense that you are
dependent on what politicians do, or what the state is up to. You have no need to
concern yourself with that. Your concern is to be your own prime-mover - to move
forward with your life in the sure belief you have all the power necessary to make it
what you want. You don't need what the state is offering, as even that which may
seem useful can be provided much more effectively by the marketplace.

Yes, take rational measures to protect yourself. Take all the steps you need to make
to further your own goals and aspirations. But do not be consumed by fear and
paranoia. Do not fall for the illusion that the state is the all-in-all, the all-powerful.
Even more, do not allow yourself to be consumed by the idea that "superhuman"
beings are running the whole show.

If you turn your quest for freedom into a fear-inspired flight from being "found out", or
from those you perceive to be in power, then you will have fallen into the ultimate
trap - one of your own making.

72
 The Road To Freedom

Free Speech Quagmire

The supposed hallowed hallmark of free societies, free speech, has been sorely
tested these past few weeks.

First there were the Mohammed cartoons - originally published in a Danish

newspaper - which have infuriated Islam and sparked world-wide riots and
demonstrations. Then there was the guilty verdict handed down to David Irving, the
British historian who is internationally vilified for his revisionist views on the
Holocaust. And looked at together they present a confused and contradictory
message.

For most part, Europe has defended the publication of the cartoons and upheld the
concept of free speech. And others, the world over, have rallied to the call, even
republishing the cartoons as a matter of "principle".

However, Europe is far more reluctant to grant David Irving a similar right. He has
been sentenced to three years in jail for a speech and interview he gave in Austria in
1989. Under Austria's strict "Holocaust Denial" laws, Irving's statement that, "there
were no gas chambers in Auschwitz", has cost him his freedom.

This raises important questions about what free speech actually is, and if it should
ever be limited.

Defenders of free speech come in all shapes and sizes, and in fact, it's hard to find
anyone who is outright against it -with qualifications of course!

Take the cartoon case. Here is a situation where a revered religious figure is made
fun of or denigrated in some way. Revered, that is, by those of the Islamic faith. This
type of thing is not new - as any stand-up comedian will tell you. Poking fun at, and
ridiculing people is their stock in trade.

To put it into our own cultural context, consider some tasteless cartoons about
Jesus, and take your own response "temperature". Of course, how you would feel
about such cartoons would depend on what you believed about Jesus. If you were a
Christian you'd probably be offended. And if you weren't, you probably wouldn't care.
However, one's response to such an event is a different issue - and to be evaluated
accordingly.

Just because Muslims were offended by the cartoons (something which I'm sure
religious people can understand) doesn't mean they can go out and start burning
buildings and generally causing havoc. In fact, such a response only serves to
undermine their own moral status, as people whose sensibilities need to be
considered at all.

So we have the "considerate" compromiser, who says he defends free speech, but
that it needs to be considered in the context of the situation, that sometimes good
taste or plain politeness should deter one from exercising free speech. I call this the
voluntary-code-of-conduct approach, which is fine, as in this case any curtailment of
free speech is self-imposed, not imposed by others.

73
 The Road To Freedom

Now, certainly, a private individual - say, at a party - may deem it not in good taste to
express his personal opinion about the host, to all those present. This would
undermine the unwritten rules of social etiquette and good behaviour. However, in
the case of a newspaper cartoonist, stand-up comic, or even an historian, a different
set of parameters come into play.

Take David Irving's case. He has been found guilty of uttering words which other
people disagree with - and to which they take offence. His statement that people
weren't gassed at Auschwitz or that less than six million Jews died at the hands of
the Nazis, raises the ire of many of those who lived through the war, and in particular
Jews themselves.

However, if you transpose his case to another situation, it becomes absurd. David
Irving is often branded a "Holocaust Denier", someone who denies the official
Holocaust story. But let's imagine he was a "God Denier" - someone who denies the
existence of God.

No doubt millions would be offended by his assertion - especially if he were to give

public speeches on the subject and be widely published. However, do you really
think he would be put in jail for such an utterance? Maybe in the Dark Ages - but not
today, not in our post-religious world. And yet, the situations are very similar. In both
cases he would be denying something that is hallowed ground to millions of people.
He would be offending them by his assertion. So, deny the Holocaust - go to jail.
Deny the existence of God - go free.

Denying the "official story" is often dangerous of course. Consider Galileo, whose
assertion that the earth moved around the sun got him brought before the Church
authorities. Here was a man who, via the scientific method, had come to the
conclusion that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. However, this
truth was unacceptable to the established religious order. They weren't interested in
facts, but only in the official story, which they saw as fundamental to their faith - and
their power.

If we were to bring his particular story into the present age, we might compare it with
someone who questions the Theory of Evolution - or its obverse, the Intelligent
Design Theory.

Can you imagine anyone being jailed for saying that evolution did not happen? Of
course not. But I guess no one would be offended by that, as it is not a religious
dogma!

The importance of free speech, in such situations, is that it is a necessary part of

free enquiry. Science could not advance if all knowledge was "given" and incapable
of being questioned. A scientist MUST have free speech or all scientific enquiry
would come to a grinding halt.

History is no different. If we want to understand ourselves, then a rigourous

appraisal of historical events is essential. So are we now to jail those who don't
agree with official history? The issue is not whether a "David Irving" is right or wrong,
but whether he has the right to question the historical record.

74
 The Road To Freedom

The issue of free speech covers a lot more ground than just cartoons and historical
research of course. It covers everything.

Take censorship. Censorship is the opposite of free speech. In most western

countries this is limited to restricting what you and I can see on TV, watch at the
movies - and perhaps even buy at the book store. Most people support such
restrictions on free speech - on the grounds that people need protecting from
themselves.

But few people consider the implications of censorship - and its potential to spread
like a cancer throughout society.

Censorship is undertaken by government-appointed bodies - usually made up of

selected individuals (presumably chosen for their impeccable morals and good
character!). It's their job to view all suspect films, books an so on, and to pass
judgement as to whether they are suitable for general consumption.

Now I don't have a problem with a "ratings board" - some sort of organisation that
posts ratings on such things. This can be a useful service to those who want to avoid
certain films or books. So if they say a particular film is recommended for those 18
years old or over, or that it has graphic violence and sex in it, or too many "F" words,
then it can be useful information.

However, a censor's job is different. It is to decide (like God) what can and cannot be
consumed by the public. Interestingly enough, most people never ask the obvious
question, "who decided this person is qualified to watch films that I cannot watch?"
We in the West feel smug in our "free speech zone", when we look at a place like
China where they are always censoring the news. We cry "foul" and feel superior.
But the reality is that censorship is censorship. Whether it's some democratically
elected body deciding what you can and cannot see at the movies, or some
unelected body deciding what you can or cannot read in the newspapers - it's all a
violation of free speech. It's a violation of someone's right to free expression - and
the concurrent right of those who choose to listen to or view such expression.

The fact is that ALL states enforce censorship. And even more so during times of
war - as now, with the "war on terror". War, it appears, grants the state extraordinary
powers to suppress the truth, and worse, to issue false propaganda. So much for
free speech.

So, we in the West are not "squeaky clean" when it comes to the issue of free
speech - which explains why everybody is so confused about what it is, and whether
it's worth defending.

The "currency" of free speech has also been devalued over recent years, with the
gradual erosion of rights in this regard. Now we find that free speech is fine - as long
as you don't use it to offend anyone, like uttering stereotypical opinions about gays,
lesbians, Hispanics, feminists, right or left-wingers, the unemployed, solo mothers,
fat people, macho males, Asians, and other assorted targets. Then, of course,
there's the Orwellian- sounding war on "hate speech" - whatever that is.

So we're left with a sort of emasculated free speech - free speech in name only.
Free speech for wimps.

75
 The Road To Freedom

Which brings me to the point of this essay: do you have the right to utter, draw, write,
record or otherwise make public your own personal opinions? And do you have the
right to have access to such opinions of others?

And my answer is yes. For if this right is curtailed, then it is just the beginning of a
slippery slope to full censorship. Once you accept the principle of "limited" free
speech, then it's only a matter of time before the limits become more and more
onerous, until one day you wake up and the limits are total.

Sure, with free speech you end up with more peeved, offended and disgruntled
people. But that is the price we must be prepared to pay in order to have a free
society.

It's like the friction between freedom and security. If you want total security, then you
are asking for total government (in the misguided belief that the state can actually
offer such security). If you want freedom, then you are placing a higher value on
freedom than security and are prepared to take responsibility for the security side of
the issue.

It's the same with freedom of speech. If you value it, then you won't want to place
limits on it. On the other hand, if you prefer a "safe" social environment, with no
insults, no offensive utterances, and no questioning of the official line - then total
censorship, i.e. total government, is the obvious destination.

And if you don't like that possibility, then free speech must be more than just empty
words. It must be a matter of principle.

76
 The Road To Freedom

The Ultimate Ponzi Scam

The word "Ponzi" is thrown around with abandon these days, yet few people are
likely to be aware of the origin and true meaning of that word - let alone the fact they
are probably unwittingly involved in a giant Ponzi scam right now.

"Ponzi" was the name of a real person - Carlo "Charles" Ponzi, who was born in Italy
in 1882 and emigrated to the USA in 1903.

For 14 years, Charles Ponzi wandered from city to city, and from job to job, but
finally settled in Boston in 1917, where he got a job typing and responding to foreign
mail.

It was in this job he was to discover the mechanism that he believed would make
him and his investors very wealthy. The idea was this: he noted that in some of the
correspondence he received was included an international postal reply coupon -
good for using on the letter of reply.

What Ponzi found was that he could cash this foreign coupon in and obtain local
currency - and apparently make a profit (as compared with the cost of the coupon in
the foreign currency).

For example, he could perhaps buy $100 worth of postal coupons in Italy and cash
them in for $600 in the USA.

Ponzi became very excited by this "discovery", and soon worked out that he could
make more than 400% on funds employed in this manner. However, he didn't take
into account the time delays, exchange fluctuations, and bureaucratic "overhead".
But that didn't stop him devising a scheme to offer his idea as an investment
opportunity to others.

On December 26, 1919, Ponzi filed an application with the local authorities to
establish his business as "The Security Exchange Company" and promised 50%
interest within 90 days to prospective investors.

Well, the flood gates opened and eager investors poured in - with a weekly volume
of over $1 million in the early days. People of every type were getting in on the
opportunity - snatching up promissory notes from $10 to $50,000 in value. The
average investor's stake was $300 - a substantial amount in those days.

By 1920 Ponzi was a very rich man. However, it was not because of his vaunted
"stamp exchange" scheme at all. No, he was simply paying out investors (after the
90 day period) from new funds coming in from NEW investors.

Everybody was happy - as everybody was being paid on time, and this fact lead
more people to climb on to the bandwagon. Even the law, which was aware of what
was going on, couldn't fault him as no one had laid a complaint, and everyone was
being paid on time. That is, until July 26, 1920.

On that fateful day, a Boston newspaper ran a story questioning the legitimacy of the
scheme, and from that day on the writing was on the wall. Ponzi was arrested on

77
 The Road To Freedom

August 13. An estimated 40,000 people had invested $15 million into his scheme - a
huge amount in today's money. And of course, there was no "investment" and no
actual returns on those monies, so the bulk of people's money was gone.

Charles Ponzi got five years in jail for his fraudulent actions, and apparently went on
to "greater" things when released - with a fraudulent land investment deal in Florida!
Thus the Ponzi scheme/scam was invented and perfected.

And it's really simple. Just come up with a plausible investment or business scheme
and promise unheard-of returns - and watch while hopeful investors stream in. Make
sure to pay out your investors on time (at the beginning) so they are "happy
chappies" who tell all their friends and family about their success - and thus ensure a
continuing stream of new investors, and new money.

In this way, normal, apparently rational people can be fleeced of their life savings.
And I guess you can put it down to one fact - the innate greed of most of us. When
big dollars show up on our radar screen, it appears our judgement goes out the
window.

Well, Ponzi scams are alive and well in the world today. In fact, it's almost
impossible to keep up with all the new variations and twists on the old theme.

The basic operational principle is always the same: put up a "legitimate" sounding
project, business idea or investment - offer extraordinary high returns; pay your early
investors on time, and use these people to promote your scheme, usually by way of
referral commissions.

The advent of the internet has provided a virtual honey-pot of opportunity to latter-
day Charles Ponzis. The ability to tap into the power of viral marketing strategies, by
paying out referral commissions; the ability to create professional looking websites
so people are lulled into a false sense of security; the ability to take in and pay out
funds quickly, using some form of internet payment system; and the ability to
constantly tap into a growing market of internet newbies.

Modern day Ponzi scams come in all shapes and sizes. Some are disguised as
legitimate investment opportunities, like forex or day trading - where high returns are
promised. Some are disguised as business opportunities, like the surf-to-earn
phenomena - where you can supposedly earn megabucks by spending five minutes
a day surfing internet sites. Some are disguised as legitimate, but exotic business
ventures. And some are disguised as "bank debenture" programmes.

It doesn't matter how it looks on the outside, the under-the-hood mechanics remain
unchanged - to rake in the cash and pay out the early birds at the expense of the
later-arriving dodo birds.

And the end result is always the same. Tears all round.

However, no matter how much exposure such scams receive, it appears there is no
shortage of new "suckers" to support the latest offering.

78
 The Road To Freedom

In fact, even if you are fully aware of the dangers; even if you've been scammed
before and swore never to do it again; you are probably participating in one huge
Ponzi scam right now - without even knowing it.

I'm talking about the state-sponsored Ponzi known as a social security or pension
scheme.

Obviously, different countries may run these differently, and some may have already
abandoned them. But for most developed nations the state-sponsored
welfare/pension Ponzi scam is alive and well.

Just look at the "business" model. You promise your citizens a living wage upon
retirement - known as a pension or "super". Citizens are told that when they start
work, a small proportion of their earnings will be deducted each week, to contribute
to their future pension or social security needs. This sounds feasible enough - until
you look closer at the funding mechanism.

What the state does is take in the funds, via the tax system, and use those funds to
pay CURRENT pension and social security obligations. In other words, they are
taking in money from today's income earners, in order to pay money to yesterday's
income earners. This money the state takes in is NOT invested on your behalf, but
spent immediately to meet existing financial obligations of those already retired!

It's a classic Ponzi scam. And like all such schemes, it can only grow so much
before collapsing. You see, in order for the pension or social security system to keep
going, it would require ever- greater numbers of 'new' people coming into the
system. More babies and more population growth in other words. But that is not
happening. No, the population growth in the developed nations is either static or in
decline (as in Germany, for example). And this is set to produce the moment of crisis
for such state- sponsored Ponzis.

The new "investors" are drying up - and that will leave the old investors high and dry
when it's their time to draw their income. And the only thing that has kept this state-
sponsored Ponzi scam going as long as it has, is the long "life" of it.

When Charles Ponzi started his scheme, investors were promised a payout in 90
days - so if funds were not forthcoming at that time then alarm bells went off.
However, with the state's version, the lifespan is considerably longer - more like 40-
45 years. In fact, one of the tricks now being employed is to wind forward the official
retiring age, so funds can be withheld (and the day of reckoning held off) for even
longer.

This problem has been noted in some countries, where they are moving to market
orientated solutions - like national super investment plans, where funds are put into
real investments. This is what "privatisation" of pensions and super is all about. It's
about actually investing the money. This is being done in a number of ways.
Sometimes by the state, acting as investment manager - and placing funds on behalf
of its citizens. And sometimes the responsibility for such investment decisions is
being handed over to those individuals who desire to manage their own affairs.

But all this new-found freedom to invest your own money for your own retirement is
a relatively new response to a pressingly urgent problem - the fact that government

79
 The Road To Freedom

funded pension and social security schemes are simply unsustainable in the long
run.

To be sustainable would require an ever-growing population - to build the ever-

growing pyramid - in order to rake in the ever- increasing amount of funds needed.

The simple barefaced fact is this: if you've been handing over your hard-earned
money to your government, in the hope that they will pay you a pension or look after
your health at some time in the future - then you are in for a rude shock. Your money
is long gone. It was spent the moment the government took it off you to pay for other
people's pensions and health care. And by the time you need the same benefits, the
cupboard will be bare.

When "investors" in a private Ponzi scam realise they've become victims, they are
always angry and aggrieved - and usually bay for blood. I wonder how it will be when
the masses wake up to the fact that their own government has scammed them big
time - bigger than Mr Charles Ponzi could ever have dreamed of.
I guess we'll find out one day – soon.

80
 The Road To Freedom

Demon Democracy
Well, it's official. Hamas won the Palestinian election fair and square. Democracy in
action.

And people are not happy! George Bush is not happy, but he's putting a brave face
on it, and trying to work out how to deal with a democratic outcome which he cannot
tolerate. Tony Blair and the Europeans are not happy, and like the US, they are
threatening to withdraw financial aid to the Palestinians, unless Hamas renounces
violence and its stated policy of wanting the destruction of Israel.

It reminds me of when Austria voted in a far-right (neo-nazi?) party some time ago.
The election was fair and valid, but the result was not to other people's liking - so
pressure was put to bear, to remove the ugly democratic sore from the body politic.
Such is the unpredictability of this system we worship called "democracy". But these
sort of results are not new, nor are they pathbreaking. Remember, Hitler's National
Socialist Party rose to power on the basis of first being voted representation via the
democratic process.

You see, there is nothing inherent to the system of democracy itself that will stop it
from turning into a more rabid version - "mobocracy" - rule by the mob.

Of course, democracy is already "rule by the mob" - but we don't like to consider the
implications of that fact.

The much vaunted push for democracy worldwide is a complete crock. Democracy
is simply not worth the effort. It's not a moral system of governance. It's not a
panacea for the world's woes. It's not even a guarantee of economic progress. It is
simply a method of social and political organisation that allows people to vote for
their rulers and the rules themselves.

This may produce reasonable results, where reasonable people are doing the
voting. But what happens when unreasonable people are given such power? How to
you feel about homeless drug addicts voting? Or criminals? Or lazy good-for-
nothings? Or pedophiles? Or drunken layabouts and hooligans?

In my pre-anarchist days I used to be a great supporter of the idea that only certain
people be allowed to vote. For example: people who had proven themselves as self-
responsible and self- supporting. Or people who were NOT feeding at the public
trough in some way - like all government workers, and those employed directly or
indirectly by the state. Or only those NOT on welfare or who don't receive
government handouts of some sort.

In my "perfect" democracy only those who actually paid taxes could have anything to
say about the running of government. And only those who had proven they had the
capacity to think and ponder over the issues of governance could possibly vote.

I actually believed that if one could just improve the quality of the average voter, then
one could improve the quality of those voted in! There is some truth to that of
course, but it doesn't get down to the nitty-gritty of what is actually wrong with

81
 The Road To Freedom

democracy as such. You see, there are no perfect people, and hence there is no
perfect democracy.

By raising democracy to "god" status, as the means to guarantee freedom and

progress around the world, we are in fact releasing a demon genie out of the bottle -
and perhaps the Hamas victory is but one indication of the potential consequences.

Consider the Middle East in general. In most cases these countries are governed by
a corrupt elite. The Palestinians themselves were governed such - by Fatah, whom
they widely regarded as bloated and corrupt. Hamas didn't come to power because
of their suicide bomb policy, but because they have earned the trust of the people as
an uncorrupt organisation.

People all over the Middle East would probably like to replace their corrupt
(Western-supported) leaders and systems, with something more akin to their own
liking - an Islamic state for example. And it is perfectly logical. If the majority of
people are committed Muslims, then it doesn't take much imagination to realise they
would likely vote accordingly.

We've seen the same phenomenon in Iraq, where their nascent democracy is in
reality turning into a Shia government - as a result of the fact that Shia are the
majority.

Advocates of "limited" government also recognise the inherent dangers of

untrammelled democracy, and suggest that unless such democracy is limited in
some way, then it would simply become mobocracy.

The USA was the first country in the world to recognise this, and explicitly created a
state as a republic - a democracy limited by a constitution. The idea of the
constitution was to put a limit on what any elected government could do. The
underlying principle of this constitution was the recognition of individual rights.

What this meant was, the process of voting could only go so far. You could vote for
your congressman. You could vote for a bigger army. You could vote for what public
holidays you wanted. But you couldn't vote to imprison all blacks, kill all native
Indians, or steal 50% of the assets of wealthy individuals!

The whole idea behind such a constitutionally limited government was to prevent
abuses of mob power, to prevent mobocracy.

Well, if you haven't been asleep the last 100 years, you'll know that this idea has
failed. The US Constitution is a toothless tiger, a worthless piece of paper. It has
been shredded and trampled on by countless politicians, political parties - and, of
course, the very people who voted them in.

It's an experiment that failed. Which brings into question the very idea of democracy
- and the idea that it can be limited by such a document. Obviously not. When
politicians (and their voters) get a whiff of the power available to them, then all bets
are off. Who needs or wants limits on democratic power?

If the poor are hungry, let's vote money out of the wealthier people's pockets to feed
them. If the children are uneducated, let's vote other people's money to fix it. If the

82
 The Road To Freedom

people are sick and unhealthy, lets vote the required funds from "somewhere" to
alleviate the situation. If the state is on a military adventure, let's vote them unlimited
funds to wage their wars.

If it was possible to limit the nastier consequences of democracy by means of a

constitution that protected individual rights, then I wouldn't need to be writing
missives like this to remind you of your right to keep the money you earn. I wouldn't
need to remind you that taxation is theft - and that playing "goody-two- shoes" with
other people's money is not the hallmark of a generous person, but of a deranged
mind.

Governments of all western democracies (and their supporters) are on a binge. They
are on a roll. They are drunk with their own power and influence. They are
steamrolling in the fascist state - on the wings of democracy. And guess what. This
is entirely proper. Yes, we have the right to vote in our own fascist state. What is to
stop us? As long as the majority want it, and vote for it, who is to criticise us? We
have democracy on our side - just like Hamas does!

If we want, we can vote the grass from under your feet. We can vote to imprison you
without trial. We can vote for a secret police to clean up society and arrest your
neighbour if you don't like him. We can vote to eliminate all the people you consider
undesirable. And we can vote ourselves into prosperity!

Bollocks of course, but this is the popular wisdom. This is the great moral crusade
our leaders have embarked on - to bring democracy to the world. God bless them!
Is there an alternative? Well, I hope so, or we're all doomed. From a pragmatic point
of view, I much prefer the idea of running a country like a business - with a CEO and
Board of Directors.

We, the citizens, would be like shareholders, and could vote in the Annual General
Meeting. Of course, running the country is not something we could vote on directly,
as our rights as shareholders would be limited to putting people on and off the
Board. And of course, the CEO would be answerable to the Board of Directors, who
in turn would not be able to do anything to reduce the value of the shareholders
stake in the "business".

A corporate structure has many advantages - one of them being the clarity of
purpose, which is to maximise the value of the company's shares, so as to benefit
each and every shareholder.

All shareholders are ideally created equal, so when the company's fortunes rise or
fall, each shareholder is directly involved in the result, good or bad. A company
cannot demand I hand over shares in order to give more to "needy" shareholders. It
cannot force me to give up my shares in favour of some altruistic enterprise. No, the
business of business is to make profit - for all those involved.

The nearest examples of such a style of governance is in the way countries such as
Singapore or Dubai are run - as "city states", with a sort of benign ruler at the helm.
They are more like neo-monarchies than anything else, but such an arrangement
can be a lot more successful than the democratic alternative. And if this model was
"converted" to a full business model, then it could point to an interesting future.

83
 The Road To Freedom

Under a businesslike city state arrangement, one could change states as easily as
selling up your shares in one, in order to purchase shares in another. Citizenship
would then be as simple as selling or buying it. And under such conditions, states
would compete for citizens, by being good and competent managers of each
shareholder's financial interest.

If you didn't like the "rules" in one state, then you'd simply shop around for a state
you did like - and purchase your shareholding accordingly.

The essence of such a social/political arrangement would be the element of

voluntarism that existed. You would not be forced to support a corrupt regime, or
one which had a different business philosophy to your own. You would not be forced
to "belong" to any state if you disliked their rules and policies. No, you would be free
to "secede", free to take yourself (and your money) to where you could gain the
greatest personal advantage.

Democracy is a idea whose time has gone. And "limited" government is an idea that
has proven incapable of restraining democracy from becoming plain old mobocracy.
It's time to search for an alternative.

84
 The Road To Freedom

The Power of The Lie

Remember the movie "Groundhog Day"? It was the story of a man (Bill Murray) who
was forced to continuously relive the worst day of his life, until he learned to become
a better person.

As we launch into 2006, it already has the feeling of deja vu, of a groundhog day in
the making.

I recall my intense scepticism when pressure was being put on Iraq, in the first
stages of that relentless momentum to a pre-planned goal – war.

I also recall joining tens of thousands of people in a street protest against the
impending war. That was a first for me - as I'm not a "protest" sort of person. But I
was so angry that I took the only option available to me to voice such anger. Not that
it did any good of course!

Now we know that all that hoopla was a fabrication, that there were no WMD in Iraq,
and no impending attack from that country. Doesn't matter, Saddam was a bad man,
and the world is better off with one less bad man - so the revised story goes.

You'd think that experience would cause our leaders to tread more carefully in future
- to at least learn from past mistakes. But this appears not to be the case.

Right now, a new campaign is under way - the first steps in another relentless drive
to full military confrontation with that other Middle East country, Iran.

As with Iraq, the military option is being played down, and our leaders claim to be
seeking a "diplomatic" solution. Listen not to words however, but observe actions.
You can witness this momentum building each passing day, as the phrase, "Iran is
seeking to build a nuclear weapon" passes into the common consciousness.

It's not even necessary to state it as a fact (as the American administration does). All
that's required is to massage these words in different ways, and present them with
various shades of meaning - like how Iran is "suspected" of building a nuclear
weapon, or how Iran has the "potential" to build such a weapon in the near future. Or
even simply, the US administration "believes" Iran has a secret plan to build a
nuclear weapon.

Each headline, each newspaper editorial, and each political utterance has the
mesmerising effect of slowly, but surely, imprinting in the public's mind the belief that
this surely must be the case - that Iran is either planning to build, or has built, a
nuclear weapon.

For its part, Iran states that it is not building or thinking of building a nuclear weapon
- and is prepared to allow full IAEA inspections to prove its point. It also stands firm
and asserts its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means - i.e.
electricity generation - a right it is granted as a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty).

85
 The Road To Freedom

But all of this counts for nought in the face of a persistent, relentless lie. It seems as
if the human psyche is programmed to believe a repeated lie - when uttered by
authority figures. It's a form of crude brainwashing, which politicians learn to use
early on in their careers.

Think back to Saddam Hussein again - when he was accused of harbouring WMD.
Our leaders asserted he did have them. He asserted he did not. Who was telling the
truth then?

The best way to get a handle on this whole issue is to make an attempt to stand in
another's shoes - Iran's shoes in this case. Just imagine yourself as an Iranian and
consider your options.

You live in a hostile environment. Your foes, Israel and the USA, are armed to the
teeth and Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It regularly threatens to attack you,
and in fact has attacked Iraq, on similar grounds, in the past.

You ponder on the inconsistencies of this world - a world where other nations are
allowed to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons. A world where other
countries regularly use force to achieve their objectives. And a world where such
countries assume the right to tell your country what it can and cannot do.

You are outraged. You believe that if it's good enough for other countries to develop
their nuclear technology, to meet their energy needs, then it's good enough for Iran
to do likewise. If pressed, you may even assert that even though your country has
no intention of building nukes - you have the right to do so for self-defence,
especially when facing aggressive, nuclear-armed foes.

From your viewpoint, the growing world opinion against your country is a form of
mass hypocrisy. Who decided that certain nations can browbeat and bully others
into submission - to conform to standards which they themselves do not observe?
Who decided who should or should not be able to develop nuclear power, or even a
nuclear deterrent? Are you not a member of a sovereign nation - a country with
certain rights, just like other countries?

You look at America and you cannot understand it. While it builds its case against
your country, it continues to support other nations which already have nuclear
weapons, which are not signatories to the NPT, and which are often not even
democracies. You revert to your religion to explain all this - and perhaps you're right.
Perhaps the west really IS at war with Islam!

Right now we've reached phase one of the strategy to militarily confront Iran - with
the threat of sanctions and of it being referred to the United Nations Security
Council.

All this happened to Iraq as well. We've been there, done that.

In this case, the US and its EU allies face some opposition - most likely from China
and possibly Russia. China has an ongoing and friendly relationship with Iran - not to
mention important economic and energy-related business dealings. China has the
power to veto any UN Security Council resolution - and is now the focus of intense

86
 The Road To Freedom

diplomatic pressure from the USA, in an attempt to bring them on board with the
growing "consensus".

We will hear a lot about this "consensus" in coming weeks and months.

The next stage will likely involve the "uncovering" of new intelligence, which will
"prove" that Iran is indeed operating a secret nuclear weapons programme. This will
sway any doubters and lingering dissidents - and pull world opinion into line. The
clincher may come with information obtained from certain Iranians themselves -
perhaps defectors from the regime. Shades of Iraq all over again.

The major media - Fox News, BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post and TV
and newsprint media in general, will parrot the official line, and confirm our worst
fears - that Iran really does have the capacity to threaten us, and is very likely to
attack us in the future.

We will be told this situation is NOT like Iraq, that it is a different ball game. And
most will believe it.

The only medium to offer any counter to the official line will, of course, be the
internet - that damn, uncontrollable cyberspace! But when it comes to impact, the
internet is still not capable of truly shaping world opinion. Yes, it's a haven for
dissidents and independent thinkers - but they are still the minority, and a "fly in the
ointment" as far as the campaign for total global information control is concerned.

You and I will have no means of verifying this type of military intelligence of course,
and will be faced with the choice of either accepting or rejecting it. But I know one
thing, most people will accept it as true - simply because it is asserted by their rulers.
It will be believed because it is stated by those in power - those who MUST be
believed. God knows why, but that's the way it is.

Each stage of this strategy will move the western powers ever closer to the final goal
- that of attacking Iran. Any attack will likely not be the same as the war waged on
Iraq, as that has been a disaster. Besides, the USA simply does not have the
manpower to wage that type of ground war all over again. No, what is more likely is
an attack on strategic and/or nuclear sites - a targeted aerial bombardment to
"neutralise" Iran's nascent nuclear industry.

The world will cheer. Another potential threat to world peace will have been taken
out. Another victory in the war on terror!

Or ... it could be a fatal conceit. It could trigger a war between Israel and Iran. It
could be the beginning of a general Middle East conflagration. It could cause Iran to
"trigger" its support base in Iraq, and lead to a general uprising against US forces in
that region.

It could lead to the world's first nuclear war. It could be the Armageddon that so may
fundamentalist Christians believe is the essential precursor to a better world. And it
could also be the catalyst that sends the global economy into a tailspin - and impacts
on the entire world.

Take your pick.

87
 The Road To Freedom

But for the serious freedom seeker, war is an anathema. War is never a cause for
celebration. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state". War always
benefits the state and its apparatus of control. Every war has strengthened the
state's hand in public affairs and private life. And an ever-more powerful state is
NEVER in the interest of the freedom seeker.

So, in 2006, keep your wits about you. Keep your eyes open. Don't believe every
word you read or are told. Seek alternative sources of information to at least provide
a "second opinion". And most of all, remember that politicians DO lie. They've been
caught out time and time again. Lying is the name of their game. There is simply no
reason to have faith in them - and even less reason to follow them blindly into the
abyss.

The only possible cause for long range optimism in all this, is that making the same
mistake over and over again, and reliving (as in Groundhog Day) the "worst" day in
our collective lives - in mayhem and war - could lead us to seek a "better" form of
social order in the future. It could lead to a significant number of the world's people
rejecting the warfare state as the optimum organisational model for a modern,
progressive, free and peaceful world. I live in hope.

88
 The Road To Freedom

The Totalitarian Impulse

What's the difference between: A drug addict and an alcoholic? A drug dealer and a
liquor merchant? An international drug ring and an international alcoholic drink
distributor?

Nothing.

The only difference is in legality - not in principle. In our culture drugs are a "no-no",
although it wasn't always so. While in other cultures alcohol is a "no-no". So take
your pick.

The fact is, alcohol is responsible for far more deaths and ruined lives than drugs.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good policy!

Last week, a 25 year old Australian - Nguyen Tuong Van - was hanged by the
Singapore government for attempting to carry nearly 400 gms (14 ozs) of heroin
through Changi Airport. Apparently, he was taking this considerable risk in an
attempt to pay off his twin brother's drug-related debts. The state of Singapore
imposes a mandatory death sentence for such "crimes".

Many Australians were up in arms. "How dare the Singaporean government hang an
Australian citizen!" The debate focussed on the "barbarity" of hanging and capital
punishment in general.

More than half of Australians agreed that what Van Nguyen did was bad, evil even,
but that he didn't deserve the death penalty.

Let's take off the moralistic glasses and look at what was really happening here. Van
Nguyen made a decision to trade in drugs, for the purpose of making a profit by
selling it to drug-users in Australia. He was undertaking a business deal. He was the
intermediary between the drug supplier and the drug buyer. He also knew what he
was doing was illegal and carried great risk to himself - particularly if caught in
Singapore.

This proposed transaction was based on the existence of willing sellers and willing
buyers. And just as most people believe that what goes on between two consenting
adults in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else's business, so this
transaction was between consenting adults and was no one else's business.
But the state, and many people within such states, think otherwise.

The issue of whether taking drugs should be illegal or not is quickly sorted out by
reference to one question. Who owns your body?

Do you believe you should decide what to put into your body, or would you prefer
OTHERS to decide that for you?

Would you like the state to interfere in your choice of food? Would you like the state
to make alcohol illegal (like it has done before)? Would you like the state to
determine what vitamins you can take? And don't laugh, it may not be that long
before you are forbidden to eat a Big Mac!

89
 The Road To Freedom

What is at issue here is not WHAT you put into your body - but whether you have the
RIGHT to determine such things. And the even more fundamental question is this:
do you have the right to ingest provably harmful substances?

If you answered "yes" - advance to GO. And if you answered "no" - go to "jail".
No one is disputing the harm that can be done by drugs like heroin. No one is
disputing the harm that can be done by alcohol. The issue is NOT whether such
substances are harmful, but whether you, as an individual, have the right to take
them if you so wish.

For the sovereign individual the answer is a resounding "yes". You are the owner of
your life. Your neighbour is the owner of his or her life. If other people want to
jeopardise their own lives by taking harmful substances, then that is their business,
not yours. However, this does not give the drug taker the right to jeopardise OTHER
people's lives. If a drug user steals to maintain his habit, then obviously he has
committed a crime against another, and must be dealt with appropriately.

What muddies the waters of this moral debate is the existence of the welfare state.
In the modern, democratic welfare state, each citizen is fleeced of a good part of his
income, in order to facilitate income transfers to the needy and less fortunate.

These "less fortunate" include people who abuse their bodies by sniffing glue,
smoking dope, swigging meths, popping pills, snorting cocaine - and injecting heroin,
not to mention those who get "loaded" with alcohol.

When these 'unfortunates' do this, they impose their state of health on the rest of
society. Instead of taking responsibility for their own actions, they expect to be taken
care of by those others in society who are NOT ruining their lives in this way. And as
a result, a great resentment builds up - against those who abuse their bodies and fill
the public hospitals - on the part of the state-abused taxpayers.

And fair enough! Why should you or I be forced to pay for the treatment of a drug
addict - or an alcoholic for that matter? Why should you fork out your hard-earned
money to assist others who willingly ruin their own lives?

The welfare state makes it inevitable that everybody becomes concerned with
everybody else's business. After all, if you're a health nut, never drink alcohol, never
eat greasy food, never take drugs etc. why on earth should you be subsidising those
who do?

And that, dear reader, is the crux of the problem.

The welfare state turns us all into busybody brother's keepers. This impulse to
interfere in the lives of others is then translated to the ballot box - leading to the
election of governments who propose more and more draconian legislation in the
attempt to impose standards of "public health".

A high profile drugs case like Van Nguyen's highlights the moral minefield that
surrounds the drug culture. Just as in the old days of alcohol prohibition (Al Capone
and all that), the 'war on drugs' pushes the entire drug industry underground. Once a
product or service becomes illegal, then the criminal class moves in to do business.
Big profits are made from illicit goods and services!

90
 The Road To Freedom

Politicians are the masters of the detail, without ever looking at the big picture. The
drug trade exists because a significant number of people want to buy drugs. Most
politicians think the remedy is to catch, imprison and even kill the drug dealers. This
is similar to suggesting that to stop people from eating Big Macs we should round up
all McDonald's executives and put them away.

The business of drugs exists because of the MARKET for drugs. If politicians were
really serious about destroying this market, then they would be more successful if
they were to imprison or kill all drug USERS!

But I digress. Politicians are not known for clear thinking!

Besides, it's unfair to totally blame politicians. As the well known saying goes, "we
get the government we deserve". In other words, government (our democratic form
of government) is the result of what the majority of people want. Government reflects
the values of the majority of people. So a government that spends its time chasing,
imprisoning and killing drug dealers is doing so, precisely because that's the mindset
of the average voter.

They say "charity begins at home". Well, so does the impulse to totalitarianism. The
seed which grows into into full blown dictatorship has small and modest beginnings -
in the thought processes of your average Joe Blow.

The impulse to tell other people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies, is
the very same impulse that leads to the belief that one knows what is best for others.
I call this the "busybody syndrome". It's the impulse to "do good". Do-gooders are
forever justifying their desire to impose their will on others - for their own good of
course. In other words, they embrace the mantle of moral righteousness. Your
typical politician is the logical outgrowth of this type of mentality - someone who has
reached the pinnacle of do-goodness. He has the capacity to really make a
difference, with the help of YOUR tax dollars of course!

When we allow someone like Van Nguyen to be killed by the state, for the act of
attempting to provide willing consumers with something he got from willing sellers - it
confronts and confounds our moral compass. But the real moral issue is NOT
whether he should have been executed - or had his sentence commuted to life in jail
- no, the issue is whether or not he should have been punished at all.

To put it into perspective (for us westerners), imagine a situation where an Arabic

country, where alcohol is illegal, arrests a man for importing a container of vodka -
and executes him. We may not be able to do anything about it, because it's their law,
but that doesn't absolve us from considering the moral issue involved.

The drugs issue is like the free speech issue. The true test of one's commitment to
free speech is the degree to which you'll allow someone to literally say anything - no
matter how much you disagree with it. Like Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The issue here is the principle. One's defence of free speech is tested by one's
willingness to defend the rights of someone whose views you may find morally
repugnant. In the same way, the principle of self-ownership demands that a person
be allowed to ingest whatever he likes, provided he accepts responsibility for the

91
 The Road To Freedom

consequences. And the test of one's commitment to that principle is one's

willingness to defend another's right to ingest whatever they like, even when you find
that action reprehensible.

The fact that someone wants to take heroin is no different in principle, from someone
wanting to eat Big Macs three times a day. Both can be shown to be bad for you. But
that's not the point. The issue is whether you have the right to eat/ingest whatever
you so choose.

Next time you hear someone (or even yourself) demanding that so and so should
NOT be allowed to say that, or ingest this, realise this very attitude is the root of, and
the impulse to, what we term 'totalitarianism' - the suppression of the individual in
favour of the collective (the state).

The totalitarian state is nothing more than the collective manifestation of the
individual mindset - the sum total of a lot of individual 'totalitarian' minds and
attitudes. Such a state cannot exist where respect for true individual freedom is the
predominant philosophy.

Freedom is not achieved by mass rallies, protests or voting. No, freedom is achieved
one step at a time, one person at a time, one thought at a time - when you put the
morality of freedom at work in your own life and thinking.

To eliminate totalitarianism, in all its forms, it is first necessary to eliminate the

thinking that gives rise to it - the impulse to want to run other people's lives.

92
 The Road To Freedom

Gold and Freedom

I've known for a long time that there are two levers of power that governments never
consider giving up. And yet it is essential that these power levers are removed from
the state's control - if we are ever to have a truly FREE society.

Power Lever #1 is EDUCATION. Education is "state" education. It is compulsory. It

teaches what the state mandates (whether delivered by public or 'private' schools). It
is a means of ensuring all citizens grow up with the right mindset - i.e. predisposed
towards the very idea of big government, social welfare, taxation, war. In other
words the 'Big Brother' mindset.

Power Lever #2 is MONEY. The state issues the money. This is called fiat money -
money with no inherent value other than the fact the state declares it legal for all
debts and financial obligations. The state then enforces a monopoly on the issue of
this fiat money - ensuring it can manipulate it to its advantage.

I could wax lyrical about what I think should happen to state education, and that's a
subject for another essay. However, today I want to talk about government fiat
money, and how it is a tool of enslavement. And I want to talk about one possible
way out of this slavery.

First I should define the term "fiat". From dictionary.com comes the following
definition:

• An arbitrary order or decree

• Authorisation or sanction: government fiat

So, fiat money is money that is DECLARED to be money by the arbitrary order or
decree of government.

Government fiat money is the end result of an evolution of money as we know it.
And it can be summarised briefly as follows:

Historically, various commodities have functioned as money - that is, as a means of

exchange. Some of these commodities have included unique items of special value
to certain cultures and conditions, like salt or tobacco. However, historically, only two
commodities stand out as having passed the test of time - gold and silver. The
reason is quite simple. Both of these metals have intrinsic value and cannot be
counterfeited or manufactured at will.

So throughout history both gold and silver have functioned as money.

As commerce became more sophisticated, various means of dealing with gold came
into being. One such way was to pass on gold receipts as negotiable financial
instruments.

The process was simple. You stored your gold with a goldsmith, who issued you with
a receipt for the same. Now you could pass on that receipt to another - and pass on
the claim to your gold

93
 The Road To Freedom

In this way gold became the backing for such receipts - allowing for the easy
carrying and transferring of value - i.e. the value of gold as determined by the
receipts.

Of course, gold coins were also common - like the cash of today.
This process of privately issuing gold receipts became the basis for what is known
today as 'banking'. A bank became a repository for gold and issued bank notes
which were redeemable in gold.

In the "good old days" a bank note was a promise to pay - a promise to pay a certain
amount of gold (or silver) on demand.

Today we still have bank notes - but they are mostly issued by the state (not by
private banks), and they have no redeemable value, other than in exchange for
another, similar, bank note.

The link between gold and bank notes was broken with the abolition of the gold
standard. The USA abolished it in 1933 and Great Britain abolished it in 1931.
The paper money we have today is a ghost of its former self. If you walk into a bank
today and ask to exchange it for something other than another note, I'm sure you'll
get a very strange look!

I have four different national fiat currency notes in my hand right now. One is a five
pound note from the Bank of England and it says, "I promise to pay the bearer on
demand the sum of five pounds". Another is a note for 20 Hong Kong dollars - which
carries virtually the same phrase. I also have US and Australian dollars which don't
even "promise to pay" anything, but carry the term "this note is legal tender .... etc.".

So, there you have it. The value of the notes you use every day is arbitrarily
determined by the state, and by its capacity to disallow any monetary competition.
It is this monopoly on the issuance of what we use as money, and the state's ability
to determine the value of it, which is at the heart of the state's power.

With this power, the state can literally manipulate the money supply for its own ends.
It can "cook the books" in a way that a private company could never do. It can use
this power to ensure it stays in power. And it can even steal the money you have
saved, after it has already stolen the money you've earned (tax), by inflating the
currency - i.e. by lowering its value over time.

It does this by creating money out of literally nothing, then using this money to bribe
segments of the population - to buy their votes - by various welfare and money
redistribution schemes.

How to break this monopoly?

Frederic Hayek, the great Austrian School economist, posited the idea of competing
currencies. What he meant was that if each nation allowed for the free use and
exchange of currencies from different nations within its own national borders - then
this would act as a disincentive to debase currencies via inflation.

On a day-to-day basis this would mean you could go shopping and use the currency
of your choice - USD, EUR, HKD, AUD, RMB etc. It may be a bit of a headache for

94
 The Road To Freedom

your local shopkeeper - as he or she would have to deal with such multiple
currencies at the cash register. But it's not impossible, and many duty free stores
around the world already deal in at least the main globally accepted fiat currencies.
All that would be needed is a smart cash register that can handle multiple
currencies.

There is obviously some merit in this idea - as it would at least give notice to states
who inflate their currencies with abandon.

In a free market of nationally-issued fiat currencies, as suggested, such inflating

currencies would be marked down or discounted, on the grounds they were losing
value. Some notes would rise in the customer's estimation, and others would fall.

This scenario would eliminate the "monopoly" nature of currency as it stands now.
However, it would not address the nature of fiat money as such. It would not deal
with the issue of value, and how it is determined.

There have been many suggestions as to how one could move forward to a free
market money system - one where the government has no control over the money in
circulation. Some of these are very interesting, and some have a look of quackery
about them. But there is one way of achieving this which would be based on
historical experience, on a proven track record. And that is a return to the use of gold
in some form or another.

Gold is not created by the government. Gold is not inflated by the government. Gold
has intrinsic value. Government fiat money has none.

And gold has stood the test of time as a trusted medium of exchange. What's more,
the modern digital age has created the means to deal in gold, without actually having
to cart it around in your pocket.

Since the arrival of the internet, there has been a surge of interest in gold as a
medium of exchange - as money. Services like E-Gold, E-Bullion, GoldMoney and
others, provide a means to both store and transact in gold in an everyday basis.
You can store gold and you can use an online interface to transfer gold to others -
similar to online banking. The difference is you are literally owning gold, something
of intrinsic value.

You can also own gold by holding a receipt for it - giving you ownership of real gold,
without having to physically store it.

And of course you can own gold by purchasing bullion - either in bars or coins.
Naturally, gold is valued by comparison to various fiat currencies, primarily the US
Dollar - and as such its value fluctuates day to day. Of recent times this fluctuation
has been mostly up, as gold continues to increase in value, in comparison to the
world's fiat currencies. This is another way of saying that fiat currencies are less
trusted than gold.

Gold is also the financial haven of last resort. When the financial world starts to
shake and jitter, people rush to gold. Why? Because they know that should paper
currency plummet in value - even to zero - gold will hold its value.

95
 The Road To Freedom

But gold is more than a means of storing value. It's a way of removing the control the
state has over money. Gold is an instrument of the free market. You can buy and
sell gold freely. You can increasingly choose to conduct a wide range of financial
transactions using gold. And you can increase your financial privacy by using in it.

One of the downsides of using any nation's fiat money is that each nation claim the
right to determine how it is used, and enforces this via a myriad of regulations - like
"know your customer", the "Patriot Act" and others - all designed to strip you of your
financial privacy. Using gold allows you to step outside this control system to a large
extent.

There are a number of savvy financial experts and investment newsletter writers
who are pushing the case for gold - as a means of protecting yourself from a
potential future economic meltdown. People such as Bill Bonner and Doug Casey
come to mind. But there are many more. The common theme amongst these
financial commentators is that fiat money is headed down - and gold is headed up.

However, the true benefit of gold is the freedom it grants. Gold is a form of money
which is out of state control. The state cannot inflate the gold supply. It cannot make
more gold. It cannot determine the value of gold. In this way gold is a true free
market financial instrument - and as such is a present and existing means of
increasing both your personal and financial freedom.

Yes, perhaps there are better and more innovative ways to achieve freedom from
the state's control of the money system, but gold is here and now!

96
 The Road To Freedom

The 'War on Terror' Scam

The greatest threat to our freedom today is not terrorism, but what governments are
doing to counter this perceived terrorist threat.

Let me say that again. Terrorism is not the real danger we face, it's what
governments around the world are doing to make us "safe".
It's a scam because it is based on two lies.

Lie #1: You are seriously at risk of being killed by a terrorist.

Now, while this is remotely possible, it's highly unlikely. Based on global statistics
and what country you live in, you are much more likely to die of AIDS, malaria, while
driving your car, by being murdered, by a tsunami or an earthquake, or by other
natural and man-made causes.

The point is this. You are going to die anyway - so your primary objective is to delay
this biological eventuality to the best of your ability.

Most of us accept natural death - as normal. On the other hand, we don't want to die
early, by accident, of a fatal disease, or by having our lives snuffed out by someone
else - or something else.

But we can't lock ourselves in a bunker and hide from the rest of the world. We
cannot let the fear of some premature death stop us from living now. So it comes
down to assessing risk and acting accordingly.

Governments have a vested interest in overstating the risk of you dying by a terrorist
act. They have a vested interest in creating a state of fear in your mind.

Any "self-respecting" politician will consider it his duty to protect you from this danger
- and to do whatever is necessary to do this - including abolishing your personal
freedoms.

The state thrives on fear. If it's global warming, then the state has "plans" - which
usually involve infringing on your freedoms. If it's a global pandemic, then once
again your government has plans in place which would rob you of at least some of
your freedoms. But it's all done to protect you of course!

The number of people killed by terrorist acts is infinitesimal compared to the number
of people killed in other ways. So why are we afraid of terrorists so much?

One reason, of course, is that your government is always harping on about it -

raising the terror alert colour level, or issuing warnings about impending, though
vague, threats of one kind or another.

But let's face it. The question you need to be asking yourself is this: "What exactly
are the odds of my dying at the hands of a terrorist?" Life is not risk-free. You have
to live your life in the face of constant risks. Your job is to assess these on a scale of
probability, and act accordingly.

97
 The Road To Freedom

You know that driving a car carries certain risks. But even then, you still drive your
car. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the statistical risks.

On the other hand, if everyone who drove a car was to die in an accident within one
year - I guarantee you'd be walking from now on!

As I write this, I'm spending a few weeks in Australia. The government here has just
rushed through new "improved" anti- terror legislation. The effect of this is to reduce
everyone's freedom - freedom of action, freedom of speech, freedom to not be
wrongfully arrested and incarcerated. All this in the name of "protecting freedom".
It's such a barefaced attack on individual freedom that even some judges are
speaking out against it.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, stands up with a straight face and says this
is necessary to protect Australians - and that the first duty of any government is to
protect its citizens.

He didn't mention how the presence of Australian troops in Iraq, or of his country's
willing, unthinking acceptance of that immoral war, is in fact putting Australians in
danger. No, don't you know, terrorism has nothing to do with the war in Iraq!
Lie #2: The government can protect you from terrorists.

This is a downright lie. The UK government could not protect its citizens from the
London train bombings. The Indonesian government could not prevent the Bali
bombings. And, dare I say it, the US government was unable to prevent 9/11.

Sheesh! The government cannot even protect you from burglars and muggers!
The fact is, the very nature of terrorism - whether by the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or any future new group - is to use non-standard
methods of "warfare".

Terrorists do not announce their intentions. They do not marshal their forces en
masse and do battle in open fields. They do not wear uniforms. They have no ships
or tanks - or even buildings. They do not have a geographic location, or even a
national identity.

If someone wants to blow themselves up outside your house, who is going to stop
them? The Americans, with all their thousands of troops in Iraq, cannot even stop
the terrorism there, so what chance does your local policeman have of stopping a
terrorist act in your neighbourhood? Next to zero.

The government cannot protect you from terrorists. But this is precisely their
justification for all the anti-freedom laws being passed - to ostensibly "protect" you.
Just as in Orwell's "1984", words are being used to distort the truth. The 'war on
terror' is in fact the 'war on freedom'.

I repeat: the war on terror IS the war on freedom. But it's worse than that.
Governments are not only incapable of protecting us from terrorists, they are the
very CAUSE of terrorism in the first place.

Just think of all the historical examples of terrorism. In every case it was some
group, fighting some government. Sure, they target civilians, but their real enemy is

98
 The Road To Freedom

some government. And why is this? Because they claim to have been wronged by
some some government. They have a grievance against some government. They
want to secede from some government.

Terrorists do not have a grievance against Microsoft, General Motors or KFC. They
do not have a grievance against your local supermarket. They do not have a
grievance against YOU or your family. They have a grievance against your
government.

The IRA had a grievance against the British government. They wanted the British
out of Ireland. So they waged a terror "war" for ages until it became apparent they
could not win by military means - so the two parties sat down to talk.

People in the Middle East have a grievance against some governments in the west,
not because they "hate our freedoms", but because they hate our governments
interfering in their affairs.

If they are in our back yard threatening us, it's precisely because our governments
have been in their back yard for ages.

Of course, not ALL the west is a target for terrorists, only those countries that have
been actively intruding on the Middle East. That's why countries like Norway or
Switzerland are not reporting any terrorist attacks. The reason is simple. The
terrorists do not have a grievance against those governments.

Political leaders like Bush, Blair and Howard have one thing in common. They are all
convinced that we can win a war against terrorism - by military means. Well, it isn't
going to happen. They are not even winning in Iraq, a third rate theatre of war if
there ever was one. So what chance do they have against a global terrorist network?

Just think about it, these mighty governments and their military forces are bogged
down in Iraq by a virtual handful of terrorists - or insurgents, as they see themselves.
If we cannot protect Iraqis from such violence, why on earth should we believe their
ravings when they say they can protect us?

They can't. End of story. Which means that all the draconian anti-terror legislation
can only have one actual result - the destruction of the very freedoms we say we
believe in and are "defending".

I don't know about you, but I think it hugely ironic that our "fight" against the forces
that "hate us because of our freedoms" means we must lose those very freedoms in
the process of defending them. Who will have won this war then?

No, the "war on terror" is a scam. It's a sham. It's a hoax. It's a clever ruse to use
fear of the unknown to drive a totalitarian agenda through the legislative chambers of
so-called democracies in the so-called free world. It's a pact with the devil.
Freedom cannot be compromised. There is no "new reality" that has to be
accounted for with "new" laws. There is no new situation which warrants the
destruction of freedom. There is no justification for even the removal of ONE basic
freedom in the quest for "security".

Don't be fooled. Stand up for your rights. Oppose the war on freedom.

99
 The Road To Freedom

The Rise and Rise of China

In my last editorial, Living in a Topsy Turvy World, I wrote about my experience in
Lijiang, a beautiful, historic old town in south-west China.

In November 2004, I wrote of my first experience of China, in Beijing and Chongqing

- in A Most Unlikely Freedom Haven.

In fact, my current three month sojourn in China is my fifth trip to this country since
May 2004. And I have to say it has opened my eyes in many surprising ways. It has
also caused me to reappraise many assumptions I had about the place, and to
ponder the likely future of this huge country - and its impact on the rest of the world.

I'm back in Chongqing now, with three more weeks to go before departing, and have
had a chance to reflect on what I've experienced and to try to make sense of it all.
Yesterday I visited an historic building, turned into a museum, which records the
large immigrations of various ethnic groups into Chongqing. But it was the drive
there, in the taxi, that got me thinking.

We were driving from Nan Ping, over the Yangzte River, to the city centre - and
doing 90 km/hour, which is quite common in this city without traffic cops and
published speed limits.

When I first visited this city in September 2004, I was very afraid of the taxis. It
seemed that stepping into one was to enter a lawless zone, where anything goes,
and where your life could end at any moment. You have to drive in this place to
really know what I'm talking about.

There are lanes on the roads, but nobody observes them. Cars weave in and out of
these phantom lines in a constant effort to gain some advantage - at quite hair-
raising speeds, and with the constant use of the car horn.

There is a dearth of traffic lights, so most intersections are negotiated simply by

wriggling your way through - with no apparent road rules as guidance.

Pedestrians freely mingle with the traffic, so the Chinese have never heard the term
"jaywalking"! And "zebra" crossings appear to have no meaning in real life - as
venturing out on to one in no way ensure cars will stop for you. However, the traffic
is most forgiving of people, tolerating them in ways inconceivable in most western
cities.

Night time is another matter. All the vehicles have headlights, but perhaps only 70%
actually use them - including buses. And you have to watch out for those damned
covered motor-rickshaws, which seem to exist in a safety standards time warp -
judging by the physical state of most of them.

Then there's the buses! I tried to avoid them where possible - as they are terribly
overcrowded, not to mention the distinct lack of leg room between the seats.
Besides, with taxis being so cheap, buses seemed so plebeian.

100
 The Road To Freedom

Yes, the driving is chaotic - but so is the parking. I've never seen such creative
parking in my life. People parked right on the corner of intersections. Cars parked on
the bends in roads. Cars parked in all the areas westerners would assume were "no
parking" zones. And not one parking meter in sight! Western local city bureaucrats
would have a field day here, trying to get order into, and revenue out of, the place.

However, with all this apparent disorganisation on the roads, don't get the
impression it is really so. No, not at all, as I have learnt. The initial impression of
chaos turns out to be a form of order in its own way. And what I've found, now that
I've been here a few times, is that although there are no apparent speed limits, rules
of "engagement" and so on, the traffic still works - and surprisingly, I didn't see one
traffic accident, nor any "dings" in the many new cars populating the roads.
But back to my visit to the immigration museum.

I wasn't able to read much of the text, being as it was mostly in Chinese. However,
there were plenty of photos and illustrations, not to mention tools and artefacts of
trade and every day living on display. There were also full-sized recreations of town
life giving examples of the existing social order at the time.

What became immediately apparent was the long history the Chinese have had of
trading and doing business. It's in their blood. And I realised that the "blip" of
communism, starting with the revolution of 1949, was but an aberration on an
otherwise highly organised and productive society.

Communism was bound to fail of course, but its demise was given a "boost" in the
late 70s, by Deng Xiaoping, who was the first leader of the post-Mao period. He
basically reversed the collectivist nature of enterprise in China, and ushered in the
practical free market. The "new" Communism.

China hasn't looked back since.

The "market" is everywhere. Whether you're talking about the hundreds of

shoeshine vendors and home-made food sellers, or the house-front mini-shops,
workshops and hairdressing salons, or the bustling shops and department stores -
everyone, it seems, is in business of some sort. And if you're not in business, then
you're out peddling your labour on the streets - if you don't have a job.

Labour-for-hire is everywhere. Groups of men sit around with their mini-tool kits
around their waists, or in in a bag, waiting for someone to hire them. Folk from the
country walk around with long poles, which are used for carrying stuff - on demand.

The city skyline is riddled with construction cranes - and work goes on 24 hours a
day. I've never seen so many apartments being built at one time. Most the workers
appear to be migrants from the country - and are no doubt working for minimum
wages.

A typical manual worker here earns around 400-600 yuan each month - or around
US$50-$75. Not exactly a king's ransom. But in this non-welfare state, you either
work or starve. It's as simple as that.

The contrasts are amazing. One minute you can be walking around a first-world
department store, with literally everything you can get in the west. Then you can be

101
 The Road To Freedom

walking around the market, where chickens are slaughtered on demand, and where
strange body parts are bought for their "health" properties.

You can eat in the most sophisticated of restaurants, with impeccable service, or you
can eat noodles in a local street cafe, sitting on an old plastic stool.

You can walk down the street and see trendy young women strutting their stuff,
while their poor country-cousins shuffle past in their continuing struggle to make a
living.

You can turn on TV to watch "Super Girl" and participate in the craze for reality TV
and pop music, or you can stop and listen to the street musician demonstrating his
talent on some traditional instrument.

Gaudy neon lights. Chronic air pollution. Girlie magazines and dubious "playgirl"
shops. Street vendors shouting about their wares - at 6 am in the morning. Four day
funeral events, with loud music at the crack of dawn. Mobile phones everywhere.
Food, food, and more food - and usually very HOT (as is the Sichuan style). Mah-
jong and card playing on every street corner. Pop music blaring out of shops. Noise
everywhere. And, surprisingly, huge numbers of trees to soften the brazen
landscape and provide shelter from the hot summer sun.

Then there's the hairdressers. And I must say this was a real experience. I paid 20
yuan (around US$2.50) - which, to my surprise gave me a 1.25 hour session which
included extensive head massage, upper body massage, double hair wash - and
finally the hair cut itself. This was all carried out in a trendy salon, with the usual
modern music sound track and young people sporting crazy, multicoloured hair
styles. Of course I was interested in the final result, and I can report that it's one of
the best haircuts I've ever received. Did I mention the ear-cleaning??

This is one bustling, crazy, hectic metropolis. I can only imagine what Shanghai
must be like!

So, what do I make of China? Well, first it has trashed any impression I had that
these people were living under some sort of miserable dictatorship. These people
know how to work and enjoy themselves - and do both with gusto. I have lived here
long enough, and spent enough time with the locals to get a feel for their lives and
aspirations. I can tell you, in all the essential ways, these people are as free to live
and make a living as you and me. And if you're wondering how China manages
year-in-year- out GDP of around 9%, I know the answer. They have low overheads.

I'm not talking about low wages, I'm talking about a low state "overhead" on the lives
of ordinary Chinese. If you're an average worker here, chances are you pay no tax at
all. Even if you're the up and coming middle class, your tax bill (if there is any) is
likely to be miniscule. In fact, I have it on good authority that most people and
companies pay virtually no tax. And if they do pay tax, it's only on the declared
income - not the "hidden" one.

The Chinese invented the principle of keeping two sets of books. And they have a
vastly superior grasp of the importance of financial privacy. Sheesh, even a bank will
give you a mortgage without any financial statement of income. If you can't make the
repayments, they simply reclaim the property.

102
 The Road To Freedom

There is no social welfare to speak of. The Chinese government raises revenue via
a VAT of some sort, and various duties and miscellaneous taxes. But the sheer
number of Chinese workers means this state "overhead" is almost negligible, giving
people virtually 100% control and ownership over their own income.

The Chinese save like you wouldn't believe - even when they are earning close to
nothing. But they are not opposed to a bit of ostentation, and it is clear to me that
aspiration is a much more common trait than jealousy and envy. If you're rich in
China, then you make sure everybody knows!

Of course, what's most amazing about China is the rate of transformation. From a
North-Korean-like state of poverty to rapidly rising wealth and prosperity - all in a
remarkably short period of time.

My father always said to look out for China - the "sleeping dragon". And I have to
conclude he was right.

If you think Singapore or Hong Kong are successful, then imagine China the same
way - with all its added size and entrepreneurial capacity. That's how I see it. I
believe China is modelling itself on the successful Asian "Tiger" economies. China is
turning into a giant Hong Kong.

With its minimal tax overhead, the creative energy of its millions of citizens is being
unleashed in ways almost impossible (now) in the west.

I can tell you, we're in for a nasty shock in a few years. And I think it will all come
together after the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I really feel that the Chinese see this event
as their "coming out" ceremony - their debut on the world stage of nations. It's
already all over TV here.

I'm expecting their currency, the yuan/RMB, to be fully floated by that time, and their
banking and investment sectors to be mostly fully-revamped in line with modern
western practices.

Right now, China is building business, trade and diplomatic relations all over the
place. Their rising economic power ensures that others are listening. And in doing
so, they are creating an alternative power bloc to the Euro-US one. This will have
major ramifications for the future of the world, and not all scenarios are rosy. There
could be a resource "war", as China consumes more and more of the world's
available energy.

Then there's the potential reaction of the existing alpha-nation the USA, which is
unlikely to take being "challenged" lying down. Then again, it may have no option -
as its own economy is being so downgraded by present (and future?) governments
that it may simply be incapable of competing with the "sleeping dragon".

Other nations will face a similar challenge, as China out- competes them on almost
every front. Its competitive edge will be in the Chinese people's natural talent for
business, their ethic of hard work, their capacity to save, and their low-low tax
burden. It's even possible that a brain-drain could occur - in the direction of China -
as they surge into such industries as biotech, which is continually being strangled by
red tape in the west.

103
 The Road To Freedom

All this will create a nation-to-nation competitive environment which can only have
two possible outcomes. Either other nations will be forced to compete and enact the
necessary economic reforms, or they will become increasingly impoverished and
possibly revert to trade war, protectionism and forms of national socialism as a
response.

As an optimist, I'm hoping that China, rising as it has out of poverty, will create an
example of what is possible with copious amounts of economic freedom.

The only thing that could possibly slow them down, would be the arrival and
implementation of "democracy", which (as we've experienced in the west) would
simply be a front for socialism and eventual social and economic decline.

Maybe they'll be smarter than us, and over time develop a form of social order that is
not incompatible with freedom. We'll see!

China has many challenges, and its future is far from certain, but if what I've seen is
any indication, then they are headed for the big-time.

My advice to any freedom seeker is to keep abreast of what is happening there, as it

is bound to have a significant impact on the rest of the world, and very likely your
own life.

104
 The Road To Freedom

Living in a Topsy Turvy World

I've just returned from nine days in the magical old town of Lijiang, China.

It was a respite made in heaven. After a couple of months in Chongqing, a major

industrial city of 33 million, the sight and smell of clean, clear air was, well, "like a
breath of fresh air"!

Lijiang is a traveller's mecca. A wonderful old town riddled with crystal clear
waterways - a sort of Asian Venice. It's full of art and craft shops selling wares to the
constant flow of visitors.

Although there were quite a few foreigners there (mostly of European origin,
especially French) the vast majority were Chinese.

I can imagine, in the future, that this place will become a a major tourist destination
for Westerners, so I am glad I've seen it before it becomes inundated with
"foreigners".

The other thing I enjoyed was the opportunity to take a break from Chinese food.
Unlike most of us Westerners, who like to try different ethnic foods, the Chinese are
happy to constantly eat their own. So it was both a relief and a culinary joy to
partake of some chilli con carne, lasagne, Thai green curry - and in particular, to eat
at a great little cafe called "Don Papa" - run by an expat French chef, who has lived
in Lijiang for 10 years.

I was interested to learn of his experience and his reasons for abandoning France
for this little corner of China. He said that for him, Lijiang was a paradise and that he
wished he'd moved there 10 years earlier. He loved the clean air, fresh produce and
laid back atmosphere. I could tell he was a man at peace with himself.

Yes, Lijiang was certainly laid back. In fact, even in an empty cafe I had to wait up to
25 minutes for a simple meal. But all is forgiven, for the opportunity to unwind.
Besides, being able to sample the great local beers, drawn from a basket
submerged in an icy mountain stream, was a treat worth waiting for.

In many ways, Lijiang has a "Bohemian" feel, sort of arty and alternative. The streets
are brimming with artists and craftsmen of every description - all working right there
in their various shops. The cafes are places of rest and recuperation, with free
internet access, libraries of foreign books and magazines, and classical, jazz and
modern music drifting out of the windows.

The local, native people are Naxi (pronounced Nashi), who wear bright coloured
clothes, and obviously live to ripe old ages - judging by the many crusty, weathered
faces I saw. They have ready smiles, a friendly demeanour - and an apparent
endless energy for dancing!

While there, I also had the opportunity to "jam" with a talented young Chinese band
in a local bar - which, as a long-retired drummer, was yet another highlight of my
brief visit. It reminded me of my travels as a musician when I was much younger -
and how music broke down assumed cultural barriers.

105
 The Road To Freedom

All this got me thinking about China, and our perception of it in the West. I've had
plenty of opportunity to witness real Chinese life, and to get a feel for what type of
society it is.

Here I am, living in "Communist" China, so why do I feel so free?

Is it because in Lijiang I never saw a policeman? Is it because everyone seems to be

enjoying themselves, and doing exactly what pleases them? Is it because of the
obvious entrepreneurial spirit that seems infuse Chinese culture? Is it because
China is vastly more capitalist, in many respects, than most other western countries?

All I know, is that labels like "communism", "totalitarianism" and the like seem to be
completely misplaced when applied to the actual experience of living in China.

China is NOT like the old Soviet Union - with its state-owned stores, where shoes or
toilet paper were forever in short supply. China is NOT like North Korea, where
people are literally living in a time warp - and brainwashed to believe they live in a
paradise. In fact, China is more like Hong Kong, or Singapore in the making.

I've met scores of Chinese. I've witnessed their lives. These are not people truly
suffering under any totalitarian yoke. If they are "slaves", then their serfdom is in
many ways better than what we put up with in the West. Sure there are vast
differences between rich and poor. Yes, there is a lot of pollution in the big cities.
And yes, I cannot access the BBC.com world news web site!

I can't publish criticism of the Communist Party in the local papers - but I can easily
do it on the internet, and in person, talking with other Chinese. I can keep most of
the money I earn. I can aspire to riches and achieve it. I can build a life of my own
design. In fact, if I'm honest, I'd have to say that middle class Chinese have all the
opportunities we assume are reserved for people in "free" countries.

There are some "downsides" of course.

I would have to take care of my own health - as there is no social welfare to speak of
in China. Even a visitor can quickly realise this by noticing the plethora of advertising
on TV for various hospitals! I'd have to get used to paying tolls on all the highways,
as the Chinese are big on "user-pays". And of course, I would have to look after my
own old age.

The truth is, in China there is virtually no welfarism - something most Westerners are
now addicted to. So, yes, there is the hardship that comes with self-responsibility.
This got me thinking about the nature of practical freedom - of what is really
important in leading life according to one's own wishes.

Is it more important to be able to write a letter criticising the government and have it
published? Or is it more important to be able to live your life with the minimum of
intrusion? Is it more important to live in a country with effectively just two political
parties, and a system called democracy - or a country with just one party, and a
system called communism?

Looked at from the perspective of an anarchist, both the "democratic" west and
"communist" China share the same fundamental mechanism of the all-powerful

106
 The Road To Freedom

state. So the real issue is, where can I live my life according to my own design and
wishes - with the minimum of bureaucratic interference?

None of the Chinese people I have met seem overly-burdened by "Big Brother".

They do not have their income siphoned off by the state, to the point of
impoverishment. They are not watched from every street corner, as in London. They
are not bullied on the roads by revenue-collecting traffic cops. They are not stopped
from making a buck. They are not hounded by the politically correct do-gooder
brigade.

Of course, the Communist Party does crack down on political dissent. So dissent
moves "underground" - or should I say above ground, on the internet. Yes, the
government is what we'd call "authoritarian" - and seeks to manage a free enterprise
system.

If I was a Falun Gong practitioner, I wouldn't be happy in China. On the other hand, if
I was a Christian, there would be no infringement on my religious beliefs or practice.

However, for a business-minded person, or someone (like the artisans of Lijiang)

who just wants to mind his own business, China does offer quite remarkable
opportunities. And life in modern China is certainly light years away from what life
was like under Mao. But there's more to it than that.

Why do I fear entering the USA more than China? Why do I feel safer walking down
the streets of this city of 33 million than most other large western cities? Why do I
feel the energy of entrepreneurship and opportunity in China, compared with the
lethargy and dead-weight of dealing with bureaucratic and tax hurdles in most
western countries? Why do I feel less watched, less listened to? Why does China
feel on the move, while many western countries feel stagnant?

These are important questions, because they point to a disturbing fact regarding our
western countries - the direction they are headed.

We are used to calling ourselves the "free world" - a badge of honour earned in a
bygone age. But we are fooling ourselves if we think we are still free.

What is both fascinating and disturbing to me, is the DIRECTION different countries
are taking.

China is a previously impoverished Communist country which is moving decisively in

the direction of more practical freedom. In matters economic, it is proving to be a
powerhouse of capitalism - where the inherent business talents of the Chinese are
being liberated to create a massive growth in productivity and wealth.

This surge in prosperity and accompanying education will change the face of China
in the future. And as Chinese people have said to me repeatedly, they expect their
transition to more political freedom to be just a matter of time.

On the other hand, we in the West are experiencing movement in a completely

opposite direction. More socialism, more fascism, more stagnation and continual
infringements of the freedoms we say we hold so dear.

107
 The Road To Freedom

Should things get so bad that I need to escape to a bolt hole of "freedom", I would
consider life in a place like Lijiang to be immensely preferable to some big western
city on the verge of descent into disorder and violence - with the accompanying
fascist crackdown by the state. In such a stark scenario, I know where my freedom
would be best served.

And as my favourite French chef in Lijiang said, "There are no terrorists here!"

The world is not what it appears to be from a casual glance, or a moment's thought.
Don't rely on what you read in the papers, or what your political leaders have to say.
Their agenda is not yours. You have to go out in the world and look for yourself.
And, like me, you may be surprised to find practical freedom in the most unlikely
places.

108
 The Road To Freedom

Blowing Away The Illusion

What do 9/11, the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina have in common? They
all demonstrate the failure of the state to do what it claims is its two primary
responsibilities - the preservation of domestic law and order and defence against
foreign aggression.

Most people who support minimalist government place a heavy emphasis on the
state's monopoly role of policing, system of justice and national defence. While
leftists and liberals demand the state take care of a much greater range of issues -
the general social welfare being on top of the list. Between them, rightists and leftists
agree, the state is our great hope and saviour of last resort. All praise the state.

But just stop and think for a moment. If the job of domestic security and national
defence was carried out by non-government agencies, i.e. private defence
companies, don't you think people would have been calling for the CEOs' heads by
now? You bet!

When it comes to private companies, we expect accountability. And if we don't get it,
we demand it. But when it comes to the state, it seems we are under a strange
hypnotic spell, which blinds us to its colossal failures - in every realm.

Where is the accountability? Where is the outrage? Where is the demand for heads
to roll? Nothing, nada, zip - barely a whisper of discontent.

If George Bush or Tony Blair were the CEOs of large corporations, charged with
providing such law and order and defence, they would have been history long ago.
I often ponder the question as to why someone like Martha Stewart was jailed (for
what, to me, was a non-crime), while people like Bush and Blair walk the earth with
cheesy grins on their faces - immune and apparently teflon-coated as far as taking
the blame for anything they have initiated or are responsible for.

However, you don't need to contemplate big issues like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina to
realise all this. Just ask yourself a much more personal and pertinent question. Does
the machinery of the state make you feel more personally secure in your home? Will
the state protect you from muggers, rapists and murderers? Of course not!

What it provides is an abysmal sort of "rearguard" action. It cannot prevent you or

your property from being violated, and at best can only follow up on such abuses by
attempting to catch the perpetrators - after the fact. And even that is done badly.
What's worse, the state makes it practically impossible for you to defend yourself!
We are used to such everyday, small time failure. We don't even consider it
extraordinary. But when some BIG event comes along, and blows everyone away,
and where the state appears to be the obvious means of dealing with such, its failure
is larger than life - wide out in the open, where everyone can see it. Or can they?

The "war on terror" is perhaps the most obvious example of the failure of the state -
and quite likely a terminal failure. There it stands, as our accepted last line of
defence against barbarity and lawlessness - and yet the state fails this most
important litmus test of its viability and competency - and dare I say, legitimacy.

109
 The Road To Freedom

We are told the "war on terror" must be waged to destroy the enemies of our
freedoms - those same freedoms the state is determined to obliterate in order to
fight the war. Tell me, what will be the justification for fighting the "enemies of
freedom" when we no longer have any freedoms left to defend?

The state has failed at its self-declared most important job. And it is using all its
powers of propaganda and spin to convince us otherwise.

Think of it this way. There is the USA, with the most powerful military in the history of
the world, and yet it cannot find Osama bin Laden. It cannot stop a handful of people
from flying planes into buildings. It cannot control any more than the "Green Zone" in
Iraq. Its client regime in Afghanistan is in reality only controlling Kabul. Its firepower
cannot crush a few thousand insurgents.

Failure, failure, failure.

What this brings out into broad daylight is the absolute limit of state power under
present conditions of social acceptance. Oh sure, there are state-worshipers who
say the USA is simply not "tough" enough - and could easily stop terror in its tracks
by nuking the entire Middle East. And that's true. If the whole of Islam was taken out,
then one could reasonably conclude there would be no more Islamic suicide
bombers.

So there's the choice. We can have the state as it is, in all its abysmal failure. Or, we
can have the TOTAL state, unrestrained by moral considerations, which can
obliterate its enemies (and its citizens) by unlimited military power and force of arms.
Your choice. But remember, the total state kills innocents - and increasingly so.

It's fascinating to read history, and to realise that in the "old" days, the various
kingdoms would wage war under quite restrictive conditions - often in the space of a
large open field of grass, and according to very strict rules of engagement. The
civilian population was largely unaffected by such squabbles - as they were fought,
won and lost by just the soldiers themselves, with the King safely in the rear.

All that changed in the 20th century - with the arrival of "world" wars. It's no secret
that states employed mass civilian bombing as a matter of military policy. London,
Dresden, Hiroshima. No scruples then, about the state's role in targeting civilians.
"It's worth killing 100,000, to save a million", they said. State terrorism.

The total state was showing its true colours. And this is just how it should be. After
all, the state is nothing more than brute force, the power of the gun. It has no other
tools at its disposal.

The problem is, we're a much more sensitive lot now. Most of us don't like the idea
of mass bombing of civilians - at least not if it's an openly declared military objective.
Why, hell, that would make us as bad as the terrorists we are fighting!

So, the dilemma is this: the USA, with the most powerful military on earth, cannot
unleash the full force of its might, precisely because of public sensibility. It has to
cloak its military strategies in the talk of "compassion". That it doesn't deliberately
target civilians. That it doesn't really condone torture. That it is doing all this for the
highest moral reasons.

110
 The Road To Freedom

This is hogwash of course. What is the moral difference between bombing a town
full of civilians, to kill 50 insurgents, when you KNOW there will be civilian casualties
- and a "terrorist" who blows himself up outside an Iraqi army recruiting centre, and
KNOWS there are children playing outside?

Just "collateral damage", they all say.

The "war on terror" has brought into sharp relief the true nature of state power, and
more importantly, the state's inability to fulfil its stated purpose of defending you and
me against "terrorists". It's terrified we may discover the Emperor has no clothes, so
is throwing all it has into the military and propaganda end game.

What's more, the "war on terror" cannot be won. It cannot be won because it is a war
fought by states against non-states - using the old methods of state-to-state warfare.
Previously, wars have always been between states, or kingdoms - using the agreed
principles and strategies of warfare. A sort of "Gentleman's Agreement". But now,
states are fighting a war against individuals who are not aligned with any states as
such, just a belief, an ideology, and certainly no agreement as to how such a war
should be waged.

So you have the phenomena of the mighty state, with all its military power -
warships, guns, tanks, nukes, jet fighters, drones, surveillance, intelligence - being
taken on by individual fighters for a cause. Individual fighters with home-made
bombs, second-hand guns, and improvised rocket launchers. And still the state
cannot win.

By declaring a "war on terror" the modern state has bitten off more than it can chew.
It has declared a war on individuals who are motivated by belief - the belief that they
have been wronged in some way or other. And as long as there are people who
believe this, then there will be no shortage of recruits to their cause.

When Tony Blair declares his disgust at the bombings in London, or the British press
talks of the "chilling" message of the suicide bomber - that they are soldiers fighting
a war - does it not strike you as incredulous that our leaders can claim to see no
connection between their actions and the actions of these terrorists? Surely, if we
are at WAR - then we can expect the enemy to strike us at home? Why are we
shocked when they kill innocents - when we do the same?

And so the fantasy of the state is unravelling before our eyes. We are witnessing the
gradual erosion of belief in the state as the all-powerful solution to all our problems.
We are being forced to face up to the fact that the means of social organisation we
have grown up with, is in fact failing on so many fronts. We are confronted with the
choice of either accepting and welcoming the TOTAL state, or watching the state
wither away into irrelevance.

Already, the fellow-travellers of the state - the leftists, the liberals, the marxists, the
warmongering right-wingers and the welfare-statist looters - are all braying that
these "disasters" only go to prove the state is not nearly powerful enough. Just read
what some of them said after the Katrina/New Orleans debacle - that this represents
the failure of market ideology. Sheesh! Some people just never get it. It's not the
failure of the market, it's the abject failure of the state.

111
 The Road To Freedom

Meanwhile, in the "other" world of private enterprise and voluntary social interaction,
life goes on. Goods are being produced and sold. Services are being delivered. All
that we take for granted as being necessary for the good life is being created by
science, technology and business. The state, on the other hand, creates absolutely
nothing, and yet has a mystic grip on our misplaced loyalty.

Just look around you: Your home; your car; your business; your job; your iPod; your
mobile phone; your computer; your annual holiday; your retirement fund, your health;
your favourite restaurant, your entertainment; your local supermarket; your
community; your family; your life.

Everything of value to you is created by individuals, going about their own business -
voluntarily trading value for value on the open market. The state is but a parasite on
this process, and on civilisation itself, which is a creation of civilised people - i.e. free
people who take responsibility for their own lives and decisions.

The state has nothing to offer such people. Nothing that could not be done far better
by private companies and voluntary organisations.

We have reached a point in history where a monumental decision needs to be

made. Either we continue to believe in the myth of the state, and grant it ever more
power over our lives, in order that it may fulfil its avowed purpose - or we discard this
outmoded method of organising society in favour of one based on mutual recognition
of property rights and personal sovereignty, where free individuals deal with one
another on the basis of voluntary agreements and contracts.

The choice is a stark one. Either we move forward to a genuine freedom and
consequent peace, or we march "backwards" to an Orwellian future of totalitarianism
and perpetual war.

But don't count on this choice being decided at the ballot box. No, the democratic
process is thoroughly corrupt and incapable of delivering any meaningful change.
The choice must be made by individuals, and where possible by individuals acting in
co-operation with other, like-minded, individuals - to create alternatives to state
power and organisation.

Real change begins at "home". You can begin by making the state irrelevant to your
own life. I can tell you, if you are prepared to take 100% responsibility for your own
life, you don't need any state to manage, control and own it. At that point you'll
realise the state is just a cunning moocher, conning you out of a large proportion or
your life's energy (like all parasites). And just as you'd feel a lot better for having
some dreadful tapeworm removed from your intestines, so you will feel decidedly
better for removing the state (as much as possible) from your life.

Why not take the first step now?

112
 The Road To Freedom

Reinventing The Good Life

I recall, in the mid 70s, greatly enjoying a comedy from the UK's BBC, called The
Good Life. It starred well known British actors Richard Briars, Felicity Kendal and
Paul Eddington (later of "Yes Minister" fame).

The basic premise of "The Good Life" was that Tom and Barbara Good were sick of
the rat race, and decided to become self- sufficient, right in the middle of suburbia,
from their own home. So they kept their own animals, grew their own food, made
their own tools - and generally opted out of the system. This greatly amused and
sometimes annoyed their neighbours, and gave rise to many comic situations.

It's a long time ago now, but I remember why I was so taken by that little half hour of
anarchy each week. The premise was so appealing! Here was a typical couple,
living a very ordinary life. But on Tom's 40th birthday, he decided he'd had enough of
the modern day treadmill. So, together with the enthusiastic cooperation of his wife,
he found the courage to change their situation, and buck the system - to lead a life of
their own creation.

It was also the era of the "hippy" - the counterculture, one with which I partially
identified (being a musician), so the combination of the idea of exiting the system
and becoming self- sufficient held a certain magical charm.

It still does. How many times have you wished you could exit the rat race? How
many times have you wondered why you work so hard to pay the mortgage, in order
to have the right house, in the right street, complete with all the latest gadgets - only
to be burdened and stressed by the whole situation?

The urge for simplicity, to be able to opt out and de-stress is a powerful one. Even
more so in these days of "double" working families and the ever-increasing pace of
life.

It also reminds me of another experience I had during the mid 70s. I had been
working in New Caledonia (French South Pacific), in a band, and was on my way
home. I decided to take a side trip to Suva, Fiji. I was only there for 5 days, but
during that time I came to see life from a completely different perspective. I also
noticed how relaxed and happy the Fijians seemed, smiling in the streets, enjoying
life - but without any of the wealth or amenities we may consider necessary.

While flying from New Caledonia to Fiji, I found myself sitting next to a Fijian who
had just completed six months work there - and was going home with his
accumulated savings, to improve the life of his family. When I told him his Pacific
French Francs were useless in Fiji, and that he should have exchanged them in
Noumea before leaving, it naturally caused him great distress.

My advice to him was to keep the money until his next planned work trip - and then
to exchange it all before returning home. He gratefully thanked me for the advice,
and promptly insisted I come and stay with his family in Suva. His hospitality was
only exceeded by the number of mosquitos attending my bedside. So after one night
I had to politely excuse myself and check in to a local hotel!

113
 The Road To Freedom

His ability to bounce back and get on with life left a deep impression on me, and I
realised that happiness does not depend on having one million dollars in the bank -
not if you are living in a place where a lot less will give you a lot more.

The "Good Life" recalls all those hopes and dreams, the idea of something more
real, simpler - happier even. But is it a false hope? Is such an opting out possible?
Can you REALLY leave the rat race - quit the system?

The answer is a resounding YES - if you have enough motivation, determination and
resilience.

How is this possible?

Some people manage to opt out of the fast-paced urban life by going back to
"nature", the country lifestyle. They buy a block of land somewhere, raise some
animals and start to grow their own food. It's all perfectly possible - if you want the
rural lifestyle! Usually, land is a lot cheaper in the countryside, and you can get more
for your money. But the downside is you have to give up many facets of city life you
may actually enjoy.

Another alternative - one which allows you to maintain a life to which you are
accustomed, without the cost and stress associated with it - is to move to a country
where the cost of living is considerably less, and where your existing income will go
a lot further.

Believe it or not, there are many places where you could comfortably live for $2,000
or less each month. If you have a retirement income, or other international source of
income, then finding an alternative residence can make that income seem like a lot
more. That way, you get to totally de-stress, while not having to give up those things
in life you really enjoy.

Many Americans are finding that a life in Panama can offer such an alternative.
Other nationals are "escaping" to places like Thailand, or Malaysia - or the emerging
"new" European countries. In each case, the cost of living in such places is far less
than where you are probably living now - and your hard-earned dollars will go a lot
further.

Many countries offer residency programmes, which make it easy for foreigners to
gain special residency status, usually in return for some modest deposit in a local
bank, or even just a guarantee of your monthly independent income. Take Malaysia,
for example. They have a programme where you can gain a renewable residency
visa, which allows you to come and go as you please. The added bonus is that you
pay no tax on income which is earned outside Malaysia. Think of the possibilities!

Let me give you just one example of "cost of living", from my current personal
experience of living in China. I'm in Chongqing at present, which is in the south-
western region of China on the Yangzte River. It's a bustling city with a greater
population of 33 million. I can get anything I want here - every mod con conceivable.
My material desires want for nothing.

Yesterday I went shopping at the Metro, a French owned hyperstore where I can buy
various imported foods. Stuff like French, Chilean, Australian and New Zealand

114
 The Road To Freedom

wines; New Zealand cheese and butter, imported beers, Italian pasta, Spanish olives
- the list goes on - which ensures my palate doesn't suffer withdrawal symptoms for
western food.

However, if I really want to save money - which I do regularly - then I just buy and
eat local. A 600 ml bottle of beer costs me 25 cents. A high quality 100% cotton
sports shirt costs me $10. A meal out for two in a good restaurant costs me $12. A
tasty noodle meal is only 50 cents. I can even get my shoes cleaned for 15 cents! Or
I can buy a great pair of new shoes for around $40. And the department stores are a
shopper's paradise.

Yesterday afternoon I visited friends in their new two bedroom, two bathroom, 120
square metre apartment. I was very keen to see what I could get for my money in
this mega-city.

I was surprised. Not only was the construction very solid (concrete throughout -
including all exterior AND interior walls), but the level of finish and decor was every
bit on par with what you'd expect in the west. And the cost for this brand new home
in the middle of a large city? All up, including every luxury appliance and item of
furnishing, it cost 370,000 yuan - or around US$46,000. A more modest one
bedroom apartment would apparently only set me back US$25,000.

I have calculated that I could comfortably live here for around US$1,000 per month -
assuming ownership (debt-free) of an apartment. But even the need to rent doesn't
add that much - a further $150 or so per month. So renting is another option.

If I wanted to live the high-life, then I'm sure I could get a lot of bang for my buck on
around US$1,500 per month.

The point is this: if you are currently feeling stuck in a financial hole, with limited
ability to save or get ahead, then considering moving to a lower-cost country can
make a lot of sense - particularly if your income is sourced from overseas, like
investment or retirement income, international business income, or your ability to
continue working remotely (like I do), via the internet.

Even better, it's possible to find a place to suit your own particular tastes and needs.
Not everyone wants to move to Thailand, or China for that matter!

Many English people are finding that a quiet "retirement" to rural France carries
many benefits. A relaxed lifestyle, good food, friendly neighbours, a crime-free
environment and very affordable housing are most notable. But where else could
you consider relocating?

Spain is another distinct possibility - and one which has some tax advantages for
certain types of occupations. Another upcoming favourite with Americans is the Bay
of Islands, Honduras. Or what about Croatia? If you like coastline and sun, then
Croatia boasts the most of both in Europe. Some people describe it as "The
Mediterranean as it used to be".

The point is this: where you live now is NOT the only place on earth, nor is it
necessarily the best place. And if you would like to live a less stressful life, where
your money will go a lot further, where you could "retire" from the rat race - and still

115
 The Road To Freedom

enjoy the amenities that modern life offers - then making a move to another country
could be worth your consideration.

Of course, this is not something you would do in a rush, or on a whim. You'd need to
research your options, plan to visit those countries on your short list - and get a real
feel for the places before making any final choice. But such a process is both
exciting and fascinating, and can become a new hobby!

Yes, there was a whiff of unreality about Tom and Barbara's "Good Life" - especially
the bit about becoming self-sufficient in the space of a city home garden! But it
touched a nerve in many people - the desire for a more "real" life, one not consumed
by working more and more, but more about enjoying life and getting the most out of
it - with what you already have.

But there is certainly no unreality about the many options available to you today - to
live somewhere else, where the money you already have, and have worked so hard
to gain, can give you a new life of much MORE - for much LESS.

It's YOUR life after all. Make sure you live it as you want.

116
 The Road To Freedom

Fading Freedom of Speech

I recall once discussing the matter of freedom with a group of similar-minded people.
Somebody made the comment that commitment to the principle of "freedom of
speech" was the hallmark of a free society. In other words, if freedom of speech was
absent or curtailed - then so was freedom itself.

These days, when we're told by our leaders that we are engaged in a war in defence
of our freedoms, it pays to stop and think about what is really at stake. And the first
place to stop and ponder, is on the very meaning of "freedom of speech". What
exactly IS freedom of speech?

In the wake of the terrorist bombings in London, it would appear the right to free
speech no longer includes the right to preach "radical" fundamentalist Islam. The
reason given is that if Imams stir up hatred by their preaching, then impressionable
young men may become next month's suicide bombers.

Stirring up hatred, of course, is a very malleable concept - and one has to assume
that if any Imam were to simply give an account of the historical exploits of both the
British and American Empires in the Arab lands - then such information may well
"incite hatred" against the exploiters.

Germany has a "Holocaust Denial" law, with which it seeks to prosecute anyone who
casts doubt on the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. In other words, if you go
about asserting that only two million people were killed, not six million - then you're
putting yourself in their firing line, and could end up in jail.

Racial vilification laws seek to prohibit any comment or speech which may cast
members of a particular racial group in a bad light. The racial group in question may
vary from country to country - depending on the current fad in victimology. But one
group seems to be exempt from this - the generic racial group known as "white".

A "hate crime" is apparently when you commit some felony which is motivated by
hatred of the hapless victim. In the past a crime was a crime, and if you killed
someone the motivation was not the main issue - apart from assisting the police to
find a suspect. In defining a crime by the motivation behind it - it's an easy step to
then prohibit words that stir up such hatred in the first place.

This has given rise to the term "hate speech" - which is defined, by Wikipedia, as
'speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action
against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, or disability'.

As you can see, this covers a lot of territory and you could easily find yourself on the
wrong side of the law in regard to these restrictions on your freedom of speech. In
fact, given that all speech (or written commentary) starts with a thought, it would
seem logical that we proceed to the next preventative step - 'thought crime' - a term
made famous in George Orwell's "1984". In "1984, to even consider a thought, which
is not in line with the principles of Ingsoc, is to commit 'Thought Crime' or be guilty of
'Crimethink" - which is "the essential crime that contains all others in itself".

117
 The Road To Freedom

All words start with thoughts. In fact, so do all actions. Was it not Jesus or some
other Biblical figure who stated that even thinking about killing someone was
tantamount to killing them. The thought itself was the root of the evil - and provided
the necessary precondition to declare everybody a sinner. After all, everyone has
had bad thoughts at some time or another!

And that is the path current anti-freedom of speech legislation is taking us down.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. When exactly is a crime committed? Is it
when you think about it. Is it when you write about it? Is it when you talk about it? Or
is it when you ACT on it?

The very freedoms our leaders say we are defending are at stake here, so getting
this right is of paramount importance.

What makes our Common Law-rooted freedoms what they are, is that they define a
crime as a specific action which violatates the life or property of another person. If I
steal your car I have committed a crime. If I think about stealing it I haven't. If I
murder your wife I have committed a crime. If I only think about it I haven't. But what
if I give voice to my thoughts and SAY that I'm going to steal your car? What if I write
a little tract outlining HOW I intend to steal it? Obviously such statements, whether
written or oral, could be considered as a threat. And threatening someone may
indeed result in some sort of sanction being applied. But is a threat the same as an
act?

Then there's the classic case of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre - as a
prank - and causing mass panic. Does a person have the right to utter such words?
As you can see, there are numerous contexts involving speech and how it can
impact on others. But the essential question is, what are the limits of freedom of
speech?

This can be best answered by looking at the issue of freedom itself. One only has
freedom to the extent that it does not infringe on someone else's freedom. So I
cannot claim the freedom to steal your car, as I am infringing on your freedom to
own and keep what is yours. To claim such a freedom is to deny yours. In the same
way, my freedom of speech ends where it can be shown to be either denying
someone else's freedom of speech, or freedom of action.

It's also worth mentioning that freedom of speech does not mean someone else has
to provide you with a platform to exercise it. Having the right to speak freely does not
entitle you to an hour of prime time television on someone else's network. No, the
freedom to speak or write is a freedom of action - not a right to the means of
communication. That is something you have to provide for yourself.

The creation of the concept of 'hate speech' has given rise to a new class of crime,
and is a direct attack on what we have traditionally accepted as freedom of speech.
To racially slur someone, or call them "names", may certainly hurt their feelings, but
it does not hurt their person. It's not the same as mugging them. It does not infringe
on their right to free speech or action. They are free to call me names back.

To claim the war in Iraq is wrong and that those who led us into it did so under false
pretences and should be convicted as war criminals, may get up the noses of those
who think otherwise, but it hardly constitutes any sort of crime.

118
 The Road To Freedom

To make historically revisionist statements claiming that less than 6 million Jews
were killed in the Holocaust, may certainly offend and anger many people - but that
is not a justification for suppressing such a dissenting view. The issue here is not
whether the statement is true or not, but whether someone has the right to utter it.

In each of the above, it is claimed that such "speech" stirs up hatred of one sort or
another, and should therefore be banned. But this reasoning belongs to a world we
thought we had left behind long ago - the Dark Ages! Back then it was normal to kill
or torture people for expressing views opposed to the accepted wisdom - like
suggesting the earth orbited the sun, instead of the other way around.

But would the same sanctions apply if you questioned the Theory of Evolution?
Would you think it reasonable to be locked up, or worse, for disagreeing with it?
If you stood up in London's Hyde Park and said "There is no God", would you expect
to be arrested and charged with conspiracy to incite hatred against Christians?

Are you currently allowed to endorse or disagree with the new sciences of genetic
engineering or cloning? Of course you are, and to think that expressing an opinion
either way could land you in jail seems absurd. But it is not - not the way things are
going.

Such questioning is the basis of all scientific enquiry. If no one could question things,
then there would be no scientific or technical progress. There would only be Orwell's
"Ministry of Truth". Our very advancement as a species depends on the right to ask
questions, the right to question accepted theories and viewpoints - even accepted
"facts"! Nothing should be sacrosanct. Nothing should be beyond questioning.

At it's root, the attack on freedom of speech is essentially an attack on our right to
use our minds, think our own thoughts, ask hard questions, utter our own
conclusions and state our disagreements with what is before us - right or wrong. The
only acceptable form of rebuttal is to disagree in the same manner - verbally or in
writing.

We may not like what other people say. It may offend us. It may contradict what we
believe. It may threaten our world view. But unless such people are actually
threatening our person or property, then their right to their opinions and our
acceptance of that right, is a measure of the amount of freedom we are willing to
tolerate - and actually want.

To say that such speech "may" incite someone ELSE to act in an inappropriate way
or commit a real crime, is an attempt to establish 'Thought Crime' as an operational
legal procedure. And conversely, to try and trace back all criminal acts to ideas
expressed by others, or even thought in private - is to seek to obliterate the
important distinction between thought, speech and action. That road most certainly
leads to a totalitarian hell.

All the huffing and puffing about advancing freedom in the world is just hot air, if one
of the fundamentals of our own freedoms, the freedom of speech, is being
suppressed and denied in the process.

119
 The Road To Freedom

How to Escape The Cultural Matrix

Have you ever asked yourself the question: "Why are things the way they are?"
Have you ever got angry at the status quo - the stupidity, the injustice and the
inertia? More importantly, have you ever tried to take off your cultural spectacles and
view the world anew?

It’s certainly hard to do, if not near impossible for most people. And there’s a good
reason why.

Our view of the world, and our relationship to it, is shaped by the world as it is - not
how it could be. It is shaped by our genes, our family environment, our education,
and the culture we grow up within - whatever nation or ethnicity. We are the product
of the given, the existent - the accepted norm. Our traditional thinking is therefore a
product of our past.

But imagine you were a visiting alien from another planet - looking at the behaviour
of humans and pondering on the meaning of it all. Your "alien" self would not be
hidebound by earthly history, traditions, morality, politics, economics or education -
but instead be free to view things as they really are, and see where we’ve gone
wrong, and where we could do better.

Trouble is, even imagining ourselves as alien is fraught with difficulties, because we
find it extraordinarily difficult to think outside the square we have been born into.
It’s all evolution’s fault.

Evolution is that slow process of adapting, biologically, to our surroundings. And

adapt we certainly do - over millennia! Evolution has always been measured in
millions of years - not in the span of a human lifetime.

And that worked okay for our ancestors, whose lives and environment hardly
changed one bit during their own, usually short, existence. For most of recorded
history people have been born, grown up, worked, lived, played and died in a
virtually unchanged world - often without even leaving the geographical area they
were born in.

But, unlike animals which have to adapt to their environment, humans can change
their environment through the use of their minds. With the advent of the
Renaissance, the rise of science, and the consequent industrial revolution, man’s
mind and life was liberated to an extent hitherto unimaginable. New ideas. New
inventions. New ways of doing things. And all of a sudden, after a somnambulant
gestation period, it appeared that humankind was rising from the primordial swamp
to stake a claim to the earth, and its future - stepping into the driving seat, instead of
being a passive passenger.

Evolution was to be given a jolt.

Within a matter of just a couple of hundred years, the very nature of human society
had changed forever. What’s more, the pace of change picked up speed and drew
mankind into a vortex of societal upheaval.

120
 The Road To Freedom

Now, it is accepted we will see and experience enormous changes during our own
lives. We no longer expect to stay in the same job, or even the same career. We no
longer expect to be doing the same thing in ten year’s time, nor even living in the
same place. And sadly, for some, we don’t even expect to be with the same partner.
When it comes to humans, evolution has given way to revolution.

Just to put this into context, cast your mind back to 1995. Can you remember what
you were doing then? Chances are you were not logging on to the internet, buying
and selling via eBay, or booking your next holiday online. The changes the internet
has wrought in our lives, in that short time, have been enormous.

Back in 1995, I used to get the morning newspaper delivered daily. Now I read up on
the news online. Not only that, I can now read news and commentary from around
the world, and not from just the established news sources. Our access to information
has been revolutionised by the internet. Back then I used to buy CDs and play them
on my stereo. Now I can download music by the track and store and play them on
my diminutive iPod. Back then I used to work at a "normal" career. Now I work
exclusively on the internet.

The advent of the internet is just one example of how things can change over a very
short timeframe.

Technological progress is daunting. Whereas industrial and technological change

would previously take generations, now - as is apparent in China - we are witnessing
the phenomena of virtually instant industrial and information revolutions combined.

You can see this working everywhere - from the increasing sophistication of your
home entertainment system, to the computer you bought two years ago - which is
now virtually obsolete. More for less. Fast replacing slow. Global replacing local.
No one can seriously doubt the exponential growth and advancement in technology.
The problem is that while our technology is surging ahead, our social and moral
systems are still effectively in prehistory.

We’re like children playing with adult toys. We know how to send email, download
music, create a video, browse a blog, buy and sell on eBay, and send text messages
to kingdom come - but we haven’t figured out how to live fully human lives and get
on with each other in an ever-shrinking global village.

Our technology is from the world of science fiction, but our social order is from the
world of cave men. Our ethical, social and economic thinking is in a time warp. We
have the technical capacity to traverse space, but the morality to nuke ourselves into
oblivion.

Why is this?

Our whole evolutionary history has been based on slow, incremental change -
change so slow that our earlier ancestors never had to deal with any real change at
all. And their social and ethical norms and forms were designed to work in that
reality.

But the world has been transformed. Each of us now faces change as a constant.
Change is everywhere. Change is the order of the day. And unless we can come up

121
 The Road To Freedom

with some new ways of thinking and acting in response to this, then our inability to
change the fundamentals of our means of social organisation could bring about our
own eventual downfall.

This point in time has sometimes been called the "nuclear threshold". The nuclear
threshold is that moment in history when our intellectual prowess meets our moral
capacity to use it wisely. We are smart enough to develop nuclear technology, but
do we have the ethical and social frameworks to stop it from destroying us?

The 20th Century saw huge social upheavals - and the deaths of millions of people
in the pursuit of various utopian social experiments. The most disastrous of these
were Fascism and Marxism - both totalitarian ideologies.

The outward forms of these dangerous ideas were defeated: fascism by force of
arms, in World War II, and Marxism by the contradictions inherent in the economic
ideas themselves, as witnessed by the demise of the Soviet Union.

There are only a couple of communist countries left - Cuba, which apparently exists
on the the pure charisma of its leader, and North Korea, which is in the grip of
permanent famine and paranoia. China, while calling itself communist, is in fact not
that at all. It is just an authoritarian regime, a ghost of its former communist self.

Yes, the outward forms of these ideologies have largely disappeared, but the
thinking that brought them into existence in the first place certainly has not. The
philosophical themes of fascism and communism are alive and well on planet earth -
and are woven into the very social order we now inhabit.

Prior to the rise of the secular west, Christianity was the pre-eminent philosophy -
and the source of political power. And we have largely forgotten what a dark time in
history that was. But it wasn’t called the "Dark Ages" for nothing!

With the rise of science and consequent technology, the political power of the
Church declined - and has been doing so ever since. But today, we are witnessing a
return of the religiously inspired political order - in the form of Islam.

Islam is a religion of literal belief. It is a complete code of conduct. It can best be

likened to Christian fundamentalism - a total belief in the "Word of God". Ostensibly,
both Christianity and Islam are listening to the same god - God, or Allah, take your
pick - but Islam has put "God" back on the global political agenda in a way that
Christianity no longer can.

The forces of social stagnation, of non-evolution, are mustering and regrouping for a
counter attack. The ideologies of totalitarian philosophy, statism and religious
fundamentalism are intent on stopping humankind from moving forward.
There is much at stake - the very future of the human race in fact - and the
reactionary social forces know this, and intend to do all they can to stop humankind
from taking the next revolutionary step.

What are their "tools of trade"? What is their modus operandi? What is their agenda?
The last question is easy to answer. Their agenda is control. Control over society.
Control over all forms of social organisation and progress. Control over you.

122
 The Road To Freedom

They have only one known enemy - the individual thinking person. The person who
thinks outside the square, has independent means, and refuses to simply accept
what he or she is told. And the only way for them to defeat this enemy is to take pre-
emptive control of the levers of power - the power to influence an individual's mind.
before it matures.

What, exactly, are those power levers, their "tools of trade"?

They are ideas. Yes, each lever of power is an idea - an idea that is inculcated into
each individual from birth, via family, religion, society and nation. When all these
ideas are combined, they form a cultural matrix of force, fraud and fallacy - a near-
perfect, total means of individual and societal control.

So, what exactly are these power-lever ideas? What sort of ideas can be so powerful
as to render the believer an effective automaton - a willing participant in the slave-
order society?

These ideas are in fact "Eight Deadly Myths" that support the current systems of
power and control. They act together in order to prevent the emergence of true
individual freedom. They are myths precisely because each one fails to deliver on
the promise implicit in its declared purpose - to make life better.

To maximise your own freedom, you would do well to understand exactly what these
myths are, and why they are so dangerous. You can download the full report, "The
Sovereign Manifesto" HERE.

123
 The Road To Freedom

Money Myths and Freedom

I cut my "intellectual curiosity" teeth on the mysteries surrounding money, and read
extensively on matters "economics" for many years - both the orthodox, as well as
the radical and oddball. And I'll never forget my amazement when I first fully
understood how money was created out of thin air.

For the benefit of those of you who may be a bit hazy on the development and
history of the monetary creation mechanism - here's a short summary.

Money was originally a commodity of some sort - usually silver or gold, but also stuff
like salt and tobacco, or any commodity that people valued and were willing to
exchange for something else.

Later came fiduciary instruments - which were receipts for real commodities (gold or
silver etc.).

The easiest way to understand this transition is the example of how goldsmiths got
into "banking".

Goldsmiths had the gold. You could buy from, and sell gold to, a goldsmith. You
could do one more thing. You could have the goldsmith store your gold for you and
give you a receipt.

It wasn't long before these receipts became useful negotiable instruments. So, if you
wanted to pay for something, you could use one of your gold receipts - which was
guaranteed redeemable for the stated amount of gold on presentation at a particular
goldsmith. It also wasn't long before the artful goldsmith realised he could actually
issue more gold receipts than he had gold on deposit.

These "extra" gold receipts were in the form of loans to trustworthy individuals. A
reputable goldsmith was able to discover the right ratio for gold on deposit - as a
percentage of gold receipts in circulation. But of course, it was possible to make a
mistake, and have everyone rushing to cash in their gold receipts at the same time -
only to find there was not enough gold to redeem them.

That was the original "run on the bank"!

Gold merchants evolved into private banks - issuing their own fiduciary paper money
- backed by gold or silver. Banks got it wrong sometimes too - and panic ensued!
However, if a bank was prudent, and built up a good reputation, then it could
possibly lend into circulation ten times as much in gold receipts (now fiduciary paper
money) as there was gold in the vault. And as long as the clients had faith in the
bank, this worked out fine. The loan created the money, and the repayment of the
loan destroyed it. The profit was in the interest.

This process is called fractional reserve banking. And as a discovery it was of

enormous importance, for it made it possible to monetise the creditworthiness of an
individual - to monetise that individual's future capacity to produce something of
value.

124
 The Road To Freedom

Today, of course, we have moved far beyond fiduciary money - or notes that can be
redeemed for some valuable commodity. Now we have what is termed "fiat" money.
This is paper money (looking just like the previously issued commodity-backed
fiduciary money), but with no backing whatsoever. In fact, a typical dollar bill
promises to pay just "one dollar". In other words, the best deal you're likely to get is
to take in an old wrinkled note and ask for a crisp new one in return!

And now, we have moved even beyond paper "cash" - with credit cards, digital
money and any number of potential derivatives.

Back in the depression of 1929 (and at other times), many people of social
conscience, found it unconscionable that banks should be able to "make" money in
this way - and this led to a number of reformist ideas designed to diminish the power
of the bankers.

One such reformer was Major CH Douglas, an Engineer from Scotland, and his
Social Credit theory. Another was Silvio Gessell. There were others also.

Social Credit is, in essence, a theory stating there is never enough money in
circulation to purchase the total production of a society. Therefore the state should
issue extra money debt-free in the form of a citizen dividend. In other words, money
should be "spent" into circulation, rather than loaned. There was a complex formula
for "proving" this called the "A+B Theorem". Douglas's heart was probably in the
right place, but his thinking was muddled.

Silvio Gessell's idea was to make money automatically depreciate. That way, people
would not want to hang on to it - but spend it as quickly as possible. The idea was to
increase the speed of circulation of money, and therefore stimulate economic
activity. No mention was made of how this practice would impact on the formation of
capital though!

Douglas's ideas (and those of many others) were based on a moral judgement that
lending money at interest (usury) was "evil" - therefore, lending money into existence
(as bankers do), is not only bad business but bad morals. And he proposed a form of
debt- free money - spent by the state into circulation via public works, education,
healthcare and public dividends etc.

At the core of these reformers' ideas was the implicit demand that the state be the
only issuer of money. They didn't want it done by private issuers.

Today, we have the situation where the issuance of money is monopolised by the
state - even though the banks are private. And if you doubt it's monopolised - try
creating your own money!

What is the primary issue here is the MONOPOLY status of money issuers. A
monopoly, whether private or public, can only be sustained by government edict.
Just about all the myths and misguided ideas about money and banks end up
proposing some sort of "Social Credit" solution - although not necessarily using that
name, or even being aware of such an idea - as a reformist agenda.

There has always been a deep suspicion about banks, and reformers have always
wanted money creation to come under "people's" control - i.e. state control. But, of

125
 The Road To Freedom

course, it is already under state control, via the state's issuance of monopoly status
to both currency and central banking.

Every time you hear someone railing against the banks or the FED, and you scratch
beneath the surface, you will probably find a person deeply committed to the idea of
the "state issuing money on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the people".
This is a major fallacy, and essentially a statist position.

There is nothing inherently wrong with issuing credit - against the creditworthiness of
an individual or entity. In fact, this process has made it possible to achieve great
societal progress and advancement. The next logical step in the evolution of money
would be the privatisation and de-monopolisation of this process.

For what is really the basis for issuing any form of credit? The ability of the person
receiving it to repay it out of future productive effort. In other words, YOU are the
basis for credit creation!

In the age of digital money, it is entirely feasible that a private organisation could
begin issuing "credit" to you - against your contractual agreement to repay it at a
predetermined time. This is already done with credit cards - which are no more than
electronic bookkeeping systems of credits and debits.

So, you open your account, and this private company issues you with 5,000
"credits". You have to pay this back of course, but you can do so out of income
generated by your future production, work or effort. That's 5,000 of new money lent
into circulation. And it has its own control mechanisms, for as it is repaid, the money
goes OUT of circulation and is cancelled.

Don't knock credit. When used wisely, it is the catalyst for achieving things NOW that
you couldn't do otherwise. Take just the process of buying your own home for
example. How many people do you think would even have a home, if it wasn't for the
mechanism of borrowing against their future earning capacity? And of course,
businesses use it all the time.

Private money can also be issued debt free. And example of this mechanism is
"airpoints". Airpoints are a form of private debt- free currency. No one goes into debt
in order to receive airpoints. Instead, the airlines create this "money" out of thin air,
in the form of bonus points for frequent flyers. Once you have sufficient points, you
can spend them on travel. There are many examples of this sort of thing. Not only
that, but it is possible to use these airpoints for purchases other than air travel - like
hotel accommodation for example.

The issuance of money is entering a rapid evolutionary period, as new technologies

make it possible to launch innovative private money systems. This is good news.
The last thing we want and need is for the state, either directly or indirectly, to
control or monopolise the money-creating mechanisms of a dynamic society. Yes, it
does that now - but any future progress demands the state step away from the
"money business".

Private money is already here in limited form - as in the frequent flyer points already
mentioned. Another is E-gold, which is rapidly becoming a functional private money.
A lot of its growth is due to the existence of e-gold market-makers - those who are

126
 The Road To Freedom

increasing e-gold's usefulness and value, by providing various exchange services.

Imagine how its functionality would be increased if a private, gold-denominated
money card was issued. Not an ordinary fiat money ATM card, but a card
denominated in grams of gold.

However, e-gold is NOT the same as frequent flyer points. E-gold is a fiduciary
instrument - having 100% backing in real gold. It cannot, therefore, create new e-
gold out of thin air.

Money "madness" always returns when things get tough. So if we see a major
cyclical downturn to the world economy, or some sudden economic crisis, you can
expect to see the return of crank theories as a way of solving the problem.

So, if you are confronted with a new idea in this area, apply this simple "litmus" test,
to see if it will increase or decrease your personal freedom.

Is the projected reform designed to monopolise monetary creation even more? Is it a

cover for a state-issuance project? The answers to these two questions will guard
you against falling for some quack solution.

The future of money is to be found in the totally free market.

Friedrich Hayek, the famous economist of the Austrian school, had a most
interesting idea. He proposed that the best form of money would be competing
currencies in the same economic sphere - not just between nations, but within
nations. In other words, de- monopolise money. A free market in money issuance
would deliver the very best of monetary systems - and give people the freedom to
choose the money they wish to use.

In the fast changing era that is upon us, you can expect to see both changes to
money, and money issuance mechanisms. And you can expect the arrival of
innovative alternatives to one of history's most persistent monopolies - the monopoly
of money and credit creation. It is one of the last barriers to overcome before we can
enjoy true freedom.

127
 The Road To Freedom

July 4: A Promise Betrayed

In the early 80s I was in New Zealand. I was an ardent admirer and supporter of the
USA and everything American. So much so, that one particular evening I
deliberately took myself on to the streets of Auckland City to take on the mindless
hordes who were marching up the main street in protest at the visits of American
nuclear-powered warships to New Zealand waters.

I was livid. I can recall yelling and arguing with various left wing toadies, trying in
vain to counter their assertion that such ships were dangerous. Of course, the real
reason I was angry was that I knew the root of these protests was anti-Americanism.
If ever anyone hated America's freedoms, it was these people!

I loved America, because it was the first country explicitly formed on the basis of a
document asserting the rights of the individual - The Declaration of Independence.
Because it was the true land of opportunity. And because it shone like a beacon of
hope in an otherwise dismal, socialist world.

I view that document as a global treasure. It asserts man's sovereignty - anywhere

and everywhere. It is a world first. Nowhere and no time in previous history has such
a declaration been made on behalf of the rights of man. Nowhere has anyone
audaciously suggested that man is sovereign over his own life.

To say, as it does, that we all have unalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness" - is to say what history has hitherto suppressed and denied. And
because of this, it is a truly radical document.

The greatness of America was built upon the greatness of its founding principles -
The Declaration of Independence.

Boy, how times have changed!

Americans still celebrate July 4, Independence Day, but judging from actual reality, it
would appear the majority have either forgotten what those words really mean, or
don't care any more.

It would seem that Americans are more concerned with flag-waving and patriotic
slogans, as expressions of the July 4 spirit, than concern for the principles that mark
that day as unique. Form has replaced substance. Slogans have replaced thinking.
Spin has replaced truth.

How did all this happen?

Well, America's abandonment of freedom as a guiding principle did not happen over
night. It was a slow process of erosion and decay - a gradualist departure from the
ideals that made it great in the first place.

But if one can put an exact time on the open declaration of this decay, it was the
USA's response to 9/11.

128
 The Road To Freedom

I was in London at the time, heading back to my hotel after a few hours of shopping.
I noticed all these people standing in front of a shop window. It turned out they were
all watching multiple television screens, which were simultaneously announcing that
the USA had been attacked and that planes had crashed into the World Trade
Center. The images were literally "out of this world"!

I was like everybody else, shocked and angered - and appalled that such a thing
could happen. At first, I could hardly bring myself to believe it!

Little did I know that this event would trigger a major catastrophe for both the USA
and the world at large - the declaration of the "war on terror".

I see this Declaration of War as the complete opposite to the earlier Declaration of
Independence. One opened the door to human advancement and progress. The
other opened the door to possible human annihilation.

The first declaration is about individual freedom. The second declaration is about
human slavery.

It seems the world turned, in one breath, from a place of hope and fulfilled dreams,
to one of horror and despair. And the reason for this sea change in the world's
psyche was America's turning from being the champion of freedom to an active
proponent of its demise - all in the name of protecting freedom.

Millions of words have already been written on the war on terror, so I will simply say
that a war on terror, is a war on an idea. A war on a strategy. It cannot be won. It can
only lead to more and more degradation and decline, as ever-expanding draconian
legislation is enacted in the futile attempt to stamp out terror.

One may as well stamp out evil. It's a fool's game. War won't eliminate terror, but it
can certainly eliminate freedom.

Like I said, the erosion of individual liberty has been a "work in progress" - a series
of small steps in the wrong direction. It didn't start yesterday - and in fact probably
started the day after the original Declaration was signed!

Every minor loss of freedom sets a precedent for the next one. One law here, one
regulation there. One tax increase here, one property rights violation there. Over
time, the situation becomes like the veritable frog in boiling water - which ends up
dying because the water temperature was heated gradually, so it didn't notice the
impending danger.

But the war on terror has brought this process to an entirely new stage - the overt,
in-your-face abandonment of any pretence of freedom - all in the pursuit of fabled
security.

And that's the deal the world is being offered. Your freedom for your security. A trade
made in hell. Except, it's not honestly stated. No politician is actually saying "give up
your freedom in exchange for security". No, what they ARE saying is that this war on
terror is necessary, precisely to ensure freedom!

129
 The Road To Freedom

War, I venture to say, is not a human activity at all - not if you consider humans as
individuals. War can only be fought by states - or humans in the collective sense.
Sure, individuals often resort to violence, but it is limited to one on one, or a few
against the others. Only the state can bring individuals together on mass - and turn
the propensity for a fist fight into a potential nuclear holocaust.

War puts everything up for grabs - including enshrined freedoms. Nothing can stand
against the state as a war machine. And if you try you are a traitor.

War reveals the very worst in human nature. Men, who at home wouldn't hurt a fly,
will turn into butchers, torturers and rapists in the theatre of war. Individual
responsibility is replaced by the obedience to authority. Individual conscience is
replaced by herd instinct.

War is the health of the state. States need war. They need it to instil a sense of fear
and insecurity. Like any effective protection racketeer, you can hardly expect your
clients to hand over their money and freedom, unless there is a demonstrated need
for the services you are offering.

War is the ultimate "create fear - provide protection" racket.

The "war on terror" is diabolically clever for a number of reasons: first because the
enemy can be anywhere, which causes more fear; secondly because the war is
never-ending, as terror (like evil) will likely be with us forever; thirdly such a war
cannot be measured or graded for success. It is undefinable, malleable - the perfect
tool for the nascent totalitarian.

There's a well-known phenomenon in politics. It's when a party promises one thing,
and surreptitiously goes ahead and does another. It's much more likely for a leftist
government to succeed in bringing about rightist policies. And vice versa, for a
rightist government to implement leftist policies. For example: a leftist government is
more likely to succeed in getting industrial relations laws changed, in favour of the
free market, than a rightist one. This is because liberals are wary of a right wing
party's intentions and will scrutinise every move. Whereas their faith in their own
party's ideological slogans blinds them to its actual actions.

You can see this all over the world, from the US Republican Party's embrace and
furtherance of socialist, welfare state policies, to the UK Labour Party's embrace of
neo-Thatcherist economic policies, to the radical surge toward the free market which
New Zealand underwent in 1984 - under a Labour government!

It seems that people's defences are down when their "own" people are in control.
Well, the same phenomenon is happening on an international scale. If any number
of people were asked to name the freest country on earth, I'm sure the majority
would immediately say, "the USA!". And it is precisely because of this reputation,
that the leaders of that country can now be pushing a totalitarian platform. No one
expects the "land of the free" to be promoters of, and the catalyst for, a "world of the
slaves".

On this memorable day, July 4, I ask all right-thinking Americans to consider the true
meaning of their founding charter. I urge them to compare their country as it was, to
the one it is becoming - under the banner of the "war on terror".

130
 The Road To Freedom

A country at war is never a free country. Yes, it's possible to fight a war to secure
freedom - as was the original American war of Independence. But a war on terror is
a different type of animal altogether. A war on terror is not a war to secure freedom,
but to obliterate it. Not overnight. Not at once. But gradually, step by step - one lost
freedom at a time.

There is one glimmer of hope, and that's the fact there IS such a thing as the true
American "spirit" - the sense of life that knows, understands and values true
freedom.

America has many such people with the freedom spirit. And all it needs is for this
force for freedom to wake up and take action - before it's too late.

July 4 is a time to celebrate freedom and all that entails. Let us hope that enough
Americans grasp the true meaning of it, and realise that the course the USA has
currently set itself is not about freedom, but about slavery.

America is both the hope and fear of the entire world. Its size and power make it
capable of influencing the entire planet for good, or ill. The America of the Founding
Fathers is the hope - but the USA of the "war on terror" is the fear.

Where it chooses to go from here, remains to be seen. But there is always a choice.

131
 The Road To Freedom

Think Different: PT FAQ

"PT" is the enigmatic label applied to those who step "outside" the system. It can
mean many things: perpetual traveller; prior taxpayer; permanent tourist; possibility
thinker; portable trade; privacy tactician; post tyranny; progressive thought; power
trip; private territory; personal triumph; politician terminator - or whatever you can
think of!

However the usual definition, as originally put forward by Harry Schultz (the famous
investment advisor) and WG Hill (the author of the book "PT"), is "perpetual traveller"
- meaning someone who benefits from the treatment most nations afford to travellers
(as opposed to their captive citizens!).

These benefits include such things as not having to pay tax in the country where you
are a tourist (except for various sales taxes etc.); being treated as a welcome guest;
being welcomed as a bringer of foreign funds; being respected as someone who is
not bludging off the local social welfare system.

Most countries will allow you to be a tourist for up to 6 months in any one year. If you
stay on longer, they are likely to view you as a resident - something which brings a
host of extra, unwanted obligations.

As someone who lives this sort of life, I'm often asked various questions - by those
who are interested, but who cannot quite see how to make it happen.

You see, for most people, the very idea of "moving" brings on a sense of discomfort.
Sure, we all like to be tourists once in a while - but a permanent one? It must all get
a bit much - a life of tour buses, constant flying, visa-getting, hotel stays, and pesky
foreign languages and customs.

Such is the common perception. But it is a caricature. In fact, if you set yourself up
right, you can lead a fairly normal life - if you consider life without accountants,
lawyers, filing cabinets and tax returns as "normal"!

So, to answer the most common questions about the PT life - here's a brief FAQ,
which covers the most commonly expressed concerns.

Q: Can anyone become a PT?

A: In principle yes. However, most people would never want to, because it requires
a substantial commitment to thinking outside the square. Most people value their
"home", and their "home country" (sometimes to the point of irrationality), so the idea
of moving away from home is usually viewed negatively.

Q: What type of people would find becoming a PT relatively easy?

A: Anyone who has either a private source of income, or who can work or do
business internationally. We all know how important money is, and earning it is one
of life's primary goals - as a means of living the life we desire. So, being able to earn
an income away from "home" is an essential prerequisite. This could be achieved by

132
 The Road To Freedom

anyone who is financially independent; a full time investor; someone with portable
skills - allowing them to work anywhere; those who earn their income off the internet;
and those whose business is already international in scope.

To give you a concrete example, imagine a computer programmer. Such person can
literally work anywhere - as his or her tools of trade consist solely of a computer and
an internet connection. This is one of the reasons for the growth of the IT industry in
India. They are well known as talented hackers, so are able to do work for
companies in other countries - remotely. This ability can easily be reversed. Instead
of staying home and working for companies in other countries - you could be moving
away, and doing work for companies at home!

The internet has opened the door to many more people - as far as a PT life is
concerned. If you can do business via digital media - such as music, design,
graphics, web building, programming, writing, photography, consulting etc., then you
can certainly live and work anywhere, while still doing business with your regular
clients.

Q: Would I need a lot of money to become a PT?

A: No. The amount of money is not the main issue. In fact, you could become a PT
on a very small income. This is one of the reasons places like Thailand and the
Philippines are popular with PTs - because one can live there on the smell of an oily
rag if necessary. Of course, money gives you choices - so having more money gives
you more options as far as what countries you spend your time in.

Let me give you another concrete example. I've just spent seven weeks in New
Zealand. And soon I'll be spending a few months in China. Now, while my income
remains virtually the same, my spending power can change quite dramatically. New
Zealand is a first world country, with mostly first world prices. So when I was staying
there, my income went only so far. However, when I go to China, I will find that same
income will go a lot further.

Whereas a pair of shoes in New Zealand may cost me NZ$195 - a similar pair in
China will only cost me the equivalent of NZ$40. Same with food costs. A meal out
for two, in a place like New Zealand, can easily set you back NZ$60-$70 (excluding
drinks), whereas two people can eat out in a nice restaurant in China for around
NZ$13-$15.

So, if you're looking to be a PT on the "cheap", then you would want to spend most
of your time in the more economical countries. On the other hand, if money is not
really an object, then the whole world is your oyster.

Q: I'm really keen on becoming a PT, but what about my wife or partner?

A: This can be a tricky one. In fact I've talked to people who would love to make the
change, but who find the attitude or commitments of their spouse/partner makes this
virtually impossible. Certainly, if more than one person is involved in any major life
decision, then such an issue is much harder to resolve - and may not be resolvable
at all.

133
 The Road To Freedom

My advice would be to clearly enunciate all the benefits of the PT lifestyle to your
partner, and try to get him or her excited by the possibilities. However, if they are
totally against the idea, then there is nothing really you can do - unless you were to
leave them. And that may be too drastic an option!

Q: My partner and I have talked about this and love the idea, but we have
children. How would we educate our children if we were to lead this type of
lifestyle?

A: A good question - and one I've asked myself many times. You see, I had the
benefit of having older, independent children when I made my move (in 2000). I was
also single. However, I have often asked myself what I would do if I had my time
over, and had wanted to do this when I was much younger - and still with a young
family.

And I know my answer. I've given this a lot of thought, and I've decided that a state
education is nothing to write home about. Even more, I've decided that a state
education is actually harmful! And when I talk of "state" education, I mean "private"
education also. The fact is ALL education is STATE education, because the state
controls the curricula and the standards.

I would bite the bullet and educate my children myself. I believe that travelling to
different countries, exploring different cultures and experiencing a life of variety and
stimulation is exactly what children need!

Most schooling is wasted time anyway. My own dad left school (in Scotland) when
he was 14 - and I can tell you, he was a lot more literate than most 18 or 19 year
olds today!

Here's my condensed theory of education - one which is ideal for the aspiring PT
family. First, all children need to know the basics - reading, writing and maths. That's
the foundational stuff - which is needed to do anything further. And this can easily be
taught by parents. I know this, because I taught my own daughter basic reading
(using phonics) before she even went to school.

Once the basics are out of the way - then comes exploration of things like the
sciences, the arts, geography and history - all of which can be easily taught by
reference to real life, and with the help of interesting books, DVDs and even the
internet.

But the most important educational philosophy is this: let your child follow his or her
own passion! That's the key. I know this because as an "A" stream student
academically, I was literally forced to do advanced maths, physics, chemistry and
Latin - when all I really wanted to do was art and music. My passions were squashed
by the state education system - and I had to follow them in spite of my schooling.

As adults we know that the key to successful learning is to have a real motivation to
absorb the information. Once you have a passion for something - then learning is a
pleasure, not a chore!

134
 The Road To Freedom

And that's the key. Allow your child to follow his or her passion and encourage
exploration as a means of finding such a passion. Your task, as a parent, is to guide
your child to make this discovery - then simply encourage and facilitate from then on.
With this type of educational philosophy, you could easily be a PT, travel the world,
AND educate your children in a way like no other. And if I had my time over, that's
what I'd do!

Q: As someone who is determined to lead a freer life, what is the main

advantage of becoming a PT?

A: Simplicity. Unlike convoluted schemes to avoid tax by setting up various shelters,

trusts and companies - which only makes lawyers and accountants richer - you can
simply wave it all goodbye.

The sleep at night factor. If you're going to travel the freedom road, then you don't
want to forever be looking over your shoulder.

If you engage in creative tax-planning strategies, then you are always having to keep
one step ahead of your national tax authorities - as they are constantly trying to stay
one step ahead of you!

If you believe you can avoid tax by declaring yourself a "non- taxpayer", or thinking
the law or constitution is on your side - then I've got some bad news for you. When
push comes to shove, your government will ignore all laws and constitutions - if they
need YOUR money, and you are refusing to give it to them.

Remember, they have the guns - and if necessary, they will use them.

Q: What is the biggest barrier to embarking on the PT life?

A: Your mind. The way you think. Your attitude.

In fact, my personal signature tag says it all: "Man is free at the moment he wishes
to be." - Voltaire

Need I say more?

135
 The Road To Freedom

How Do You Know You Are Free?

It's a good question, because unless you know by what standard you should
measure freedom, you cannot know if you really ARE free.

Let's get personal. How do YOU rate your own freedom? And what is it that defines
the freedom you think you have? How would you answer the following?

Are you able to start a business without bureaucratic overload? Are you able to cut
down a tree in your own back yard? Are you able to keep the money you earn? Are
you able to smoke marijuana?Are you able to read any book, or see any movie? Are
you able to express your opinion without fear? Are you able to gamble at offshore
online casinos? Are you able to travel without undue harassment? Are you able to
buy, sell or trade whatever you like? Are you able to keep your personal information
private?

The list could go on, but you get the drift.

Freedom, when it comes down to the wire, is the ability to make choices about your
own life and property. Freedom is NOT about negating the same choices for other
people. So, I cannot claim the freedom to steal another's property. Freedom can only
be related to actions which do not impinge on someone else's freedom.

It's often said that the hallmark of a free society is when freedom of speech is
sacrosanct - meaning that one has the freedom to express opinions or
disagreements with regards to the existing political or social order.

Having the freedom to talk aloud to yourself, or to engage in heated debates with
your neighbours, is not normally considered a definition of "freedom of speech".

But is this true? Is freedom of speech the primary measure of freedom? Is it not
possible to have freedom of speech in a prison camp, for example? Certainly it is
possible. But such a freedom would not compensate for the fact that you were
locked up!

I think that freedom is best evaluated and defined by comparison to its complete
opposite – slavery.

The word "slavery" immediately conjures up images of blacks in early America (and
elsewhere), who were literally bundled up in their home country, Africa, and shipped
to foreign lands as "forced labourers without pay". And that is the essence of slavery
- a state of being where your life and labour have been expropriated in favour of a
third party.

As a slave, you have no control over your life or your property. Your life belongs
entirely to someone else. Of course, the slave owner has to at least feed and house
his slaves, otherwise his "investment" would be lost. So you could say that the slave
owner takes 100% of the labour value of the slave - while handing back perhaps
10%-20% in goods and services (food and lodging).

136
 The Road To Freedom

To take 100% of a man's effort is the same as a death sentence. If you take 100%,
then there is literally nothing left.

This brings me to the conclusion that freedom is best measured by reference to how
much of one's life remains in one's control. If a slave is not free, because 80%-90%
of his life and life's effort is taken from him, then it's only a matter of determining
exactly how much of your life you need, to consider yourself free. My answer is that
you need 100% of your life, and the results of your life's effort, to consider yourself
100% free.

Using that definition, no one is truly free - not completely, not 100%. It's all a matter
of comparison and relativity. You may be freer than me, your neighbour freer than
you, or everyone in "my" country may be freer than everyone in "your" country.
The benefit of this "accounting" method of measuring freedom is that you can define
what level of actual freedom exists by looking at what level of "freedom theft" is
going on.

The slave society is "taxed" at least 80%-90%. The tax, in this case, represents the
amount of "freedom" stolen. And so an ideal mechanism for measuring the amount
of freedom an individual or society enjoys is the level of taxes that exist. The more
tax, the less free, and vice versa.

Consider this: Income tax first appeared in the United States in 1862, during the Civil
War, and about 1% of the population was required to pay it. A flat-rate income tax
was imposed in 1867. The income tax was repealed in its entirety in 1872. It made a
comeback when Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894. The tax at that time
was 2% on individual incomes in excess of $4,000. And remember, $4,000 was a lot
of money in those days! By that tax rate regime, the USA was indeed a very free
country, and most citizens did not even pay it.

Income tax was first levied in England by Pitt as a Wartime measure in 1798 - with a
tax of 2 shillings in the pound on total income. (The pound had 20 shillings.) This tax
was repealed when the war ended in 1802. In 1842, Peel reintroduced the tax as a
temporary measure, with the hope that it would be abolished in a few years' time.
However, it wasn't and Britain has had income tax ever since. On the eve of the
outbreak of the First World War in 1914, the standard rate of income tax was 1s 2d
in the pound - or around 5%.

What about tax rates today? Don’t be fooled into thinking the tax rate is just what is
taken out of your pay packet. There are all the other taxes too! Sales taxes, payroll
taxes and corporate taxes - not to mention all the extra taxes like levies, duties,
tariffs, and of course, the hidden tax of inflation.

Remember, every dollar that every business pays in tax can only be paid for from
the income they earn from the prices they charge for their goods and services. In
other words, consumers are paying all business taxes via the prices they pay for
what they buy (additional to any VAT, GST or other sales tax).

If you add up your 25%-40% personal tax rate, add in VAT, GST or sales taxes, plus
your property taxes, duties, tariffs, fuel tax and all the other "hidden" taxes - you can
see how large the REAL tax take is for many people.

137
 The Road To Freedom

Who knows how large it really is? If you earn a reasonable amount then it's not
exaggerating to say you may be paying as much as 60% tax. Zero tax means
nothing is taken off you. 60% tax means the state takes 60% of your life's effort. If it
gets to 80%, then you could rightfully consider yourself as a slave. So I guess that at
the 60% mark you are a little be freer than a slave!

If we use the tax-take as a measurement of the amount of freedom in a society, then

it provides for an interesting means of comparison between different countries. And
keep in mind most tax is used for income-redistribution, so a high tax-take usually
means that money is being siphoned off the owners (the producers) in favour of the
non-owners (the non-producers).

However, no true freedom measurement can ignore property other than money. Just
as a slave has both his person and his labour stolen from him - so any measurement
of freedom must take into account the amount of control one has over one's self and
one's property. This includes being able to have effective control over any property
you own - i.e. your home, your business etc. - and over your own body, like where
you can take your body, what you can put into your body etc.

So now you can measure your level of freedom, by asking yourself how much of the
money you earn are you allowed to keep (how much you are taxed); how much
control do you have over your own property; and how much control do you have
over your own body.

Those are the essential components of freedom - and any society that claims to be
free must deliver a high score on all counts. How does your home country rate? How
do other countries rate?

To give you some idea, here's a comparison between two large and powerful
countries - The USA and China. One is considered free, the other is considered a
totalitarian regime - or not free. The list is not exhaustive, but will at least give you
something to think about, and perhaps some cause for concern.

THE USA: Lower tax rates than most western developed countries; Less income
redistribution than somewhere like Sweden - but still considerable; Freedom to
express one's opinion against the existing order, although increasing pressure to
self-censor (i.e. to not speak up, for fear of reprisal); Less bureaucratic interference
in business than most western developed countries, but still considerable obstacles
in place; Severe restrictions on access to new and innovative health treatments, due
to the FDA; Draconian anti-drugs legislation in place; Onerous rules regarding
banking and the movement of money; Virtually no financial privacy; Freedom of
movement within and without the country, but increasingly burdensome due to
"Homeland Security" rules. A political democracy, with extensive and burdensome
hurdles in place to limit new party participation. A two party state.

CHINA: Very low levels of tax, with most people paying neither income or corporate
taxes; No social welfare - and very little income redistribution of any kind; Can't
openly speak out against the state; User-pays dominates most activities like health,
use of motorways, schooling etc.; Large gap between rich and poor - due to lack of
income redistribution; Extensive bureaucratic interference, which can be moderated
via graft and payola; Free to leave the country and move around; The cash economy
rules, leading to high levels of financial privacy; No apparent rules enforcing such

138
 The Road To Freedom

things as seat belt wearing, cycle helmets, or against smoking; No apparent alcohol
licensing laws, but strict anti-drug laws; Upward mobility as economic growth creates
opportunities; Easy access to all sorts of health remedies, including bogus ones;
Little consumer "protection"; Rampant pirating of goods and services, with uneven
property rights enforcement. A one party state - which is best described as
"authoritarian" rather than "communist".

I could go on to compare such countries as the United Kingdom, Australia, New

Zealand, Germany or Italy. And in each case you would find variations on the
freedom theme. For example, it is well known that Italy is drowning in various laws
and regulations but that Italians generally ignore them - making it a freer country
than outward appearances would suggest.

I could compare Germany with France - and note that their extensive tax and
redistribution systems, not to mention unions, give them some of the highest
unemployment rates in Europe.

I could compare Singapore with Hong Kong, and realise that both have effective one
party states. In fact, it is well known that China looks to the experience of a country
like Singapore as a model for its own development. It's a so-called democracy, but
where only one party actually ever wins - and rules. And it was built on the
authoritarian rule of Lee Kuan Yew.

So next time you hear the word "freedom" being bandied about, or that one country
wants to lecture another on what constitutes freedom, give a thought to how freedom
can be measured. Consider the level of tax or "freedom theft", and how a person's
life and property is treated. Look at the facts and make your own judgement.

It could well be worth your while to know where the freest countries are - just in case
your own country descends further into slavery mode - and you need to escape! And
whatever you do, don't make the mistake of equating the "right to vote" with having
freedom, for let me assure you, it's quite possible to have a majority vote itself into
slavery!

139
 The Road To Freedom

Going For Galt's Gulch

Galt's Gulch is a high-tech retreat in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" - a place
where all the "disappearing" productive people can meet, relax and recharge.

John Galt, the hero of "Atlas", is a brilliant engineer who has decided he will not
support a corrupt system. He will not allow his mind, his talent, or his efforts to prop
it up. He plans a strike like no other - a strike of all those who are the engine of
civilisation, the creative producers in every field. His mission is to persuade each
and every one to disappear, to simply remove their support, and thereby bring about
a collapse of the existing society.

Galt's Gulch is their private hideaway spot - an anarchic, free community hidden in
the mountains. It's protected by a high-tech invisibility screen, which is designed to
prevent the place from being found.

It's a "retreat for the rational", a place to reenergise and spend time with like-minded
people.

If you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", then I urge you to. It has the power to
revolutionise the way you see the world - and more importantly, your place in it.

Galt's Gulch portrays what could be possible in a rational society - and in each new
generation of readers it inspires hope, and shines like a beacon pointing to a
different world.

It has also inspired speculation as to how such a society may be created in reality.
Usually, this has lead to ideas like how to create a new country, or sovereign
territory. Many such ideas have been floated - and come to naught. The main
obstacle being the impossibility of achieving sovereignty over any existing territory.
It's all spoken for. Sure you can buy land and build a city even - but you cannot buy
the actual sovereignty, or true independence.

This vital ingredient of freedom is apparently not for sale. Every existing nation
jealously guards its existing sovereignty, and has managed to seize every piece of
real estate on earth.

You could go off-planet of course - like in Robert Heinlen's novel - "The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress" - where an Earth colony on the moon rebels, and declares its
independence. And that is still a possibility - although probably far-off.

This leaves us in a quandary. Freedom-loving individuals would simply love a place

to call their "own". Trouble is, such a place does not exist - and appears to be
impossible to create, under the existing notions of national sovereignty.

It could be possible to "lease" sovereignty from some existing nation - say a poor
nation in need of cash. But such a move is very likely to draw the wrath of the nation
state club - particularly if it were to buck the system in other ways. However, this
option is also very unlikely, as the only places that may even consider it are probably
a bit of a hell hole.

140
 The Road To Freedom

So, where does that leave a motivated freedom-seeker - an individual who is serious
about claiming his birthright, and not content to just put up with the status quo?

A clue lies in the physical specifications of Galt's Gulch. Much has been said about
the nature of that private society, but the novel is more properly concerned with the
big picture - about transforming the world as a result of the "strike". However the
nascent free society, that is Galt's Gulch, is able to exist because of one essential
fact - the privacy shield that lies overhead.

The sky shield creates the illusion that there is nothing in the valley below - so any
spying aircraft flying overhead will not see it. It is designed specifically to hide the
existence of the place and to allow it to survive and achieve its purpose - that of
offering a refuge to those who are on strike, until it is time to return to a transformed
society.

This is where the internet comes in. The internet is like an alternative society - a
place outside the normal societal structures. It's a place which is effectively
uncontrolled by government. In other words, it's a place which has moved beyond
the sovereignty of any individual nation. Sure, some nations try to control elements
of the internet - like the USA stopping its people from gambling offshore, or China
stopping its people from visiting BBC.co.uk - but at its core, the internet is free
space.

It's also a very public space. But it has the capacity to be as private as you want it to
be.

More importantly, the internet is the basis of a new type of community. You can see
this by watching how it has developed. Whereas you used to just read newspapers
and news from the official news channels - now you can read/create blogs, start your
own podcast service, create and sell your own book, start your own newsletter.

Then there's the buy/sell communities like eBay and others - where vast amounts of
private business are transacted. And of course, the internet is littered with every type
of interest group - political, economic, hobbies, sexuality. You name it and there's a
group for it.

It's also revolutionised how people find work, arrange travel, book hotels, and do
banking. In fact, the internet has become the global, no barriers, free market. And for
now, it's not taxed!

It is in this cyber-environment that a private society can be born. Any group of

people can create a virtual community with its own privacy shield. Privacy, on the
internet, is created by technological means. You can shield your email
communications using PGP. You can shield your internet movements using an
anonymising service. You can shield certain types of financial transactions using
alternate value-exchange systems like e-gold. In other words, you can create a
virtual privacy shield.

You can, potentially, move entire chunks of your life into this private space - if you
choose. You can communicate, you can do business, you can play, you can inform
and be informed. You can even find love.

141
 The Road To Freedom

The one thing you can't do is live in a physical free space - at least not yet. However,
this in no way downplays the significance of what can be achieved on the net.

At its root, the net is quite subversive of the present order. It provides proof of
alternative means of organisation - without the use of force. The more people
interact with the net, the more they are confronted by self-organising systems -
whether business or private - where order is developing, evolving and functioning.

The significance of this "education" should not be minimised - because it is allowing

individuals to discover a world that works without the gangster class called
government. It is a prime example of what can be achieved when people work
together for their mutual benefit.

This re-education is a crucible for change. It has the power to fundamentally alter the
social order - to cause a mind shift.

Let me give you just one example. The net is full of business opportunities. Now,
many of these end in tears. But look at the larger picture. Many of these provide
valuable learning experiences - opportunities for people to actually come to grips
with the idea that they, as individuals, can create their own wealth - that they are not
entirely at the mercy of someone else who may or may not want to employ them.
Now, this type of education is NOT available at school or university - but it is
available on the net. And people are soaking it up.

Take another example - my own private information service for those seeking more
practical freedom – Freedom Confidential.

On the face of it, this may not seem like a revolutionary hotspot - but in fact it is. You
see, by attracting like-minded individuals it sets in process a "meeting of minds", and
allows for interchange between those wishing to expand their life options.

Somebody joins up and wants to learn more about how to open an offshore bank
account, or how to get another legal passport, or how to start a business online. At
once they are able to communicate, in private, with others on the same road.

This community allows for exchange of ideas, inspiration, new strategies, advice on
common pitfalls - all of which is invaluable, and which can shorten the learning curve
that would normally be expected.

In being part of such a community, a member is exposed to a variety of thought-

provoking ideas, and given the freedom to respond, ask questions, make
suggestions and take action.

Over time, this type of freedom community builds a commitment to the very idea of
personal freedom. It strengthens the foundations of each participant's desire to lead
a freer life. And each of these people know other people, who talk to other people -
and so are ideas are spread.

Of course, to read your average newspaper, you'd think nothing was happening -
that the world is as it has always been. But that's because the average newspaper,
TV channel and politician are living in a bubble. You only have to listen to any leader
of any nation to realise they're either stupid or ignorant - or both. And certainly, they

142
 The Road To Freedom

have no idea what is really happening beneath the surface of their perceived world.
They may believe they are the movers and shakers, but the reality is quite different.

Desire for freedom starts in the mind. It then looks for actual expression in the real
world. The real world is much more than what you hear on TV. It is emerging and
evolving at the cutting edge of social change - the internet.

Like when the Berlin Wall collapsed - bringing to an end the totalitarian monstrosity
that was the Soviet Union - the present order is not nearly as robust as the
purveyors of nonsense would have you believe. Change can happen - and it can
happen fast. All that is necessary is a catalyst - a sudden event that can shake the
foundations of the present order. If that happens, and you already have alternative
social organisational systems in place, then the resultant social transformation could
be sudden and profound.

The internet provides the type of space for a virtual Galt's Gulch - and place of
respite from the silliness of political pontificating; a place to recharge your life battery
in the company of like-minded souls - and a place to learn the strategies of making
your life as free as you want it to be.

Don't underestimate the power of ideas - or the capacity of individuals to self-

organise to achieve their goals.

143
 The Road To Freedom

The Death of Politics

The UK election has put one more nail in the coffin.

Tony Blair has won an historic third term - the first Labour government ever to do so.
And to look at his smile, you'd think he believes the hype - and that he is presiding
over some sort of victory. Far from it.

Let's look at the real facts.

Labour won with around 37% of the popular vote. That is 37% of those who
bothered to cast votes. From the same UK election, we learn that it represented the
second worst turnout in UK voting history - with just 61% of eligible voters bothering
to exercise their franchise.

If you do the maths - then you get a decidedly uninspiring image of a political
process - of a democracy - that's supposed to be worth exporting to the world.
So, let's imagine 100 UK residents who are eligible to vote. However, only 61% of
them do - just 61 people. Out of these, only 37% vote for Blair and Labour - or 22.57
people.

We now have a stark picture of the reality of the UK political scene. Labour has won
its "historic" third term with the grand total of 22.6% of eligible voters. In other words,
77.4% of the voting age residents of the UK did NOT want this result.

If I was Tony Blair, I'd be deeply ashamed to call my win any sort of victory - and in
fact would seriously consider resigning forthwith.

What's even more revealing is that only 61% actually voted - meaning that 39 people
out of our sample of 100 didn't see the point. My kind of people!

Now, you'd never get this 'spin' on things from either the politicians or their media
tarts. For remember, the media needs politicians almost as much as the politicians
need the media! The last thing they need is to have the true picture exposed - and
then openly discussed.

Of course, this poor voter turnout is not exclusive to the UK. No, it's a spreading
phenomena - and in particular in the USA, where voter turnout is always low (in the
world's "greatest" democracy).

To get a good turnout, you need to be a Saddam Hussein type of politician - who
can force everyone to vote, or perhaps an Australian one, who can rely on that
country's compulsory voting system to drag recalcitrant voters away from their sports
on TV.
You can legally force someone to vote - but with our cherished anonymous voting
system, you cannot make them tick the right box. Disgruntled forced-voters are just
as likely to write "f*** you!" on the voting paper, as vote for a real person.

It's got so bad that it's quite possible more countries will begin to look at the
Australian model. For nothing is more demoralising to politicians, than to have
people ignore them!

144
 The Road To Freedom

It's actually a lot worse than just being ignored. A low turnout threatens to seriously
undermine the legitimacy of the whole process - as Labour's win with 22.6% popular
support clearly illustrates.

This is the name of the new game - voter reluctance, or "apathy" as politicians prefer
to call it.

But is it really apathy? Of course not. It's a gradual awakening to the scam of our
modern times - the idea that we can vote to make our lives more bearable,
interesting, exciting, profitable and healthy - or that we can vote for justice, freedom
and a fat pay cheque.

There is only so much failure you can endure, before you have to admit there is
something wrong with the basic strategy or premise of what you are supporting. And
year after year, the democratic political process leads us to believe it can solve all
our problems - while demonstrably failing every time.

In fact, nothing the government turns its hand to works - except to choke people with
ever more laws, restrictions and taxes.

Those great government projects - education and healthcare - are in complete

tatters. More and more money is poured into these bottomless pits, year after year,
election after election. And what do we get? Constantly deteriorating standards and
services.

Now, if any of this was being run by business - people would be calling for blood. But
no, somehow people have bought into the idea that government is "different", and
cannot be held to account for its manifest failures.

But that's changing - as witnessed by the ever-shrinking number of people who take
the time to vote.

It's not apathy, it's frustration and a deep emotional awareness that nothing
changes. No matter what party you vote for, or what policies they promise - it's all
huff and puff, and not worth expending half an hour of your time to go out and
endorse it with your vote. You'd be just as effective if you wrote your political opinion
on a piece of toilet paper and flushed it.

This is the crux of the matter - that point of awakening, when one day you realise
that your vote counts for absolutely nothing!

We fight this awareness with all our strength. We don't want to admit that we've
been conned. We'd rather believe it could be better - if only people would try harder;
if we could get better people into politics; or if people were more honest. We naively
believe that "our" party will pull off the blatantly impossible.

But, there comes a day when you will finally realise the folly of it all (if you haven't
already). And when that fateful voting day comes, you will find yourself staying at
home and joining the ranks of the "apathetic". And you won't be alone. If you're in
the UK, you can rest easy, knowing that you are part of the 39% who has woken up -
and finally started to act rationally.

145
 The Road To Freedom

What's at stake here is the legitimacy of the whole voting concept. If voter turnout
continues to decline, then you will see a rise in the number of countries who employ
proportional voting. At present, the UK uses a "first past the post" voting system -
which means the person who gets the most votes in any particular electorate wins.
This type of system leads to what the UK has experienced - a Labour win, with only
22.6% support.

To disguise this fall from legitimacy, you can expect to hear calls for voting system
reform - to change to proportional voting, where a government ends up with seats
that more truly reflects the percentage of votes gained.

This type of voting system inevitably ends up with multiple political parties in power -
and usually necessitates that one or more of them form a working coalition.

Now, this concept is sold on the basis that it is a more fair voting system - more truly
reflecting the will of the people. But in reality, it's a "finger in the dike" strategy to fool
voters into thinking they will have more say - and that the resultant government is
more representative.

The truth is, proportional voting is simply a way to prolong the voting scam. A UK-
type result is a serious threat to the legitimacy of the whole process - so cannot be
allowed to repeat indefinitely. By introducing proportional voting, coalition
governments are formed - presenting the "appearance" of a result in harmony with
the voters' wishes.

All this points to the crisis of our age - the means by which we govern ourselves. We
have all grown up with democracy - the idea that the majority is right. Now, we are
witnessing the degeneration of that idea to one of "the winner is right". This can only
lead to more voter reluctance, leading to more and more desperate measures.

The burning question is this: what do we actually need the state for? If we can create
our livelihoods, build our dreams, buy all the consumer goods we want - without
government, then what, if anything, are they really doing?

The traditional answer is they keep the order. But do they? Is it not possible that they
are a force for disorder? Even those who recognise the limitations of the state, still
want to preserve some domain for their activities - like defence and law and order.
However, in a world where literally everything of value is created by the market,
surely the market can devise solutions such things.

And the beauty of the market is that it is truly democratic. You vote every day - with
every dollar you spend. If you don't like a particular service or product, you simply
don't buy it - don't "vote" for it. You get instant gratification with your dollar votes -
allowing you to exercise ultimate control over all aspects of your life. Is it such a
stretch of the imagination to see how this economic voting can equally be applied to
matters which we now consider to be the sole domain of the people we elect who
form governments?

A company which does not satisfy the wishes and needs of its shareholders and
customers is not long in business. And it is this market discipline and competition
which engineers our very standard of living. Surely - in matters such as education,

146
 The Road To Freedom

health, law and order, and defence - the market is more than capable of far
exceeding the performance of government - of bureaucrats.

Why, just yesterday, I read of the launch of a new service called Spotter - which
offers rewards to people who text in information about stolen cars (in New Zealand).
The stolen cars' registration numbers are listed on Spotter's database - and those
who "spot" any of these cars and report them, using the text function of their mobile
phone, can earn a monetary reward.

That's just one example of a market response to a law and order issue. And it won't
take much to make it superior to the useless service the government police provide
in this regard.

The feedback from the insurance industry has been positive - as they can see the
value of any strategy that can actually recover stolen vehicles, and thereby reduce
their own operating overheads. After all, such companies have a huge incentive to
minimise crime - and given a free reign, in an open market, could be counted on to
develop, endorse and support a wide variety of market initiatives.

Politics is the mechanism for achieving goals by edict, by force, by voting. The
market is the mechanism for achieving goals via the division of labour and voluntary
cooperation - tapping into the human character traits of profit seeking, competition,
self interest and a proven history of trading - of "making a deal".

As the UK election illustrates, the era of "politics as we know it" is coming to a close.
People, especially young people, are waking up and realising the futility of it all. But
don't expect politicians (or the vested interests behind them) to go down without a
fight!

147
 The Road To Freedom

The Tribal Gene of Love and War

I admit it. When I see the Scottish highlands, hear the lilt of the accent or far away
bagpipes, or sample a rare single malt whiskey - I come over all sentimental and
proud. You see my dad was a Scot, and although I have only ever visited Scotland
three or four times, it still evokes a sense of history and "love of country" in me.

However, I was actually born in England, of an English mother, and spent my

formative years there - and am a long-time devotee of English comedy. So being a
Sassenach by birth and a Scot by lineage does suggest some potential conflict. But
it gets worse. Most of my adult life was spent in New Zealand - so any mention of
rugby greats, the All Blacks, raises the pride-o-meter. I've also spent several years in
Australia, confounding my loyalties and sensibilities even more. But as the Aussies
say, "no worries mate!" And to cap it all off, I'm married to a Chinese national - so
take a greater interest in such things as the rise of China, Sino-Japanese relations,
and chopsticks than I normally would.

You could say I'm culturally "confused"!

This got me thinking about the nature of attachment, and the need for a sense of
belonging.

It all comes down to family - and the familiar. In fact, it doesn't even have to be a
genetic link, as my own experience has proven. What's more, such feelings can spill
over to other allegiances. We can create "family" at will, so it seems.

And it's true. You can grow "familial" feelings from all sorts of associations. So it's
obvious the desire to belong does not just originate with genetic factors (which we
cannot choose), but also environmental factors of our own choosing.

I call this the "tribal" gene - a built-in desire and requirement to attach ourselves to
affiliated groups. And try as I may to stand tall as an individual - I cannot discount
the very real bonds of family and the familiar.

Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. As anyone who has enjoyed a sports match, or the
Olympic Games, a family get together, or a dinner with like-minded friends knows -
such events generate a sense of community and belonging. And as such, they are
positives in our human experience. In fact, such experiences are part of what makes
life worth living.

However, the very same need can be manipulated and turned in upon itself - in
particular when disagreements or aggravation is present BETWEEN such groups.
Bad next door neighbours; an inter- tribal showdown; a soccer match riot between
supporters of different teams; or a war between nations.

Familial loyalties can be exploited very easily - and once anger is raised, mob
psychology and irrationalism can take over. Gang warfare. Street riots. World war. It
doesn't take much to move from the rational to the irrational - when it comes to
expressing such loyalties. On the coin of life, it appears that hate is the flip side of
love.

148
 The Road To Freedom

I was going to title this essay "The Scourge of Nationalism", and denounce it
outright. But the more I looked into it, the more I realised that this primal sentiment is
not something that can simply be shrugged off or discarded. It needs to be
peacefully redirected.

Politicians know how to play the "nation" card - or the "race" card. They are masters
of manipulation when it comes to the practice of divide and rule - of turning the love
of something into the hate of something else.

It all comes down to the issue of scale. A feud between families, or even gangs, is
limited in size. Sure, it can spill over and cause minor problems in the social order -
but in the larger scheme of things, such skirmishes are not a threat to humanity.
However, the larger the familial group, the bigger the potential threat. If a gang has
only 100 members, then it can only do so much damage. But if a "gang" has 100
million members, then things can very get ugly – fast!

This is the situation we find ourselves in - in the modern world of the mega-nation
state. The "old" world was on a much safer scale, size-wise, with its hundreds of
principalities and limited means of violence. But that all changed with the arrival of
the 20th century and the first of the World Wars. And when you add advanced
military technology into the mix, it becomes highly volatile.

So, the problem to be solved - by all men and women of good will - is how to limit the
capacity for intertribal violence on a national and global scale? How to set in place
societal forms that make it that much harder for such violence to flare up? And to
answer that question, one must look to oneself. For just as "charity begins at home"
so does changed behaviour.

In this respect, I am with the Christians. If I understand Christian teaching correctly,

then at its centre is the idea of individual responsibility. If you want to be a force for
good, then YOU need to be good. The defeat of evil starts at home. And as the Bible
says, "Blessed are the peace makers".

The next question is this: what is the single, most potent source of evil in this world?
Big question, but with a surprisingly simple answer I believe.

The source of evil - which starts within the heart and mind of a single human
individual - is the desire to FORCE another human to do one's will. The evil
becomes manifest when such a desire is acted upon.

From this you can draw a simple maxim - that no one has the right to initiate force
against another. No ifs, no buts. The only possible excuse for the use of force is in
self defence - when some identifiable entity is initiating force against you. In other
words, when someone else STARTS it - and starts it against you.

That idea is so easy to understand, that even a child can grasp it - but apparently
such understanding gets harder as we grow up!

On a personal level it means not beating up your wife or husband to enforce your
will; not settling an argument with your fists; not trying to live by stealing money off
someone else; not bloodying the nose of a supporter of another sports team; not
shooting a person who disagrees with you and wants to be left alone.

149
 The Road To Freedom

Pretty obvious sort of morality really - on a personal level. But when we raise the
stakes and look at the institutional level, we see violations of the no initiatory force
maxim on a grand scale.

Regular readers of my writings will be all too well aware of the myriad ways in which
the state has institutionalised initiatory force as a matter of policy. It is at the root of
any modern society - democratic or otherwise. At every turn force is being initiated
against you by the state. If you don't know this, then you are asleep!

And the reason the state gets away with it, is that people are ambivalent about the
use of force. In fact, many people are just plain busybodies, when it comes to
wanting to interfere in other people's lives - and are quite happy to use force to
ensure compliance with their wishes.

For example - drugs. If you want to take marijuana, or heroin, then it's really
nobody's business but your own. It's your body. Sure you may be damaging it - but
in a sane society you'd have to pick up the tab yourself. However, other individuals
don't like the idea of you taking drugs, so use their influence with politicians, and the
political process, to outlaw such drugs and make them illegal.

Trouble is, making drugs illegal doesn't stop you wanting them, or stop other people
from wanting to make money by supplying them to you. And in a rational society,
whatever business dealings you have with another would be your own concern. But
none of that matters, because the busybodies have won - and got their desire (to
stop you taking drugs) put into law. Now, if you try to get drugs, you will be fined,
imprisoned or killed - depending on which country you live it. Bottom line is you will
be forced to comply with the wishes of others - in a matter with which they should
have absolutely no concern.

The initiation of force.

Another example: You run clothing business, but you are finding it hard to compete
with all those clothes coming in from China. Your solution to the problem is to force
others to buy your clothes, either by prohibiting such imports, or having a duty
imposed on them, so they end up more expensive than yours.

Of course, you cannot do this alone - so lobby the government to bring in laws to
achieve your ends. Naturally, you won't argue your case as a matter of forcing
people to buy YOUR clothes, or forcing them to pay more for obviously cheaper
clothes. No, you will create a "public interest" argument - and win the support of
fools.

The fact is, that in a free society I should be able to contract to buy clothes off
whomever I wish - in my home country, or from anywhere around the world. What I,
as a buyer, and my trading partner, as a supplier, agree to do is no business of
anyone but us.

The initiation of force.

A final example: Your unemployed neighbour envies your new car. He cannot afford
such a luxury. He would never think of forcing you to give it to him, or to give him the
money to buy his own. But this same individual will have no qualms about voting for

150
 The Road To Freedom

a government that will tax you more (as a high earner) in order that he can gain an
increase in his unemployment benefit.

The initiation of force.

And so the initiation of force - as a practical policy for achieving what you want -
trickles up through the administrative organs of society, to the very top - the
government.

The state is the magnification of the desires of the majority who comprise it. And war
is the ultimate consequence. War between individuals within such a state, and war
between states themselves. War is the HEALTH of the state. The state operates on
an anti-morality that, if consistently practised by all individuals, would bring society to
its knees.

So when, one day, the goons arrive on your doorstep, break down your door, drag
you out of bed, take you and your family into custody without charge, abuse you and
rape your wife, then imprison you without trial - spare a thought for how it all began.

The tribal gene is responsible for a lot things - many of them a reason to celebrate
life. But it's a two-edged sword which can be used in an "us against them" situation -
and the only way to deal with such disputes is through peaceful resolution. Any
resort to force, as a means of achieving one's ends, is fuel on the fire of state-
sanctioned violence.

To be free, you must live free. To have peace, you must be peaceful. That means
repudiating the use of initiatory force to achieve your personal objectives - whether
done directly by you, or by your proxy, the state. Start today - you have nothing to
lose but your chains.

151
 The Road To Freedom

The "Singapore" Factor: Towards Anarchy and the Market Order

A proper definition of anarchy is: 1) the absence of government, and 2) a political
theory opposed to government.

That begs the question, "what is government?" Government is the POLITICAL

means of social organisation and control - the political means of imposing order.
Anarchy does not mean NO order, it simply means no "political" order.

You can have order without a government - as in the way a company is run. If you
work for Microsoft, or Ford, then you are working for an organisation. It is orderly.
There are rules. The big difference is that you do not have to work for such a
company if it is not to your liking. But once you sign on to it, you must either abide by
its internal regulations or resign (or be fired). In other words, order - but not by
government, by mutual consent.

Similarly, if you have purchased an apartment in a large complex, then you will have
run into what is sometimes called the Body Corporate. Essentially, most freehold
residential complexes are run by elected representatives of the owners - who set
various rules and regulations to produce the best outcomes for those who live there.
Once again, there is order - but no government.

Government is the POLITICAL means of achieving order. The market is the

VOLUNTARY means of achieving order.

The political process is entirely different from the market process. In a political order
the power derives from the use of force. In a market order the power derives from
the voluntary consent of the participants.

So, to use the Body Corporate analogy again, if you buy a condo in a classy
complex - which has the rule that you cannot make undue noise after 11 pm - then
the Body Corporate will enforce those rules. However, you agreed to them when you
first purchased your property, as part of the contract you entered into.

It is this important element of "agreement" that is missing in the political ordering of

things. Things happen WITHOUT your agreement. And they happen to YOU!
Oh sure, this is glossed over by reference to voting every three or four years. But
this is a joke obviously, because you know that even if you vote, it makes no
difference - especially if who you voted for doesn't gain power. Political voting is a
charade, designed to give the cloak of respectability to an otherwise thoroughly
despicable practice - rule by the mob.

And you certainly didn't enter into any "contract" with your existing nation of birth.
Socialists like to talk of the "social contract", but that's just a red herring. To be born
somewhere is a complete accident on your part, and cannot be construed as some
sort of contract.

Political order is ultimately the rule of brute force. Market order is ultimately the rule
of agreement and contract.

152
 The Road To Freedom

But what if someone reneges on an agreement or contract? In a market order, such

situations would be resolved by arbitration and enforced, if necessary, by resort to
various agents of the arbitration company.

When it comes to getting things done in this world, the verdict is already in. The
market order delivers the goods - in easily verifiable abundance. Whereas the
political order fails miserably. Soviet Russia and Maoist China, as the most extreme
versions of the political order, presented irrefutable evidence of this fact.

Just one visit to your local supermarket should disabuse you of any notion that the
government could do it better. Or another example: who would you trust to
manufacture your next new computer - the government or a company of your own
choosing?

One of the perennial rebuttals of anarchy - or no political order - is that when push
comes to shove, a third party must be able to intervene to enforce contracts and civil
behaviour, if the parties to such an agreement cannot resolve a dispute. And in a
market order society this would be done by the private agents of law and order -
including insurance and security companies and private arbitration courts.

The sceptic will then say that this would lead to multiple jurisdictions - where you
may have your own legal environment and I may have mine - and never the twain
shall meet.

But this is a straw man argument - because we already have a working model of
such competing jurisdictions in the world today. I'm talking about the world
community of nations. Each nation is a sovereign jurisdiction - and a crime in one
may not be a crime in another. However, when it comes to major crimes, you'd be
surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how different nations and cultures agree - as in
response to murder, rape and robbery, for example.

Nations get over this "problem" of different jurisdictions by setting up various forms
of co-operation - a perfectly natural thing to do. That's why we have such things as
extradition orders, Interpol etc.

If you are truly against the "anarchy" of multiple sovereign nation states - then you
have nowhere to go, except to endorse and work for a WORLD government. Just
one government. Just one jurisdiction.

Sure, there are many supporters of world government. But I believe that no thinking
freedom lover would countenance such an idea. Why? Because a WORLD
government would be a magnification of all the bad things that arise from
government. Things like graft and corruption; inefficiency; incompetence, cronyism;
inertia; and the sheer horror of having nowhere else to run, should you be targeted
for any reason whatsoever. And I haven't even mentioned taxes!

But that's the choice. Either we "progress" to the logical endpoint of political
governance - World Government - or we think outside the square and start to
question the very notion of political order itself.

Just as the worst scenario is for us to move to a world state, the best scenario is for
states to actually become smaller and smaller. This would increase the effective

153
 The Road To Freedom

competition between states, and make possible the introduction of a true market
order.

The template for such a type of order is already in place - the corporation. And by
that I mean a company made up of CEO, Board of Directors and Shareholders.
As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's political leader is actually
called Chief Executive Officer. A sign of things to come perhaps?

The successful city-states of the world (including Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai,
Monaco, Liechtenstein, and certain existing tax havens etc.) point to a new way of
doing things. They are small enough to be flexible in this fast changing age. They
are small enough to be responsive to the actual wishes of people. They are small
enough to get things done. And interestingly enough, they are all low tax jurisdictions
- meaning they are fundamentally more competitive than the behemoth "old world"
nation states - like the USA, UK, France and Germany etc.

In fact, both Singapore and Dubai present an even closer model to the idea of a
"corporation". Both have been created by the vision and single-mindedness of
individuals - benevolent "dictators" if you will. Perhaps they were precursors of the
CEOs of the city states of the future.

Imagine this FUTURE scenario: You are an IT professional and have been
considering seeing the world while you work. So you check out the many citizenship
opportunities on offer. Basically, they mostly work the same - if you purchase a
property in a particular city state, then you not only gain citizenship, but also become
a shareholder. And if you don't want to become a citizen, you can always just
become a resident, by taking out a lease on an existing property.

The internet has specific search engines designed for citizenship and residency
searches - where you can do in-depth analysis of what each city state has to offer,
and the cost of entry. It's fascinating stuff - like shopping for a new house or car!

These rapidly expanding city states are the "talk of the town". Not only do they have
very low or non-existent levies, they also offer real benefits - and come in all
flavours. But more importantly, they are causing a revolution in the way people think
of themselves - and the very notion of "nations".

The economic impact of the emerging city states has been profound and has literally
caused other old-world states to sit up and take notice. They can't afford not to - as
they've witnessed an ever-growing "brain drain" to these upstart micro-nations. The
engine of their success is their very smallness, their economic management and
style of leadership. Each of these city states is run like a modern corporation - with a
CEO, CFO, Board of Directors - and with every property owner as a shareholder.

No more "elections" like in the old days - where politics was the name of the game,
with different parties promising to benefit various segments of the population. This
way of doing things had economically ruined the old world - which came crashing
down in the wake of the "Great Crash of 2007". That was when the USA defaulted
on its immense indebtedness and dragged the rest of the world into a widespread
economic collapse.

154
 The Road To Freedom

It was like the Berlin Wall coming down. Suddenly, the pent-up frustrations of
millions of people was released. New ways of doing things seemed the order of the
day - and those nations which had remained solvent, small and flexible were first off
the starting blocks of a true "new world order" - the market order.

Suddenly, politics, like socialism before it, was reviled and blamed for all the misery.
People, looking for a new way forward, simply had to look with their eyes, as nimble
city states surged forward - putting in place new ways of governance, and new ways
for people to economically prosper. Being a shareholder of such a state was a vastly
more inviting prospect than being a tax slave of some economic basket case!

It was like attracting bees to a honey pot. The motivated, able, talented of the world
saw the advantages immediately - and from the ashes of the collapsed nation states
rose the phoenix of the new world.

Of course, the "old" nations took some while to readjust - being monolithic and
overly large - like dinosaurs from a previous age. But once their inhabitants got wind
of what was going on in the world, the demand for immediate decentralisation got
under way.

The USA reverted to its separate states - with the collapse of the federal
government. And moreover, within such states, various cities peeled off on their
own.
Europe was the same. The machinery of the EU simply could not compete with the
economic tigers of the "new" world - and reverted back to its individual components,
and then again into smaller units. It was the same the world over. Some countries
tried to hold it together, with political repression and violence. But their cause was
lost, and it was only a matter of time before the tide of history swept the old power
structures away.

It was like a tsunami, flushing out all the dross from the chaos of the so-called
democratic age of the nation states. One minute there were presidents, prime
ministers, parliaments, dictators, and other assorted political parasites. Next minute
they were out of a job - with nowhere to go. It happened that fast.

Meanwhile, your internet search is turning up some interesting possibilities. In fact,

the choice is quite overwhelming. So you simply home in on what sort of things you
like to do, what sort of culture you want to mingle with, and what sort of work
opportunities you want to get involved with.

You find a great "rent-to-buy" opportunity in Dubai, which will allow you immediate
residency and benefits, with the future option to buy the property you were renting -
if you wanted to become a shareholder/citizen. This way, at least, you can test the
waters of this booming city state and decide if it is for you in the long term. And if it
isn't, no problem, back to that internet search again.

Yes, the future looks bright - and the world is literally your oyster!

And back to the present. The political order is crumbling. The cracks are showing.
The fingers are in the dikes - attempting to thwart the inevitable. And those with a
vested interest in the status quo are working their big fat arses off to ensure their
snouts remain in the public trough. But it's only a matter of time.

155
 The Road To Freedom

The War on Terror is a War on Freedom

Contrary to George Bush's and Tony Blair's assertions - the war on terror is NOT
about bringing freedom to the world. It "may" be about bringing democracy (although
I doubt it) - but certainly not freedom.

In fact, the war on terror is a direct ATTACK on freedom.

Terrorism is as old as history. And just so we are all on the same page regards a
definition of terrorism - what I mean by that word is the policy of achieving political
ends by means of violence against non-combatants. In other words, a strategy of
attacking innocent people in order to get what you want.

Every terrorist has a political agenda. It could be to get the British out of Northern
Island; to get the Jews out of Palestine; or to get the Americans out of the Middle
East. The world is littered with similar examples.

If you go out and shoot up 10 people, without any overt political agenda, then you
are not a terrorist - but a mass murderer.

Terrorism is a strategy for achieving political ends.

Unlike nation states, who can achieve their political objectives by violence against
other nation states (including killing non- combatants within those states) and call it
"war" - terrorists have no state to sanction their violence. They are on their own.

Prior to 911, terrorism was part of the geopolitical landscape, a fact of everyday life.
Hotspots of terrorism were everywhere, but people just got on with life as best they
could. But when the USA was attacked, suddenly terrorism was on the main agenda,
and the USA declared a war on it. They declared a war on a strategy - something
unique in military history.

Other countries, Russia and China included, gleefully jumped aboard the "war on
terrorism" bandwagon, seeing an opportunity for them to get tough on local
malcontents - with the full support of the US.

I think it was Jesus who said, "ye shall know a tree by its fruits" - or something like
that. And so it is with this war on terrorism. You only have to look at the actual
results to know what the war is really about.

It's about locking down your freedoms - permanently.

In the name of fighting this war, screeds of anti-freedom legislation have hit the
streets running, with very little opposition.

And what's worse, the USA is not content to simply wage this war by itself, and
enslave its own people in the process - but it is leaning on whole world to follow suit.
And it is.

Ultimately, it comes down to a deal like this - "we will make you secure from
terrorists, if you allow us to set up the omnipotent, surveillance state". The hidden

156
 The Road To Freedom

trade off is that you give away most of your freedom in exchange for a dubious
security.

The name of the game is fear. Fear is used to silence opposition to this policy. Fear
of being called a traitor. Fear of being nuked. Fear of dying a terrible death by a
biological agent. Fear of having to jump out of tall buildings. Fear of the bogeyman.
Is all this fear justified? Is terrorism all its cracked up to be? Do you really stand to
lose YOUR life at the hands of a terrorist?

Personally, I think not. I believe I have more chance of dying in an automobile

accident. At least, that's what I felt when driving by taxi around a major city in China
recently!!

I have far more fear of statism than of terrorism. And I have history on my side: the
millions of Chinese killed by the Japanese state, and the millions more killed by their
own state; the millions of Jews killed by the German State; the millions of Russians
killed by their own state; and of course, the millions killed in both World Wars - by all
states concerned.

Death by terrorism is factually and statistically far less significant that death by
statism.

Before 911, the dangers of terrorism were considered to be marginal enough not to
have to reshape civil society. That all changed when the USA declared "war".
The event that changed the world, or at least provided a trigger for changing the
world, was the huge, unexpected attack on the World Trade Centre. If this attack
had been in any other country, it's very likely that no war on terror would have been
declared. But it wasn't, and it was.

Although I'm sceptical of various conspiracy theories - there are some things that
really bother me about that event. And the thing that bothers me most is the fact that
when it occurred, nobody put their hand up to claim responsibility. That's really odd,
because in every other terrorist attack, the perpetrators are always keen to claim
responsibility - because they want to further their political agenda by drawing
attention to it. So keen, in fact, that you often get the situation where more than one
terrorist group claims responsibility for the same attack - in order to gain street "cred"
I suppose.

What's the point in destroying buildings in a spectacular way - in order to further your
political aims and get what you want - if you don't stand up defiantly and say "we did
it!".

But that's what happened. Al Qaeda did not claim responsibility. Osama bin Laden
did not put up his hand. Sure, since then he's stated his support for the attack - but
at the time there was no such admission.

The other thing that bothers me about this event is the fact it was so ambitious, so
huge, so well-planned - more than any other terrorist attack anywhere, anytime,
before or since - that it is highly probable it was beyond the capabilities of Al Qaeda.
It actually smells of state complicity - a sort of "Reichstag Fire" event. The question
is - what state? And that's where the conspiracy theories run short of proof.

157
 The Road To Freedom

We know, of course, that the USA immediately accused Osama bin Laden - and the
rest is history.

War was declared - and the whole world was invited to be "either with us or against
us". The nation states of world jumped into line.

In order to push the anti-freedom agenda of this war on terror - it was necessary to
obliterate any real political reason behind the 911 attack. This was done by declaring
that we were at war against those who "hate our freedoms". And so the war became
one of so-called freedom lovers against the freedom "haters". Nice and simple - if
you're simple enough to believe it.

But all terrorists have political objectives - and just "hating our freedoms" doesn't cut
it.

From that moment on it was downhill fast. The Patriot Act; the global crackdown on
so-called "money laundering" - requiring new and onerous "know your customer"
legislation; calls for national databases and ID cards; demands for trial without jury
and imprisonment without trial; the setting up of extralegal prison camps and torture
chambers; the persistent attack on consti- tutional rights - whether of the written
variety (as in the USA) or the Common Law variety, as in the UK.

All this is being done in the name of "freedom and democracy" - shouted from the
rooftops by the articulate and not-so-articulate leaders of the "free" world. And
reported by a compliant and scared-shitless media.

It's a scam of the highest order.

I can assure you that none of your leaders is in the slightest bit interested in YOUR
freedom - just your compliance with their wishes.

The cry of "Freedom and Democracy" is just a front for a much larger and more
important geopolitical agenda.

Like a great Hollywood drama - the war on terror is being screened in living rooms
world-wide - 24/7. It's also the soap opera of our times. "The Bold and the Thuggish"
or "The Days of our Wretched Lives". Take your pick.

It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that these bastards are actually getting away
with it - for now.

Is there any hope of this deception and Orwell-speak crashing and burning? Yes,
there is some hope - the possibility that facts might catch up with the perpetrators.
But such well-deserved justice could be a long time coming. Or it might not.

I've been particularly interested in the recent displays of "people power" - as seen in
Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. I don't understand enough about the local political
realities to know whether these "revolutions" are good or bad - or just a waste of
time. But I do relish the implication that people can simply, when they've had
enough, down tools and march on the seat of government power and scare their
leaders away!

158
 The Road To Freedom

I like this idea a lot. In fact I openly encourage it. And while our western leaders
generally seem to be in favour of it also (as they believe they are moves to
"democracy"), there could be a hidden warning in there for them also.

Such demonstrations of "people power" do serve to prove one essential truth - that
those in power are only there as long as we allow them to be. It's called the consent
of the governed.

So, watching various "governed" getting rid of their government has a certain
attraction, and reminds us of the possibility of it happening at home - perhaps in your
own country!

At some point, I'm hoping we in the developed world will wake up to the loss of our
freedoms - point the finger at those who are responsible, and laugh them out of
office. Okay, maybe the laughing won't work - but the majority of people simply
saying "enough" and withdrawing active support would do it.

In the end it comes down to this: do you value your security more than your
freedom? Would you willingly trade away your freedoms for security? Or, more to
the point - would you swap the freedom to lead your life as you will for the security of
a prison camp?

It's a sad fact that most people value security above freedom - and it also explains
why our governments can trash long standing traditions and laws in their quest for
total dominance - while most people stand idly by, or worse - cheering.

It is in this environment that standing up for your rights as a human being is so

important. No, you are not expected to stand in front of a tank, or put yourself in
harms way by overtly challenging the state. Remember, they have the GUNS. But
you can quietly and effectively increase your own freedom - in the face of such
clampdowns - if you want it bad enough.

And the real fun starts when you say "enough!"

159
 The Road To Freedom

Strike For Freedom

A strike is a powerful weapon. However, unlike weapons of war or aggression, a
strike is a weapon of passive resistance.

Most people's impression of a strike is that of industrial action where left-leaning,

militant unions battle it out against their capitalist overlords. But, of course, everyone
has the right to withdraw their labour.

But the concept of a strike can be taken a lot further than just walking off your "job".
It can be a principled assertion of the right to your own life. In fact, if a majority of
people were to strike against any particular political injustice, they would discover
their true power as human beings. For when it comes down to the wire, all political
systems exist by the will or, more properly, the implicit consent of the governed. If a
majority were to withdraw its consent, then the existing political power structures
would collapse.

There is a nascent recognition of this fact in the statement "people power" - as like it
has been recently applied to the elections held in the Ukraine. Here the mass of
people apparently refused to accept the result of an election, and their refusal
caused the official result to effectively be null and void. However, it's not always
necessary for a majority of people to get out into the streets. There IS such a thing
as a strategic or "surgical" strike.

One such strike is the theme of "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand. It's the story of a
man who organises a strike. Not your ordinary strike, where workers down tools and
move off the job, but a strike of the "movers and shakers" of society. A strike at the
"top".

In Atlas Shrugged, the world is suffering from a surfeit of socialism and fascism
combined (not unlike our present world).

One man, a brilliant engineer named John Galt, sees through to the essence of
things, and realises that if those of ability, in every field, would only withdraw their
their permission and participation, and physically leave an increasingly corrupt
society - then the world of "looters" would collapse.

John Galt gradually persuades all the people of talent and ability to withdraw from
the world - into a secret, high tech enclave called Galt's Gulch. Complete with a
technologically advanced sky "shield", Galt's Gulch becomes a private haven for all
the strikers - a place where they can withdraw, recharge, and share in the type of life
and relationships they truly value, and which they hope will once again return to the
earth.

What follows, in Atlas Shrugged, is a gripping thriller which pits the titans of industry,
science and art against the politicians and various leaders of the looting class.
Published in 1957, Atlas Shrugged has retained its status as a cult classic - inspiring
generations of freedom seekers. It deals with timeless issues and portrays the epic
struggle between good and evil - between collectivism and individualism. And the
good guys win in the end!

160
 The Road To Freedom

However, Atlas Shrugged is not for the faint-hearted, as it takes by the throat every
religious and philosophical sacred cow - mercilessly shreds each of them to pieces,
and introduces a new philosophy of enlightened, rational self interest.

Then, as now, Atlas Shrugged continues to attract both high praise and vitriolic
condemnation - as it draws into sharp relief the contrasting societal end products of
two very different systems of morality.

The book's core idea is the constant struggle of the individual against the collective.
Since time immemorial, the individual has been subservient to the group - whether it
be the family, the village, the city, or the nation. And this collectivist philosophy is
underpinned by a morality of self-sacrifice, or altruism, which is preached by all
religions and societies.

The power of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" lies in its ability to present important
ideas in the context of a novel, where the ideas are made concrete in the lives of the
various protagonists. And it is this power which never fails to reach each new
generation that reads it. It's actually been rated as the second most influential book,
after the Bible.

Of course, Ayn Rand lived before the advent of the personal computer and the
internet - and couldn't have foreseen the potential impact such technological
developments would have on the structure and very future of society. But even so,
her novel is timeless, because it deals with issues that are as old as history.

One of the fascinating scenarios in Atlas Shrugged is the existence of the anarchic
"Galt's Gulch". Anarchic, because it is a private society - without the political class
and without political rule.

The word "anarchy" comes from the root "archy" or "rule". Hence anarchy means "no
rule". So, in Galt's Gulch, each striker is a self-ruler, perfectly capable of dealing
morally and contract- ually with other members of that private society - with no need
for any external authority.

In that respect, the citizens of Galt's Gulch would today be known as sovereign
individuals - self-contained and autonomous persons, who are fully responsible for
their own lives and actions. In other words, self-rulers.

The idea of a strike is a very powerful one. Basically, it means to withdraw your
labour, your effort, your moral and practical support. It is the peaceful person's way
of protesting against the status quo. Instead of trying to smash a corrupt system -
one can simply leave it by, as Ayn Rand says, withdrawing one's sanction.

Today, more than ever, it is possible to do such a thing - to literally leave a corrupt
system, and let it fend for itself. And, just as in Atlas Shrugged, it's possible to join
the ranks of the self-owners, the sovereign individuals, and create a virtual Galt's
Gulch for oneself and like-minded others.

It's not a road most people will go down - as it requires a substantial commitment to
the idea of individual freedom, self responsibility, and a firm belief in the folly of the
political means of organisation. But it holds a mesmerising fascination for some -
and perhaps even you.

161
 The Road To Freedom

Through a Glass, Darkly

I've started a strange new habit. I'm currently perusing real estate. Each Saturday I
buy the weekend paper, remove the real estate section, and throw the rest of the
paper in the nearest trash can – unread.

Six years ago, I used to have the daily paper delivered - and read it over breakfast.
How times, and habits, have changed.

Then there's the TV news. Once upon a time I used to religiously turn it on every
night at 6 pm. Now I avoid it like the plague.

Have the announcers become more ugly? Is the news more gruesome? Have I lost
interest in what is "new"?

The truth is, these so-called information mediums have become tedious and
unsatisfying. I no longer believe I can learn anything worthwhile from them. They are
redundant and irrelevant.

Instead, I spend hours reading alternative sources of news on the internet. I check
the main headlines at a number of different sources - major newspapers in different
countries. I like to compare and see how the same news is perceived from different
viewpoints.

Then I skip around to some of my favourite commentary sites - not news but
commentary on the news. The news behind the news.

And for a good dose of reality, I enjoy reading various blogs put up by real people in
real situations. I get a firsthand look at events through the eyes of those who are
actually there - and not from someone embedded in the corporate media or state
apparatus.

In this way, the internet provides a rich and diverse menu of news and views - a way
to get a grip on what is happening.

But more importantly, this self-directed news gathering is a completely different ball
game than being "fed" the news by the traditional methods.

I believe this information "revolution" is similar to the Protestant Reformation. In the

same way people rebelled against the priestly class - demanding their own direct
access to God - we, in the 21 century, are demanding direct access to the news.

Just as priests used to define the exact nature of God - and man's place in the
greater scheme of things, so journalists and news organisations seek to define the
nature, content and meaning of the news we receive.

The priests were intermediaries between God and man. The news organisations are
intermediaries between what's happening in the world, and our knowledge of it.
Organised religion lost its battle against the reformers. Now, you can define your
own god. You can define your own behaviour. You are no longer expected to simply

162
 The Road To Freedom

follow a set of rules as handed down from above - but can evaluate these rules
under the mandate of your own authority.

That's how you get the dichotomy of, for example, the Catholic Church providing a
clear moral demand that believers NOT use condoms - while the very same
believers make their own judgement and use them anyway! They face "god" directly,
and take the consequences.

In the same way, "ordained" news organisations are losing the battle against the
internet. They are losing the hearts and minds of the "citizens" of their long-standing
fiefdoms.

So you get this strange occurrence, where news organisations are continually
growing bigger, and eating up their competitors, while at the same time their
relevance is diminishing.

Now there are two info worlds - the official news that is spoon- fed to you, and the
news you source yourself. The official opinion, and the opinion you make for
yourself. You have a choice.

This is an absolute world first. Never in history has there been this type of
information freedom - in the midst of an aggressive information clamp down.

The information moguls are akin to our political masters. On the face of it, they are
growing ever bigger and more powerful. While the reality is something entirely
different.

We are confronted with a world of official news, official opinion and official policy.
And like a pugilist wanting to show off, our media and political masters are forever
stomping, romping and raving - in order to reinforce their view of the world.

The game is already over. But of course they do not know it yet. Just as the power of
those who sought to represent themselves as God's intermediaries is gone - even
though such people still exist - so too the power of the information intermediaries is
over. The genie is out of the bottle. Pandora is out of the box.

Oh sure, the outside forms of institutional news gathering and dissemination remain,
but their power is already gone. And in the same way, the outside form and
appearance of our political masters and structures remains - but in truth is but a
sham.

This didn't happen yesterday. The process has been ongoing. But if you wanted to
put a date on when this reality broke out into OUR reality - into the public domain -
then I believe it began with the demolition of the Berlin Wall, and the ensuing
collapse of the Soviet Union.

Those two events represented the first visual confirmation of a fact already
underway - the collapse of what we know as the nation state, the monopolisation of
political power.

The official media is currently the handmaiden of orthodoxy, the official spin master
of the nation state and the political status quo. As the state comes under greater and

163
 The Road To Freedom

greater threat, so the media are deemed to be the one remaining bulwark to stem
the loss of power.

The fall of the Berlin Wall signalled the end of monopolised political power, just as
the rise of the internet signals the end of monopolised media power - the power to
shape the content and meaning of events.

Take some examples. With the advent of the digital camera and the mobile phone,
every single person has the potential to be an on- the-spot reporter. If you are where
something is happening, you can record it AS it happens. Now, if your account is
different from the official account, then yours may not "win", but will certainly call into
question the veracity of the official version. And more than that - the very possibility
of on-the-spot alternative "reporters" makes the business of official news gathering
fraught with difficulties. The official line could be overturned at any moment.

We have also seen this phenomena with alternative media - like Aljazeera. On the
one hand, we've had the official line from CNN, Fox News etc. - and their take on the
war in Iraq. But at the same time, like a persistent irritant under the skin, we've had
this tiny Arabic station putting up it's version of events - directly on the internet, for
world consumption and evaluation. No wonder the powers-that-be have attempted to
get it "taken down".

Then there's the growth of blogging - where anyone can become a reporter. During
the Iraq war, one of the most interesting developments was the rapid rise to global
prominence of the "Baghdad Blogger". This is revolutionary stuff - when a single
person can literally take on the global media moguls for a slice of the world's
attention.

On a broader scale, the rapid development of China is proof of the assertion that
centralised political power is dead. The "new" China is a result of a REDUCTION in
political power over the market. Once that power and control was reduced, the
innate initiative of individual Chinese took over - and the current China is a direct
result. It's a triumph of the market over the market-controllers.

The market is a wonderful anarchic mechanism and precursor to the way the world
should be organised. It represents the complete opposite of machine-age command
and control. One glaring example of this occurred when I was in Australia last year -
during the lead-up to their federal elections. The government was using the tried-
and-true tactic of fear-mongering. They were the only party that could keep
Australians safe. But they weren't just talking about safe from terrorist attacks. No,
they were also talking up their ability to keep Australians "safe" from higher interest
rates.

Naturally, the general media failed to point out to the hapless voters that, in fact, the
government had no control over interest rates whatsoever. More significantly, the
government of any country has no control over the economy in any sort of positive
way. Sure, they can destroy it by attempting to control it. But they cannot cause it to
work. The economy works in the ABSENCE of government. Government can only
impede an economy, not improve it. As far as the economy is concerned - the
government is already redundant.

164
 The Road To Freedom

When this reality finally hits home, then one of the most potent ideas supporting
governments will have been trashed. And it's only a matter of time.

On a broader scale again, we see it in the failure of the United Nations. Created after
World War II, the UN was designed to be a global watchdog, a means of expanding
the political order from within the confines of the nation state, to embrace the entire
world. Its natural successor would obviously be a one world government.

However, from any perspective, the UN is under attack for being ineffective. And it
is. If a bureaucracy can only impede progress and economic growth on a national
scale - then it's hardly a good prescription for success on an international scale.
Which brings us back to now, today.

On the face of it - we are bombarded with images of powerful nation states and
world leaders - reported on by world media. They strut their stuff, huff and puff - and
pontificate on all matters concerning you and me.

Every day this "reality" is enforced - starting with state monopolised education and
continuing through adulthood, via traditional, status-quo supporting media.

If you simply believe what you are told at school, read in the newspapers, and listen
to on your local evening TV news, you will be missing the bigger picture entirely. You
will be cocooned in a world of myths and stupidity - and will suffer the logical
consequences.

The tools for your liberation from "intermediaries" are readily available and at hand.
You can start to wean yourself off the present order as soon as you start to ask the
hard questions. And, fortunately for you, there are more and more answers that are
readily available to anyone who is seriously looking.

A sovereign individual is one who has discarded the need for any intermediaries -
whether in religion, politics or the media. A sovereign individual is one who has
experienced his own Berlin Wall collapse, or her own religious reformation.

But it takes a special type of courage and vision - the courage to see beyond
appearances, to what is actually happening, and the vision and commitment to do
something about it.

165
 The Road To Freedom

The 7 Deadly Myths That Keep People in Bondage

Looking back, quite a number of years now, I'd say my life has been defined by
various disruptions and my constant attempts to sort out the truth from the lies. Not
an easy task. But with each "discovery", new vistas and possibilities have opened
up. And I think what I've learned is worth sharing - because if I'd known, earlier in
life, what I know now - then I could have accelerated my journey to freedom, and
had more time to enjoy the fruits of my labours. But that's life.

Life is a process - a process of trial and error, of trying to find your way. And
regardless of your age, gender, race or creed, we are all looking for the same thing -
freedom and happiness. But the path of life is strewn with false sign posts and dead
ends - not to mention dead bodies!

When I look back, I notice how each personal "breakthrough" was preceded by the
discovery of a particular myth - and that these myths were built up in layers - one
upon another like a stack of pancakes - each one supporting the other.

So, if I could condense my experiences, to distil them into the "essence" of what is
important - then perhaps the following true story would be the result.

Dodging the Bullets

My early years were spent growing up in a major English city. I'd call it "comfortable
working class". My father had come down from Scotland to find work - and ended up
setting up his own "fish and chip" shop (in the days before McDonalds). He was a
hard worker and expected the same from others. I was peeling "spuds" from an early
age!

I can recall being sent to Sunday School from the age of four. I can also recall
complaining about it - and the fact that only I was going - not my parents. I had
hoped this ruse would get me off the hook - but instead, they started to go to church
as well, to keep me company!

Religion was a given - something that was just there, and not to be questioned. But,
oh how I hated spending my free time locked up in Sunday School - as if my normal
Monday-to-Friday school week wasn't enough!

Later, as a teenager, I finally got up the courage to say, "I don't want to go to church
any more!" - and to my surprise, my parents acquiesced.

My family emigrated to New Zealand when I was nearly 10. And after a period of
adjustment, I became a star pupil at school. I recall, at 14 years of age, how I was
top of the class in Latin, French, Maths and English - and top overall. A promising
future for sure. But it was not the future I wanted. I wanted to do art and creative
things. But my grades, and the insistence of my teachers, got me doing such things
as chemistry, physics and calculus instead.

By the time I was 15, my grades started to slip - because my love of art and music
had raised its head - and I was spending my free time painting pictures, designing
houses and playing the piano accordion and trumpet.

166
 The Road To Freedom

My schooling took a terminal dive when my musical friends asked me if I'd like to be
the drummer in their fledgling band - to which I replied, "You bet!". That event sealed
my fate as a student - and I became obsessed with learning and playing the drums,
practising with the band, and dreaming of becoming famous - like the Rolling
Stones, or the Beatles.

The band was made up of some of the brightest people in my class - and from that
day on, we slid from the top of the class to the bottom - being constantly berated by
our teachers along the way. But we didn't care. We were doing what we loved.

I left school - after failing the university entry exam - and began work as an
architectural drafting cadet. I lasted three years, and hated it. I'd always been
fascinated by architecture, but didn't like being an architect's dogsbody.

I was playing music every weekend, and still dreamt of doing it for a living. Well, the
chance came when friends of mine (in another band) decided to get on a ship and
sail to Australia - with images of success in their eyes. I caught the dream, left my
job, and sailed into the sunset with them. My father had urged me to first finish my
"education" - but I was adamant.

In our new country, my musical career began to blossom, work poured in - with two
gigs a night, 5 or 6 nights a week. Then one night, it all came crashing down. Our
band van got hit by another car, which drove through a stop sign, and we all found
ourselves in hospital.

I had a broken neck - very close to being paralysed. After two weeks in traction and
three months in a neck brace, I was able to resume my musical work - but felt like I
was starting over.

I worked around the South Pacific for a few months - then returned to New Zealand
for my father's funeral. He had died, slowly and painfully over 12 months, from
stomach cancer.

After that, it was back to Australia - where I met my future wife. And after extensive
touring in Asia, we landed up in New Zealand again, married - ready to settle down,
buy and house and start a family.

It was then that religion burst back into my life - like a ghost from the past. This time I
did it of my own volition - and found myself totally immersed in my belief. I have
always taken ideas seriously - and intended to live this Christian life properly. And I
did - for three and a half years - until the weight of hypocrisy became too much of a
burden.

I decided I must resign from the church - a decision that was enormously difficult,
given that all our friends were there. It was like leaving "home" and starting all over
again.

I realised that although I still believed in "God" - I no longer believed in church, or

organised religion. It would take me a little while longer to wean myself off the "big
man".

167
 The Road To Freedom

That's when I turned to politics and social action. I wanted to change the world. I got
stuck in. I worked as a volunteer Lifeline counsellor. I worked for World Vision -
organising 40 Hour Famines around the local schools, I organised a fundraising visit
of the Korean Children's Choir - and I got involved in a political party.

I was consumed with the idea of being able to change things. So much so, I taught
myself how to touch-type, just so I could efficiently write dozens of letters to the
editor! I was a powerhouse of action.

But it was short lived. Three years later my marriage was over - and I was left staring
down the double barrel of both a failed marriage and my first failed business. I was
devastated.

It was during this period I discovered the truth of being utterly "alone" - when not
even the kindest of people can alleviate one jot of one's pain - because, like
everything in life, such emotions and experiences are uniquely personal.

I remember calling this "the time where I experienced the death of God" - or more
properly, the death of god as far as I was concerned.

But another event was just around the corner. Six months later, I got back with my
wife for a second attempt - and moved in with another couple to keep expenses
down. It was here that I found a copy of a book called "Who is Ayn Rand?" Who
indeed!

Well, after reading that book, I went out and purchased Rand's magnum opus, "Atlas
Shrugged". It was to be the most tumultuous reading experience of my life. I was left
speechless, dumbfounded - and utterly stressed and confused. The reason?
Through the telling of a story of a man who literally caused the world to crash, by
persuading all the people of ability to go on strike, I came face to face with an alien
philosophy. Alien to what I had always been lead to believe. Alien to everything
society apparently stood for - and promoted.

Rand stated a simple proposition. Your life is your own. You have a right to
happiness. Self interest is the natural and proper human condition. Self sacrifice is
evil. Wow!

Well, I can tell you, these heretical ideas really put the cat among the pigeons! For at
least one month after reading "Atlas" I was in turmoil. My mind was torn between
what I had always been lead to believe - and this new philosophy, which I was
convinced was the actual truth. The matter was settled when, in a cathartic way, I
embraced the concept of self-ownership - and rejected thousands of years of mystic
assumptions and superstitions.

I marched forward with a new sense of purpose and energy. I was still very much
involved politically - and would continue to be for another 15 years. I got back into
music with a vengeance (having stopped during my Christian years). I started the
first of two very successful businesses.

I poured myself into self-improvement books and ideas. I became obsessed with my
new-found ability to take control of my life and make it the way I wanted it to be. I
was on top of the world.

168
 The Road To Freedom

I continued with my political activities - standing as an independent candidate at a

general election. I started a philosophical newsletter. I held philosophical discussion
evenings. I even formed a new political party - and, of course, kept on writing letters
to the editor.

But it all came crashing down again. This time - after 10 years of successful
business - I sold up, and confidently embarked on a new business endeavour. It
failed one year later. I started another one. It also failed. I started another - and it
failed too! By this time (three years after selling my previous successful business) I
was literally broke. I was in debt to the tune of $35,000. I had no income and had to
sell my house.

My marriage had ended. I moved into a friend's house. I visited the bankruptcy court
to see what was involved - but rejected that option. I cried myself to a fitful sleep
every night. I was a mess.

Then I remember something I had heard on a Tony Robbins tape - regarding a

Charles Givens, who, when confronted with the burning down of his life's ambition (a
recording studio that was uninsured), stood in the ashes and cried. He then had a
true epiphany. As he stood there, he realised he still had what he always had - his
MIND.

That picture came back to me - and I awoke from my depressive stupor, found a job
teaching computers - and began immediately to think of creative ways to climb back
up into life.

Inspiration wasn't long coming - and once again, it was in the form of a book. It was
called simply "PT" - which was short for "Perpetual Traveler". It was red, leather-
bound, with the letters "PT" in gold - by a mysterious author named "Dr WG Hill -
and came with a whopping US$100 price tag!

But the ideas in that book shook my world yet again - and gave me hope at exactly
the time I needed it.

I had been morose, pondering my stupidity and my fate - which, for a man in his
forties (to have lost everything), seemed like an impossible situation. I couldn't
imagine HOW I could climb out of that black hole. Every time I considered the idea
of working hard, even having two jobs, in order to pay back my debts AND pay my
way - I was consumed with despair. Why? Because I knew the harder I worked - the
more I would be financially punished by the government, via the tax system.

Sure, I could have declared bankruptcy, handed in my passport, and become a ward
of the state. But as someone who wanted to work my way out of debt - it appeared
the system was stacked against me. That's where this marvellous book came in. It
showed me a way to escape, a way to build a new life - without the deadweight of
government restriction and taxation. It was my lifeline - and my inspiration.

I was immediately aware this information was dynamite. Why hadn't I ever heard of
such a strategy before? Why had it taken me so long to find out that such ideas
actually exist? There and then, I realised I could not only start a new life, but build a
new business on the basis of spreading such knowledge.

169
 The Road To Freedom

It had another effect on me as well - it killed my interest in politics and the political
process, something I had been involved in for 20 years! But as one door closed,
another one opened, and politics went the way of "religion" and "education" -
consigned to my personal dustbin of history.

That was 1998. Within one year of working full time and starting my new business,
I'd paid off all my debts. Within two years, my new business was earning three times
more than my day job. So I quit the job - to focus on my passion. Within three years I
had saved over US$150,000. By then I was ready to plan the next stage of my
strategy - to exit the "old" world and enter the new, by becoming an international
citizen - a sovereign individual.

This was the goal that was ignited as a result of reading PT - a goal which inspired
me like no other.

When I arrived in my new country - having trashed all my years of "paperwork" and
"connections" - I walked down the street and wanted to sing out aloud - such was my
joy and exhilaration. I was on cloud nine. That feeling has never left me.

Since then I have been up and down - and sideways. I have dealt with sharks. I have
discovered lifelong friends. I have strengthened my resolve. I have consolidated my
life as an internationalist - and there is nothing else I'd rather be - or do.

So, what has all this taught me?

There are "Seven Deadly Myths" that support the current system of power and
control. And they act together - as a cultural matrix of force, fraud and fallacy - to
deny the emergence of true individual freedom. They are myths precisely because
each one fails to deliver on the promise implicit in their declared purpose - to make
life better.

1) The Myth of Religion

We are, each one of us, utterly alone in this universe. The whole fabric of organised
religion is an attempt to cover up this unsettling fact. It's also the principle method of
controlling people. God is not OUT there. God is within (even Jesus said that). You
are, in essence, your own god. Organised religion has been responsible for the
death and ruination of millions throughout history.

2) The Myth of State Education

It is nothing more than brainwashing and indoctrination. The state insists on
controlling education, moulding the minds of the young, precisely in order to control
the thinking of its citizens. Hordes of sheep are being herded into pens - and
"educated" to be passive employees and "socially adjusted" good citizens. It's
education for slaves.

3) The Myth of Democracy

The whole political process is a gigantic fraud. And democracy is just a system for
fooling people into thinking they have some say in the running of their own lives.
Nothing could be further from the truth - for democracy is just another word for the
"tyranny of the majority". Voting is a waste of time - and only perpetrates the
problem.

170
 The Road To Freedom

4) The Myth of Victimhood

Freedom means self responsibility. It means you are responsible for your life and
what you make of it. The truth is you can become whatever you want to be, and that
nothing in your past can be used as an excuse for your failure now or in the future.

5) The Myth of Equality

Nobody is equal. The only equality is that everyone has an equal right to their own
life. The constant political attempts to "create" equality are forever doomed to failure.

6) The Myth of the Nation State

The state is an outmoded and dangerous concept. It is the source of all war and
economic depravation. It's a prison camp that claims ownership over you - simply
because you were born in a certain place. The nation state is the source of the
poisonous ideology of "nationalism' - which when linked with religion, is a potent
force for evil. Witness the wars of the 20th Century.

7) The Myth of External Authority

There is no valid external authority over your life - whether family, friends, church,
society, nation, or cosmic Big Brother. Each individual human is a sovereign being, a
self-owner - and no one has the right to one moment of your life - or to force you to
do anything against your will.

Think of these myths as similar to drugs - which alter your state of awareness, your
concept of reality, AND which are highly addictive. The more myths you accept and
believe, the more you are bound by the cultural matrix. The more myths you can
offload, the more you are capable of setting yourself free.

Maybe you still feel attached to one or more of these myths. I can appreciate that -
because I also previously believed one or more of them. In fact, if I go back far
enough, I believed the whole lot! But remember, life is a process. Life is about
change. So change your mind and change your life!

If you can gain even one insight from what I've written of my experience - then you're
most welcome to it.

171
 The Road To Freedom

Self Ownership: The Foundation of Freedom

Freedom is one of those words that gets bandied about a lot - and suffers from both
inaccurate use and over use.

There have also been volumes written about it - from the deepest philosophical
tomes, to the shortest speeches by George W Bush!

And seeing as we are now urged to support the spreading of "freedom" around the
world - it behoves us to understand what it really is.

To clear the decks, let me say right off the bat, that freedom is NOT the same as
democracy. In fact, democracy can be shown to be inimical to freedom.

The counting of heads, or the will of the majority, in no way protects or guarantees
freedom. In fact, freedom can be utterly obliterated under democracy - as the rise of
Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party did prove.

So let's forget about democracy, and concentrate on freedom.

I'm all for spreading freedom around the world - but before you can do that, you
need to understand exactly what it is.

Can freedom be defined in one sentence, one phrase, or one word? Is it possible to
define freedom in a way that will eliminate confusion?

I believe there is. The foundation of freedom is the principle of "self ownership".
It sounds simple enough, perhaps even self-evident. But by exploring the
ramifications of such an idea, one's commitment to freedom is keenly tested.
I also believe this concept is not difficult to understand or explain to others. And yet
in grasping the import and ongoing consequences of such a term, one can see the
revolutionary implications of it.

Self ownership means just one thing, that YOU are the owner of your life - your
body, your mind, your energy, and any consequent results of your life's efforts.

If you are not sure of this - or disagree - then simply ask yourself, "if I am NOT the
rightful owner of my own life, then who is?"

The ownership of your own body leads to many predictable conclusions. The most
obvious are that you are able to make decisions about your own body, and
consequently, your own life.

To illustrate: You are the one who decides what you must eat to sustain your body.
You are the one who decides whether or not to take a particular drug to cure an
illness. You are the one who decides what to read, in order to stimulate or entertain
your own mind.

It would be ludicrous for you to pass this responsibility on to someone else - in order
that they may impose their choices on you. (And censorship is wrong for this very
reason.)

172
 The Road To Freedom

But owning your life is more than just owning your physical body. It is more than just
deciding what to wear, what to eat and what to read. Your life also includes your
mind. And with your mind you are able to do a lot of things that are equally defined
as "your" life.

To illustrate: If you spent ten hours of your life, last week, on the creation of a new
coffee table for your home, then that object is the result of your own life's effort. You
expended your own energy in its creation. And, as a result, it is now your property -
and rightly so, because it was created by your energy and intention. Ultimately, it is a
product of your mind - brought to fruition via the actions of your body.

In making it, you may have purchased timber off someone who grew the trees on his
own land, or a timber merchant who specialises in selling furniture grade materials -
thereby engaging in the voluntary exchange of property.

In this way, life and property are inseparable. A man without any property is dead!
So a natural consequence of owning your own life, is owning that which your life
creates, or trades with others - property.

There can be no such thing as self-ownership, if there is no property. One

automatically leads to the other. Self ownership implies a proprietary interest in your
own life and the material results of your life's actions.

Now, if you own your own life, then it stands to reason that every other individual on
this planet also owns his or her own life. The only exceptions would be those whose
lives are the legal and/or moral responsibility of someone else - as in the relationship
between parents and their young children. But children grow up, and assume full
property rights over their own lives.

Now the question arises, "what type of society would grow and evolve out of the
recognition of each person's self-ownership?"

Obviously, it would be a society where such self-ownership was respected; where all
interaction between self-owners was on the basis of voluntary agreement. In a
society of self-owners everyone would be truly equal - equal in their status as
owners of themselves. No masters. No slaves.

Such a society would be "free" in the true meaning of the word - an environment
where every individual was free to pursue his life as the legitimate owner of his life.
It also raises the question as to what countries can legitimately call themselves
"free". Obviously, to have any meaning, a free country would have to be one where
self-ownership was sacrosanct. If it was not, then it would not be free. "You're either
with us or against us". You're either free or you are not.

Are there shades of freedom? Are there places where one can be freer than
somewhere else? Of course there are. Freedom can be measured by the yardstick
of exactly how much self-ownership is permitted. So it's quite possible to talk of one
country having more freedom than another. However, to claim the moral high ground
of being a FREE country - as in truly free - then it would be necessary to show that
each and every person was indeed free. No existing country passes that test.

Let's test some scenarios.

173
 The Road To Freedom

Are you living in a country where you can speak your mind? Where you can speak
out against the government? Can you write a book which criticises your government
without getting thrown in jail?

Are you living in a country where you can ingest any substance into your own body -
like tobacco and other drugs? Or are laws and regulations in place which limit your
freedom to do so?

Are you living in a country where you get to keep the money you earn - i.e. the
money you receive for expending your life's energy last week, last month, or last
year? Or does your government take a chunk of your money off you by force - to
give to others who have demanded it?

Are you living in a country where you can freely trade your property with the property
of others - without any interference? Or are you required to apply for licenses, or pay
levies on such transactions?

You get the picture.

In fact, by the definition I have offered - that freedom is the societal condition in
which you are the effective owner of your own life - no country is fully free.

Yes, various countries will allow for some freedom, some exercise of your personal
ownership rights. Some countries are more free and some less free. But none can
claim to be fully free.

Hong Kong was reasonably free before being handed back to China. It was relatively
free, because an individual had a great deal of control over his own life. There was
no democracy - but there was a good deal of practical freedom.

The USA is free in some ways - but unfree in others. There are millions of people
incarcerated because of drug-related "crimes" - which in a free society would not
exist. People can now be held without trial. And if the USA brings back the military
draft, then they will have taken another major step back from freedom.

Even in Iraq - before the invasion - some freedoms existed in the midst of
restrictions.

For example, in Iraq everyone had guns (and most still do). And one expat Iraqi, who
returned from the USA, said that provided he did not criticise Saddam, he was
relatively free to get on with his life as he saw fit.

The same could be said for China. If you just mind your own business - you can
make a fortune, and keep most of it. Just don't go shouting your mouth off against
the Communist leadership!

The EU is pondering the banning of the image of the swastika. It appears they don't
see the contradiction in their actions - to limit freedom in the name of protecting it.
Yes, every nation is a basket case of contradictions when it comes to having
freedom. No nation is free. There are no free societies. So, you have to search for a
place where you can live with the most freedom. It's a case of choosing the "best of
a bad bunch".

174
 The Road To Freedom

But utimately, freedom begins "at home". And the first test of your own commitment
to freedom is to ask yourself, "Am I willing to grant every other individual the right to
his or her own life?"

Keep in mind, we're talking here about mutual recognition of such a right. If someone
breaks into your house and steals the home entertainment system you worked so
hard to pay for, then such a person has broken the freedom code - and forfeits his
own freedom. How it is forfeited depends on the type of society. But in a rational,
free society, the emphasis would be on ensuring that such a person made restitution
- by expending his own effort to pay for the property so stolen. With interest of
course!

Freedom is not that hard to understand - just hard to implement, because the
majority of people are NOT prepared to grant others the ownership of their own
lives, and prefer the "busybody" approach to social organisation. This characteristic
is reflected in the body politic - where we get the government we deserve. Or more
correctly, the government the majority deserve. And until we understand freedom as
individuals, and grant that freedom to our neighbours, all efforts to bring freedom to
the world will fail miserably.

175
 The Road To Freedom

Swastikas, Hypocrisy and Prince Harry

Right in the middle of the great Tsunami disaster, another disaster hits the global
headlines: Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi, and wearing a swastika arm band!
The world is aghast. The world is outraged. The world is full of shite.

The reason for the outrage, so we are told, is that Prince Harry has offended millions
of people by thoughtlessly wearing the hated symbol of Nazism - that unique
German manifestation of fascism and National Socialism. More particularly, he has
offended world Jewry.

How can anyone be offended by a symbol - unless they are truly offended by what it
represents? And what does the swastika represent? It is the symbol of tyrannical
state power. The symbol of racial supremacy and racial persecution. The symbol of
nationalism gone mad. The symbol of the corporate state. The symbol of aggressive
war and foreign occupation. The symbol of mindless collectivism and statism. The
symbol (to borrow a phrase from Orwell's 1984) of a boot stamping on the human
face – forever.

Ultimately, it all boils down to one single word - fascism. And just in case you're not
clear on the definition of fascism - it means the corporate state - the merging of state
and corporate power. It means the nationalisation of property by alternative means -
not by seizing it off individuals, but by controlling it. It means the merging of the *I*
into the *We*.

The Nazis had it right when they labelled their brand of fascism as National
Socialism. For that's what it is - socialism wrapped in nationalism. The final end point
of a thoroughly evil philosophy.

My question is: how can a world bloated by fascist sympathies and inclinations be
offended by seeing the symbol of its own basic political thinking? How can anyone
who supports the philosophic premises of fascism be outraged by the globally-
recognised symbol of it? Only if they are hypocrites or plainly ignorant.

And a second related question: why do we remember, every year, the sacrifice of
millions of young soldiers in WWII - in the cause of defending freedom against
fascism - while we idly sit by and watch that freedom trashed day in and day out?
We're being drowned by the very ideas WWII was supposed to have defeated.
Yes, I'm offended by the symbol of Nazism - because I understand what it really
means. But for most people, it's a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by a stupid and anti-
mind media - backed by the thoroughly fascistic state.

Am I offended by Prince Harry wearing a swastika at a fancy dress party? Not one
bit. I'm offended by the fact we're living in an increasingly fascist world - and that
barely anyone notices. I'm offended by the people who ARE fascists - not those who
dress up as them. That's the real outrage - offence at the image, not the reality.

If I thought people's hysterical objections to this event were in any way a serious
upsurge of antifascism, then I'd be cheering. But it isn't. Fascism is the order of the
day. Fascism is the rising tide of modern political thought. Fascism is the new pop-
philosophy.

176
 The Road To Freedom

You don't believe me? Well, consider this:

Under communism your property is confiscated outright. Under fascism you retain
nominal ownership - but not control.

Want to allow smokers into your restaurant? Bad luck, you don't have control over
your property. Want to drive without wearing a seat belt? Tough. How you use your
body and your car is not for you to decide. Want to cut that tree in your back
garden? Think again, it's not you who can make such decisions about your own
property. Want to open a business in your basement? Not likely. Want to keep all the
money you earn by your own hard work. Silly boy!

Under fascism, corporate power and state power merge seamlessly together. This is
achieved by the state granting special privileges to certain companies - in return for
favours. Consider Halliburton in the USA - granted lucrative contracts in Iraq, without
having to contest such contracts by open tender. Consider all the companies who
profit from war. Consider any and every monopoly you've every encountered - and
understand that such a monopoly is a function of state sanction. And the state itself
is the ultimate monopoly.

The war in Iraq is a naked act of fascist aggression against a country - previously
impoverished by sanctions - that presented no provable threat to the USA. The
German leaders were hauled before Nuremberg for their aggressive actions in
WWII. George Bush just smiles inanely and never concedes mistakes - while
millions of Americans voted him president again. Meanwhile, hapless US soldiers
continue to die in what is becoming a military rout - not to mention the deaths of
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

The list can go on and on. Pending National ID cards. Increasing loss of personal
privacy. Money, your property, consumed by confiscatory taxes. Total loss of
financial privacy. Soon, legislation to control your intake of vitamins and quite
possibly the very food you eat. Pending national service and/or military draft.
Rampant nationalism and flag waving. Imprisonment without trial. Torture in prisons.
Mysticism and fundamentalism (yes, Hitler was a true mystic). Monopolised global
propaganda. Embedded journalism. Global emotional outpouring due to massive
media exposure of natural disasters - like the recent Tsunami - while at the same
time, effective media blackout of the impact of man-made disasters like the war in
Iraq. Loss of freedom of speech - due to insidious hate crime legislation. And, of
course, The Department of Homeland Security. Or should I say *Fatherland*?

The fact is, Orwell's worst nightmare - 1984 - is coming true before our eyes. But our
eyes are shut. They only open when some young lad from a supposedly royal family
gets dressed up in a silly costume.

The very act of being offended by Prince Harry's antics - while being oblivious to
REAL fascism - is an admission of moral bankruptcy and total ignorance of the
highest order.

And that's the danger - a completely twisted and inverted sense of right and wrong,
warped by decades of state-worship and mind control(read public education).
But it gets worse. Even supposed freedom-lovers are losing the plot and falling
under the fascist spell. It's as if there is a latent human yearning, a fascist gene, for

177
 The Road To Freedom

the type of world such a political arrangement can achieve. So much so, that
previously sound-minded individuals lose control of their faculties, leap into
jackboots and start goose stepping!

I'm not talking about *brown shirts* or white supremacists here, but some libertarians
and Objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand) - people who should know a whole lot
better.

There was a time when these folk were the staunch defenders of freedom. But the
lure of fascism has got to some of them and put them under its evil spell. Now they
too are cheerleaders for the state - turned into avid war mongers, some of whom
literally want to nuke the entire middle east. In the name of freedom, of course.
War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge. Lies are truth. Black is white.

You could be forgiven for thinking we live in a crazy world - for in many respects we
do. And coughing and spluttering about Prince Harry's private antics, while Rome
burns, is just one indication.

But is the news all bad?

Fortunately no. Amongst all this thuggery and demagoguery, there is a rising voice
of reason - and some surprising new coalitions of those who truly value freedom.

As a regular reader of commentary on the web - from all political persuasions - I've
noticed something quite extraordinary: A coalescing of certain elements of the so-
called *right* with the so-called *left*. The catalyst for this newly-emerging
consensus has been the war in Iraq - which has overturned many embedded myths
about the existing political spectrum.

When you start to read similar commentary on web sites which previously were
separated by apparently insurmountable philosophical differences - then you know
something is up. And that's what's happening with regard to an awareness of the
rise of fascism. It's being talked about.

I'm not sure if this new coalition will morph into a completely new form of
philosophical opposition to the fascist state, but I do believe that (as Doug Casey the
investment advisor says) 'crisis equals opportunity'.

We are headed for crisis on a number of fronts - economic, moral and political. This
is all bad news on the face of it - but potentially good news in the larger scheme of
things.

Finally, the recent tsunami illustrated something of profound significance: the ability
of people to respond to misfortune, without government *assistance* - when they are
confronted with the facts. And if we were confronted by the same facts and images
of the total war state - and its fascist machinations, then I believe the state's number
would be up. It would finally be exposed for what it truly is - the corrupter of human
morals and decency.

Freedom is won one step at a time. To be free, you must live free - yourself. Don't
wait for someone to hand it to you. It will never happen. Grab it yourself - and be part
of the solution.

178
 The Road To Freedom

Choose Your Own Escape Route

In the quest for more practical freedom - to get bureaucratic bludgers off your back
and reclaim your life and money - there is, as they say, "more than one way to skin a
cat". And the starting point for such a freedom strategy is always about finding ways
to hang on to more of your own money. Money is your primary freedom tool - so the
more of it you can keep, the more freedom-related choices you'll be able to make.

With that in mind, here are four ways you can escape from your incarceration as a
tax slave and increase your practical freedom. Four different routes you can choose
from.

The fundamental assumption here is that your money belongs to you. And so finding
ways to keep it is a perfectly moral quest, though increasingly deemed an "illegal"
one by our "masters".

Each route is likely to suit a different psychological type, providing a possible

solution to your own freedom quest - one that's compatible with your own personality
and circumstances.

Structuring: This is the strategy of choice for most people (who think about such
things), as it provides many benefits - without disrupting your lifestyle too much. It's
also designed for those who want to stay on the "right side of the law".

Structuring simply means utilising certain legal strategies, in conjunction with various
entities - trusts and corporations etc. - to minimise one's tax to the extent of what is
possible, without breaking the law. This is like walking a tightrope of course,
because the law is infinitely elastic and changeable. However, it is certainly possible
to arrange one's affairs in such a way that you don't have to lose sleep at night,
worrying as to whether the "man from the government" will come knocking at your
door.

This strategy does require the assistance of legal professionals if you want to do it
right. The more money and other assets you have - the more you need to get the
structuring right. However, there are some basic moves you can make that are
generally applicable, and will give you some obvious advantages.

The downside is that effective structuring is often only available to those with
considerable assets. For such people, the cost of setting this up is negligible - and
can be done by hired hands. It is, of course, the tax reduction and asset protection
strategy of choice for the wealthy.

Un-Tax: This strategy has become more commonly known as the "sovereignty"
option, where you rely on constitutional or other legal precedents to opt-out of the
tax system - becoming, in effect, a tax-protester.

This strategy is mainly promoted in the USA, and is essentially about seeking and
employing a legal/constitutional defence for opting out of the tax system.

This tactic can be likened to the famous image of the Chinese student standing in
front of the tank in Tiannamen Square - a defiant refusal to cooperate with the

179
 The Road To Freedom

authorities. That, of course, is a very positive analogy, as the tank in question did
actually stop!

There are risks of course, as your "tax rebellion" is plain for the authorities to see -
and act on if they wish. You also need to have a head for legal argument. For to be
effective in this way requires that you have a considerable amount of knowledge of
the basis for your rebellion. That will demands a lot of reading and research on your
part.

Personally, I'm very sceptical regarding this option, as I believe that in many cases,
the authorities have not bothered to act - and therefore the strength of the various
cases has not been tested fully in court. However, it is certainly true that if enough
people were to apply this strategy, then it would move into the realm of civil
disobedience, and would very likely succeed in undermining the tax authorities -
which largely function only by virtue of society's voluntary compliance.

The other obvious weakness of this strategy is that it pits you, as an individual,
against an armed opponent. For at the end of the day, the state has the guns - and
will use them to force your compliance, or lock you up trying.

The downside is that ending up in jail is a real possibility - especially if you go

around making a loud noise about your activities. It's one of those ideas that would
work if everybody did it. But they don't, and won't.

Disappear: This is the total privacy strategy - where, instead of becoming a

"challenger" of the system in direct confrontation with the authorities, you simply
make plans to disappear off the government's radar screen, so they don't notice you
any more.

There are various levels of privacy you can aspire to - the most obvious one being to
become "unfindable" by never disclosing your residential address. You just use a PO
Box number or maildrop, and when asked for a physical address, you simply quote
the street where your mailbox is!

To become completely private, you would also need to close all your domestic bank
accounts, work from a cash base only, and get rid of all your debts. You would need
to make sure you aren't on any public rolls - like for voting. You would also need to
develop your own offshore money sources - and keep them private. You'd want to
make sure all your communications were private - and that you didn't keep
paper/data records of anything that could incriminate you. And one more thing, you
wouldn't want to own any physical property in your country of residence.

You may find this method very "extreme" and not want to use it fully. However, it is
possible to enhance one's privacy by applying many of the "lower level" strategies as
suggested. Each step towards increased privacy, is a step towards more freedom.
The downside is that, once again, you may be breaking specific laws - and risk the
resultant penalty if caught.

PT: This is the "Perpetual Traveler" option - where you become a non-taxpayer by
exploiting the "resident for taxation purposes" laws in various countries.

180
 The Road To Freedom

The essence of this strategy is that you need to divide up your "life" into different
jurisdictional bases. For example, you would want to become a resident in a place
which has little or no tax. Ideally, this should be a tax haven, or perhaps a country
which doesn't tax worldwide income. This lays the foundation of your lifestyle - for as
a legal resident of such a place, you are not liable for any (or very little) tax on your
income.

The next step is to arrange your financial affairs (banking) in yet another jurisdiction,
while protecting your assets in a different one again. Finally, you would set up your
legal business structure in a different jurisdiction from any of the others. And once
you have achieved all of that - you are free to actually live anywhere on earth - as a
visitor.

Most developed countries will allow you to stay up to 6 months as a tourist. And as a
tourist you are not liable for any taxes (apart from sales taxes of course). When your
time is up, you simply move on to your next favourite destination - and repeat the
process.

You don't have to move to a different country all the time, but can choose say three
places which you will spend your time in each year (or even two places). The only
proviso is that you mustn't stay longer than the prescribed time that qualifies you as
a tourist. Stay longer - and you may be deemed a "resident for tax purposes", and
be liable for tax.

Naturally, this option is not for everybody, as many people would feel uncomfortable
uprooting themselves and living in different countries as a matter of course. But it
does offer a legal way to live a tax-free lifestyle, and to reduce bureaucratic influence
on your life. The other advantage is that most countries actually treat tourists better
than their own citizens. You'll find you are mostly welcome - as is your spending!
The downside is that it is necessary to change your life somewhat and rearrange
your affairs. The upside is that when done properly you will not be breaking any laws
- and can sleep easy at night.

Important note for US citizens: to benefit from this strategy, you would need to
give up your US citizenship and acquire a new passport. The reason is this: The
USA taxes on both the basis of residency AND citizenship (one of the few countries
in the world that does) - and expects you to pay tax, no matter where you live on the
planet. There are some financial concessions for being outside the US, but you are
required to continue filing a tax return - and paying taxes as due. The only way out of
this dilemma is to forego your US citizenship - and start over in a new country.

So you can see, from the brief overview of each strategy, that there is something for
everyone - something to suit differing personalities. And all you need to do is take
your pick and work towards it.

181
 The Road To Freedom

Freedom FAQ
One of the things I'm often asked is, "What does it require to start out on this road to
more practical freedom - and do I need lots of money?"

This got me thinking that there are obviously a number of basic questions which
people may want answers to, answers which perhaps I take for granted - having
lived this lifestyle myself now for many years.

So I thought I'd list some of the more common questions I've been asked over time -
and provide my own answers.

I trust this will give you more pertinent information on what it takes to get started and
increase your practical freedom -and something to think about.

DISCLAIMER: What follows is my own personal viewpoint - and is given under the
accepted rights of free speech. It is not to be construed as advice, legal or
otherwise. Individuals seeking to implement policies to increase their personal and
financial freedom and privacy should take proper consideration of any and all legal
restraints, as may apply in their particular country. Always seek professional advice
before embarking on any specific freedom or privacy strategy.

Q: What exactly is a "sovereign individual"?

A: Well, that's a term coined by Davidson and Rees-Mogg in their path-breaking

book, "The Sovereign Individual". Essentially, a sovereign individual is one who sees
himself as the owner of his own life, with full responsibility for it. More importantly, he
realises that no one has the right to tell him how to live his life, that he is in fact his
own "king".

Q: Practically speaking, what does being a sovereign individual involve?

A: Essentially it's all about personal freedom, and its moral flip side, personal
responsibility. In a world where collectivism has run amok, staking your claim to
freedom is a battle - for at every turn you are up against ardent philosophical
enemies. It's much more than just a philosophy - it's a way of life, a way of designing
your life to ensure you enjoy more practical freedom.

Q: What do you mean by "practical" freedom?

A: I'm talking about the freedom that matters - the freedom to take action in line with
your own chosen goals. This involves being able to lead your life as you see fit, to
arrange your business and financial affairs in a way that protects your vital interests.
In other words - freedom in your personal, business and financial affairs. It should
also be noted that an essential component of freedom is the right to privacy.

Q: Is this freedom strategy only available to those who are rich?

A: No, not at all. Obviously, money makes all decisions and actions easier - so
having money can smooth the way somewhat. But as for being "rich" - no, not

182
 The Road To Freedom

necessary. The important point is that you can proceed on this track in a gradual
manner - step, by step, at your own pace.

Q: What sorts of steps are you talking about?

A: Well, starting out on the road to more privacy and freedom does require that you
begin to do things differently. And the best way I can answer that is to think back to
what I did at the start. First, you should seriously look at opening an offshore bank
account. For me this is normal and everyday life - as I do not have accounts in any
of the countries I live in. But I realise that for most people this is quite a foreign
concept. However, in opening an offshore account you are doing two important
things. You are deciding to create more financial privacy for yourself, and you are
taking a first step to a more "international" way of doing things.

Q: What's the main advantage in having an offshore bank account?

A: Privacy and security. Not many people realise that money in a domestic account
is not really secure - at least, not secure from the government. In any case where
you are deemed to owe money - either in taxes, payment of certain fees, or even (in
some countries) child maintenance payments - then the government can actually
"trawl" your account and withdraw funds - without your knowledge or permission. In
a sense, a domestic bank account is an open wallet to anyone who can persuade
the government that you owe them money for some reason - even if you don't!

Q: Are offshore banks safe?

A: Most definitely! In fact, the bulk of the world's private wealth is kept in offshore
accounts. However, it still requires prudence when sourcing such banks on the
internet - as there are a number of smaller banks, which may be ideal for smaller
transactions - but not suitable for holding or managing larger amounts.

Q: What makes a bank an "offshore" bank?

A: That depends entirely on where you live. Basically, "offshore" simply means in a
country other than your own. So, if you live in the USA, an account in the Isle of Man
would be offshore. And in the same way, it's possible for a person outside the USA,
to open an account there - and treat it as an offshore account. However, for most
people, an offshore account is in a country other than their own, which also offers
increased privacy - as is the case with known tax havens.

Q: How do I open an offshore bank account?

A: The first thing to realise is that offshore banks want your business. The second
thing to realise is that since 911 there has been an increase in the level of disclosure
required by such banks. But opening an account is still relatively easy. You should
plan on having around US$1,000 available as an opening deposit. Some offshore
banks will want more, some maybe less. You will need to provide a legitimate state-
issued photo ID - usually your passport. You don't send your passport - but a copy.
However, most banks will require that this copy has been notarised by a Notary
Public, or certified in some way - to confirm the copy's authenticity. Most banks will
also ask for some or all of the following: a utility bill - to confirm your address; a bank
reference from a bank you currently use; a statement as to what you intend to use

183
 The Road To Freedom

the account for (if it's business or corporate account); a statement as to the source of
funds.

Q: Does an offshore bank operate the same way as my "onshore" one - and
does it provide the same services?

A: There are differences, however, depending on the bank you choose (and there
are many), you should expect levels of service to be equal - except for some
financial services. Don't expect to raise a mortgage from an offshore bank -
because, like all banks, they require security - and in the case of property, they
wouldn't be able to lend funds on something in another country. All offshore banks
offer a range of other financial services, including various types of accounts, in
different currencies. Sometimes they offer a full multi-currency account - which
means it can accept any major currency, and you can wire out in any major
currency. You can expect such a bank to provide debit and credit cards. However,
with credit cards, they require a security deposit which is greater than your credit
line. Credit (debt) is a bad idea anyway, for a freedom seeker, so you should not
miss this.

Q: How can I use an offshore bank account?

A: The purpose of an offshore bank account is to allow you to accumulate and

manage your funds in a more discreet way. You could use your offshore account to
fund an offshore brokerage account - for the purpose of investing. You could use
your account to receive and distribute funds from a business - either online or offline.

Q: How do I access my funds in an offshore account?

A: Obviously, you can't just walk in and do business face-to- face, unless visiting that
particular country. However, most offshore banks have advanced internet
capabilities and various phone banking services. You can wire funds in and out of
your account, and you can access your funds using a Maestro or Cirrus debit card
(good for anywhere in the world).

Q: Are offshore banks more expensive?

A: Some are - usually in the area of monthly fees and/or the charges they make for
wiring funds out of the account.

Q: If doing business, should I have an offshore corporation?

A: This is a very good idea - as it provides yet another layer of privacy, and also
asset protection. However, unless you have a an active business concern, you
shouldn't rush into setting up an offshore corporation - as you have to justify the set-
up and maintenance costs involved.

Q: How much does it cost to open an offshore bank account or offshore

corporation?

A: Most offshore banks will only require a certain minimum opening deposit. There
are a few banks that charge an account-opening fee - usually in the $100 range.
Some more exclusive banks are not readily accessible on the internet, and operate

184
 The Road To Freedom

through agents. In cases like this, you can expect to pay an "introduction fee" -
which could be anything from $200 - $500. As for the cost of an offshore corporation
- that depends on what country it is incorporated in. Panama is one of the cheapest
and can cost from $600 up to $1,000 - depending on the level of service you require.
In other jurisdictions, you may need to pay up to $2,000. Maintenance costs run from
$150 or so, to around $500 per year.

Q: What other steps can I take to start out on the "freedom" road?

A: Always start with the simplest ones first - like opening an offshore bank account.
You should also consider a private mail drop - a place where you direct all your
written communications. This type of service will collect mail for you - and forward it
to you wherever you are. The advantage is that it cloaks your true residential
address. You should also upgrade your email security - by using more privacy-
focussed services. You need a way to communicate securely by email. Learn how to
use PGP software, so you can encrypt sensitive emails - and receive likewise.
Another wise move is to learn how to use web proxy services - which allow you to
browse the internet without leaving telltale "footprints". Another practical way to
increase your financial privacy is to make use of various digital account services -
like e-gold etc.

Q: If I don't have enough money to get up and leave my home country - how
can I make this strategy work for me?

A: Using an offshore bank account, and possibly an offshore corporation, you could
begin to earn money (either from business or investments) and create your own
offshore nest egg. This would become your "freedom fund" - a growing stash of
money which you intend to use in the future, to enable you to take more serious
steps towards your personal freedom. One of the advantages of the internet is that it
allows you to potentially do business in a more private environment. You can accept
payment by credit card, and have those funds sent to an offshore account. You can
build a business outside your home country - and gradually increase your financial
capability to lead the life you desire.

Q: Does a freedom strategy ultimately require that I leave my home country

and live internationally?

A: No, it does not. Many people would find the international lifestyle unsuitable - for a
variety of reasons. For those who desire this life - then it's there for the taking, and
there are specific, legal strategies you can follow to literally unplug yourself from
your "home". However, if you want to maximise your freedom, while still "at home",
then you would build an "alter ego" - a private version of yourself. This "private" you
would earn money outside of whatever other forms of income you have. You would,
in fact, have two lives: your public and your private. Using such strategies you could
seriously reduce your actual income tax liability - and use the money so saved to
secure your financial future, or give you discretionary funds to do things you would
not normally be able to do.

Q: What are the advantages of joining SovereignLife - your private

club/community designed for freedom seekers?

185
 The Road To Freedom

A: The main advantages of membership include such things as being able to

investigate various suggested offshore banks, to cut to the chase on how to decide
on what bank, or what country for an offshore corporation. You are able to post
questions to our forum, and gain valuable insights from other members - information
that can literally save you from making costly mistakes.

SovereignLife is a community of freedom- loving individuals, who all have the same
objective - to make their lives freer, and to find and use whatever tools will make this
process easier and more successful.

There are extensive information resources in our members' area on all the topics a
freedom-seeker needs to know about - including alternative residencies and
passports, alternative income earning ideas etc.

Basically, it's a place to hang out and learn - then do, so you can make real changes
to your life - and gain a much greater measure of practical freedom. And best of all,
becoming a member is a once-only event. You can stay for as long as you like - with
no renewals ever.

To learn more about the specific benefits and advantages of joining SovereignLife,
then go to this link: http://www.sovereignlife.com

186
 The Road To Freedom

The Shape of Things to Come

If you read the newspapers, watch TV or even grab your headlines off the internet,
you are continually bombarded by a stream of events. These events are never linked
to any overriding theme or purpose. They are just events, presenting themselves for
observation - and obfuscation.

Take the "war on terror". If you believe the news, we are in the grip of a terrible
onslaught of violence and mayhem. And if you believe George Bush, we are at war.
Now, we all know what war is. I know for sure, I grew up reading about it in "war
comics" - those quaint weekly illustrated mini- books that used to be churned out in
the UK during the 50s and early 60s. These comics were all about World War II, and
were full of heroic deeds, camaraderie - and, of course, total victory over the enemy.
I loved them. So much so, I passed them on to my son who still has them.

War was clear-cut. We were the good guys fighting the bad guys. There was no
room for moral equivocation. Millions died to prove it.

The world has changed, and we are at "war" again. This time the enemy is not any
particular state. It is not the Communists. It is not the Nazis. It's Islam - or at least,
the fundamentalist, militant form of Islam.

Mind you, Islam has been around a long time. Maybe the Crusades never really
stopped. However, fighting ideas with guns is fraught with difficulties.

But war needs imagery. It needs a face. Osama bin Laden is that face. Just as
Goldstein was the face of war in George Orwell's "1984". Bin Laden appears on our
screens to stir up hate and fear - and our leaders swear to utterly destroy him and
his followers.

Yes, it's a face to hate. An implacable face. A serene face. The face of war.
We are told this war is all about those who hate freedom. We are told WE have
freedom, and those who hate us, hate us because of our freedoms. However,
Switzerland seems safe enough. Perhaps they are not free.

The USA started and continues to pursue a war on Iraq. We've forgotten the reason.
Originally it was because Iraq was on the verge of nuking the USA, the UK, or both.
Then it was because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who killed political opponents
and gassed a Kurdish uprising. Now it's because we're bringing much needed
freedom and democracy - at the point of a gun, and killing insurgents in uprisings
while we're at it.

With Iraq bombed into freedom, Iran is now the bad boy - for wanting to develop the
capacity to complete the nuclear fuel cycle. They say it's for peaceful purposes. The
USA says its for making the bomb. Iran is grumpy. They don't see why they can't do
this - seeing as Israel is armed to the teeth. But nobody seems to notice. Double
standards, some people call it. But not many.

Here's another news item that is a recurring theme. A story without a plot. The US
Dollar is falling. Economists are divided as to whether this is a "good" thing, or a
"bad" thing. But it's falling anyway. Meanwhile, George Bush continues to assert that

187
 The Road To Freedom

the US has a "strong dollar policy". The truth is whatever you assert - long enough
and loud enough. Newspeak.

Must be China's fault. They've tied their Yuan to the USD, so as it falls, their
currency falls - and their goods become cheaper and cheaper on the world market.
The Yellow Peril writ large.

Then there's the story of the USA's current account deficit. This is big news -
because Americans are spending billions more dollars a day than they are earning.
Not that they care. The shortfall is made up by foreigners who keep sending goods
in return for ever more US dollars - as printed by US printing presses. Maybe the
Chinese could print them cheaper? It's called outsourcing.

The European Union is on a growth binge, adding new countries as fast as they can
find and groom them. Russia is not happy - as it sees its former stomping ground get
peeled off, one country at a time. Putin's KGB background is surfacing. EU
bureaucracy is growing.

The Ukraine has an election. Within minutes, the world is calling it a fraud. The CIA,
apparently, are active on the ground. The USA says it does not recognise the
outcome of the election. We are still waiting for some country to announce it doesn't
recognise the outcome of the US election. Oh well. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine, there
are calls for separation between pro-West and pro-Russian parts of the country. The
leaders won't hear of it - separatism is evil.

The English cricket team plays in Zimbabwe. Interesting country. But apparently,
whatever goes on inside that country is not interesting enough for the news. The fact
it is being driven to economic ruin and that white farmers are being driven off their
land by Robert Mugabe, the "leader from hell", isn't much of a story in the larger
scheme of things.

The UK knows all about tyranny - at least in other countries. Meanwhile, they are
suggesting trials without juries for terror suspects. Oh, and they just banned fox
hunting too. Maybe fishing will be next.

And in New Zealand, just before Christmas, an antismoking ban goes into effect in
all pubs and bars. New Zealand has around four million people, and even more
sheep. Now it's hard to tell the difference. It seems the property owners weren't
consulted.

Is there any sense to all this chaos and arbitrary stupidity? Is there an underlying
BIG story which is being obscured by the heat and noise of this continual BS?
I believe there is. But it's not a story you're likely to read about - until after it
happens.

Much has been said about the USA moving into "Empire" phase - and books have
even been written about it. But I beg to differ. I believe the USA is moving OUT of its
empire phase - fast.

Britain once had an Empire. That's why they called it "Great" Britain. Its greatness
was built on trade and business - by capturing markets throughout the world. Its

188
 The Road To Freedom

currency, the Pound Sterling, was the reserve currency of choice - a rock of
economic stability.

All that changed when Britain went to war. War is costly. And after two World Wars,
Britain was in hock up to its eyeballs - mostly to the USA. Bretton Woods produced a
new reserve currency, and a new Empire - the USA. Great Britain became "little"
Britain and its pound was pounded.

The Soviet Union was an Empire of sorts. But it was based on such a shaky
foundation - the idiocy of socialism - that it crashed an burned with surprising speed.
Nobody remembers it.

The US, like the UK before it, built its wealth on the basis of its freedoms and
entrepreneurial spirit. The USA was like a magnet to aspiring individuals everywhere
- a place to make one's fortune. All this was represented in the strength of the US
Dollar - the Greenback.

And this is the crux of the issue. A country's currency is in fact a barometer of its
economic and political health. A currency is subject to a daily "democratic" process
of voting - carried by individuals, companies and institutions all over the world.
The value of the paper money in your pocket is determined by the level of "faith"
others have in that same money.

Contrary to politicians' utterances, a falling dollar is NOT good news, even though it
will allow you to export more goods at cheaper prices. Yes, it does allow for
adjustment in economic activity, but in essence, a falling currency is a warning sign
of falling productivity, falling confidence, falling prestige, and falling savings.

A falling currency is like an advance bad weather warning. It is shouting out aloud
that various economic fundamentals are not right; that current policies are not
prudent, are not good in the long term. A storm is brewing.

The point is this: no one really cares if the value of Zimbabwe's currency is falling. It
doesn't factor on the world stage. But when it comes to the USD - everybody has a
stake in the outcome.

Consider the Chinese. They hold billions upon billions of reserves in USD. At
present they are riding the storm - allowing their Yuan to devalue alongside the
USD, as it assists their exports. However, that is only one side of the economic coin.
Every fall in the dollar represents a fall the in value of their reserves. And at some
point, it becomes economically unwise to hold all those reserves in USD. However,
selling them will only accelerate the US Dollar's decline. China's secret weapon?

You can understand this easily if you apply it to just one person - yourself. Let's say
you have $1 million USD in the bank. If you're an astute person, you will have
noticed that your money is losing value on almost a daily basis. What can you do?
Well, you could hope and pray - or you could protect your wealth by converting it into
a currency that's not depreciating as fast - like the Euro, the Swiss Franc - or even
the Australian or New Zealand dollar. Of course, you may even prefer gold. You
would have to be a masochist to just sit there an do nothing.

189
 The Road To Freedom

Well, the world is literally holding trillions of US dollars - watching them decline in
value. Prudent individuals would have long ago started to diversify out of a devaluing
currency - so it should be no shock to realise that nations can (and will) do the same
thing.

It's like a stock market crash. At some point, mass psychology takes over, and every
man and his dog is trying to sell at the same time - causing a crash in prices.
The same could happen to the US Dollar. And if (when) it does happen, it will cause
economic mayhem. But the political consequences will be even more profound. It
will likely bankrupt the USA. The dollar will fall from grace - to be replaced by
another currency, or something else. If the US Dollar is knocked off its pedestal -
then the USA will suffer serious economic and political consequences.

This currency "shift" will cause a geopolitical seismic shift. The economic and
political fortunes of nations will undergo dramatic changes - mostly for the worse.
Instability will rise and radical new ideas will be put forth to cope with the crisis.
It will be more than the end of the US Empire - and quite possibly the end of nation
states as we know them.

Can such a change happen fast? I believe it can. In fact, history gives us many
examples of rapid change. Just consider the Soviet Union. At one moment it
appeared invincible. Then with one strike against the Berlin Wall, it literally fell like a
house of cards. No one predicted it. No one expected it. It wasn't reported as about
to happen in the news. The politicians would never have given credence to the idea.
But it happened all the same.

Could anyone have known in advance this would happen? Yes, one group - those
who knew that socialism was doomed to failure. But even those people were likely
surprised by the speed of the collapse.

Events have a way of doing that - hitting hard and fast. And usually when you least
expect them.

Today, we live in what appears to be a "solid" world. Nations appear solid,

governments appear solid. Your job appears solid. The paper money in your wallet
appears solid. No one is expecting the present order to be hit by a global economic
and political meltdown.

However, the news tells a different story. Cracks are appearing. Fingers are already
in the dikes. Let's just hope more freedom - the real thing - can rise from the ashes.

190
 The Road To Freedom

A Most Unlikely Freedom Haven

How would you feel about living in a place where you weren't compelled to wear seat
belts or cycle helmets; where you could just set up "shop" on the pavement to sell
your wares, without a license; where you could walk around in relative peace and
safety; where jaywalking is encouraged, and the traffic seems to work in the
absence of traffic cops and enforced speed limits; where you can eat a substantial
meal for a couple of dollars; where you are not hassled when entering the country;
where entrepreneurship abounds; where the gap between rich and poor doesn't
breed envy, but aspiration; where smoking isn't a sin; where every modern
convenience exists; where policemen are hard to find; where opportunity is
everywhere; and where income tax is virtually non-existent?

I'm talking about China - where I have just made my third trip this year.

Now, I'm not saying it's necessarily a freedom haven for those already here -
although it certainly seems freer in many respects than what we are used to "at
home" - but I am saying that for a freedom seeker, someone who doesn't mind living
in different places, it offers some unique and tempting benefits.

My first visit to China was in May this year. I can recall, on the plane from Singapore,
wondering what level of bureaucratic intimidation awaited me at Beijing's Capital
Airport. Well, I was in for a shock. Instead of a typical "shakedown" as in the good
ole' US of A, I was politely received with no inspections, no body searches, no snide
comments asking "what are you doing here?", and no fingerprints or ID photo taking
required!

For some reason, my expectation when arriving at the world's largest bastion of
"Communism", was to be given the third degree. But it never happened.

My next shock was in the modernity of the city. Broad clean roads with loads of
traffic. Driving habits a little on the crazy side. Everywhere clean and tidy, with lots of
greenery. A trip to a department store quickly caused me to reevaluate my
prejudgement of visiting a "developing" country - as its wares easily equalled the
best the retail world has to offer - in both range and presentation.

Perhaps the hardest thing to fathom is how such a vast number of people can
apparently live alongside each other in relative peace and harmony. Everywhere,
people walking, talking, eating - even dancing.

There's no doubt the Chinese love to eat - usually in quite large groups. And walking
down a typical side street, one is confronted by the reality that almost every third or
fourth shop is in fact an eating establishment of some sort. Some are big and brassy
- and very red. Others only have two or three tables - and are obviously a one-man
shop. But in each case, people were eating, drinking, talking, laughing or gambling.
There was a lot of shouting and laughing going on - related to some sort of beer
drinking game.

Of course, Beijing offers a plethora of wonderful, historical tourist attractions - like

the Great Wall and Temple of Heaven. And I did all these and more. But what most
impressed me was the tangible sense of optimism, entrepreneurship and a bustling

191
 The Road To Freedom

"get up and go" - which clearly reinforces the idea of China being an economic
powerhouse about to take on the whole world.

Unlike the other big nations, we're all familiar with, there is no recent history of
aggression or of attacking other countries - rather a determined sense of the
importance of trade and business as a means of achieving peaceful and prosperous
ends.

The Chinese capacity for business and entrepreneurship is legendary and daunting -
and bodes ill for the many countries now sinking under a mire of democratically
imposed, ill thought-out, socialist, dead-weight legislation.

And how is this? After all, China is the land of Mao - the land of socialism. China is a
one-party state - an international pariah by some "democratic" standards. How can
such a country rise above and beyond its own socialist slogans - to actually become
a capitalist giant in the making? And if there is any truth to the saying that the
presence of advertising is the "calling card" of capitalism, then China knows how to
advertise!

The Chinese have a refreshing attitude to money - not sullied by religious talk of rich
men finding it difficult to pass through the eye of a needle. Not bothered about guilt
as a way of life. Certainly not bothered about the gap between the rich and poor -
preferring to see it as it really is, a fluid situation where people are continually
moving between states, and given every incentive to rise higher. Not for China the
minimum wage, or the mumbling of socialist nay sayers.

My next two forays into China were to the city of Chongqing - where I am as I write
this. This bustling city is in south-west China - a major industrial centre adjacent to
the Sichuan province and lying on the merging waters of the Yangtze and Jialing
rivers.

Chongqing is famous for its hot and spicy food - in particular, the Chongqing Hot
Pot. The main downside is the heavy pollution, which often greys out the entire city -
and can irritate the throat. I was assured that plans are in place to reduce this
atmospheric blight - but I imagine it will take time. However, it seems to have
absolutely no effect on the locals, who appear intensely proud of their city and twin
rivers.

Whatever is in the air may explain the almost anarchic driving habits of the locals.
There appear to be no real road rules, apart from driving on the right - most of the
time. A drive in any taxi quickly disabuses you of the notion of a heavily-policed
society. I could see no police anywhere - nor any apparent sense of a speed limit.
People and cars mingle freely on the roads - negotiating each other with
considerable skill - coupled with liberal use of the car horn. But watch out for those
covered moped taxis that dart to and fro at night - without any lights!

You can eat here in a flash restaurant (6 people), for about 450 RMB - which is
around U$54. But if you're happy with something simpler - like spicy noodles with
chicken in a small cafe, then you can easily eat for 3-5 RMB - or around 30 - 50
cents USD. A typical night out for two, in a proper restaurant, usually comes in at
under 100 RMB.

192
 The Road To Freedom

The modern stores are full of everything a decadent, spoiled westerner could ever
want - and clothing is a particular bargain. But to put this in perspective, you can pay
up to 25 RMB for a cup of coffee in a fashionable cafe - while the guy outside is
cleaning the streets for 400 RMB per month.

But it's at night time that the real flavour of Chinese life becomes apparent. They
don't just go home, lock the doors, switch on the TV and retire for the night. No, the
night is alive with tens of thousands of people milling around the streets. Many just
walking. Some sitting talking - or playing games. Others are doing exercises, or even
ballroom dancing. And everywhere people are eating. So much eating - and so little
obesity. There must be some important dietary secret hidden here!

Yes, of course you can still pig-out on McDonalds, KFC or Pizza Hut if you want - as
they are all here. And maybe a younger generation of Chinese might be "invaded
and enslaved" by western eating habits. But for most part, the apparently
enthusiastic and continuous eating seems to have no impact on the nation's
collective girth.

Yesterday was interesting. In the space of one street and half an hour, I witnessed
the following:

A man with performing monkeys, putting on a spontaneous street show; a body-

pumping demonstration of exercise to music - being lead by a couple of attractive
young women, with members of the public joining in; a man writing a very long scroll
in Chinese on the pavement - and attracting donations for some reason; people
selling various pets - turtles, kittens, puppies, birds; advertising leaflets being
handed out with abandon; shoe shine vendors plying their services; the young and
hip mixed with their poor country cousins; spontaneous gambling by the roadside;
mobile phones everywhere; modern Chinese music blasting out of shops; and not a
policeman or obvious authority figure in sight.

I was able to have an interesting "political" conversation over dinner - with the help
of one of the guests who could speak English. I moved the discussion on to politics
and communism. I asked what they thought of it all. There was a surprising sense of
"Oh, that? We don't believe it." One gentleman I was talking to was a newspaper
columnist - and gave me a run down on why the free market was China's future. He
was a no-holds-barred capitalist. Then there was the "odd" comment, when touching
on international affairs, that Mao Zedong was like Bin Laden. I thought about that for
a while - but couldn't decide if this was a favourable or unfavourable comparison. I
have heard that same comment more than once since being here.

I can't speak for the millions of people who HAVE to live in China, or for those who
may feel constrained by their political beliefs. But I can say China proves something
- that economics trumps politics - and will be proven to do so, here in this so- called
communist nation.

I also know that for a foreigner, who wants a place to live and "disappear" - then
China would be ideal. Plenty of opportunities, great food, cheap living, no shortage
of all mod cons - provided you don't mind being looked at by the locals! Although
Beijing is becoming more cosmopolitan (though not as much as Shanghai),
Chongqing is decidedly short on foreigners - creating a natural curiosity amongst the
locals, which often involves prolonged "staring". Like a couple of days ago, while

193
 The Road To Freedom

eating in a roadside cafe, where I had to eat under the watchful gaze of the smiling,
proprietor/chef!

A freedom seeker will find much to enjoy in China - not least the sense of being "left
alone" - laissez faire in real time. And there is perhaps only one barrier - the length
of your allowed stay - which (for most countries) appears to be one month. However,
doing business allows for multiple re-entries, and as a last resort - you could always
marry one of the locals!

My general impression of China is that it is literally mind- boggling. What is going on

here is unprecedented in human history - an industrial transformation at the speed of
light. Not for the Chinese the complaints against foreign investment. No, they chew it
up as fast as it arrives. The more the better. No "PC" nonsense here - as even the
official party line is only given lip service. The Chinese have much more important
things to do - like making money!

China is undoubtedly on the road to global economic dominance - and just today I
read, in the UK's Independent, how the last remaining British volume car maker -
MG Rover - has been bailed out with one billion GBP in Chinese cash. Yes, they're
buying a 70% stake in that once-famous company. It's a sign of things to come.
And is there any truth to the urban legend that China, along with Japan, could
abandon the USD as their reserve currency, and peg their respective currencies to
gold - in a bold pan-Asian move to monetary independence? I think China has some
surprises in store.

Freedom seekers everywhere need to take off any rose-tinted glasses that may blind
them to a deteriorating domestic situation or to the advantages of new environments
- and see the emerging world anew. For I believe we are witnessing a huge historical
power-shift that is already well underway. And being on the right side of an opening
crevice is obviously the sensible place to be.

194
 The Road To Freedom

How to Privatise Your Life

Most people simply don't get it. They don't realise the essential link between
individual privacy and freedom - and civilisation itself. Too many people have been
conned by the oft-repeated phrase, "If you haven't got anything to hide, then what
are you afraid of?" And the implication of this question is that any desire for personal
privacy is really a cover for wanting to "hide" something - and that "something" must
be bad.

It appears that freedom lovers are forever having to justify their desire for privacy in
the face of accusatory adversaries - those who desire the total elimination of all
privacy.

We live in a world where, on one hand, privacy is touted as important - and

government departments are set up to protect it - while at the same time it is being
systematically destroyed.

This is achieved in a number of ways. First, there is a blurring of the distinction

between voluntarily handing over information - like when entering into a commercial
agreement, or purchasing something, or joining a private organisation - and being
compelled to hand over information to a government agency.

There's a lot of talk about the need to protect consumers, with all sorts of privacy
rules about what information can and cannot be shared. But there is no discussion
on the need to protect individuals from governments prying into their affairs.

The "war on terror" has accelerated this trend - making even more urgent demands
for a more complete elimination of all forms of privacy - personal privacy,
communications privacy and financial privacy.

What's a serious freedom seeker to do? That's simple, you must start to protect your
privacy in any and every way you can.

Privatising your life is nothing more that reclaiming what is rightfully yours - your own
life.

In George Orwell's "1984", technology was completely in the hands of the state - and
used for the purpose of total subjugation of the individual. Today, the reality is not so
one-sided. Yes, we definitely have "Big Brother", but we also have various escape
routes to avoid his perpetual glare. Technology has proven to be both a threat and a
boon to freedom - depending on who is using it.

So, what can YOU do?

I suggest you start by keeping it simple. Privacy is as much an attitude as a strategy

- and if you've not been accustomed to protecting your privacy, then you'll need time
to adjust to a different mindset.

195
 The Road To Freedom

Email Communication

The internet is the most wonderful communication medium. It is also the most
exposed. When you send an email it is NOT like sending a letter in the "old" days.
No, it is more like sending a postcard.

Just ask yourself this question: would you write a letter, containing words you don't
want anyone else to read, on the back of a postcard - where anyone can read it? Of
course not. And yet, this is precisely what plain text email is. It's messages on the
back of virtual postcards.

Now, of course, there are plenty of times when a postcard is a completely legitimate
form of communication - like when you're on holiday and send them to friends
saying, "having a great time and wish you were here!" - and similar sentiments.

However, if you were writing a personal letter to your loved one, or discussing an
important business proposition - it's not likely you'd send such communication by
postcard. You'd seal it in an envelope.

As a simple yardstick, just ask yourself this question when sending email: "Do I mind
if someone else reads this?". And if the answer is "yes", then you need to protect
your communication in some way.

The electronic equivalent of sealing your letters is encryption - where your words are
converted into "code" which can only be read by an authorised person.

Think of it as being similar to when you were a child, and first learnt the mysteries of
writing "invisible" letters - in lemon juice, to be warmed up later in order to read it.
Encryption achieves the same ends. It protects your personal communications
against the prying eyes of strangers.

Trouble is, most people find it too cumbersome to use encryption software - like
PGP (Pretty Good Privacy).

Many of you reading this will of course have and use PGP and realise it's not difficult
at all really - once you have made the effort to download it and use it a couple of
times.

If you haven't used PGP, then I certainly suggest you give it a try and see for
yourself.

PGP: http://www.pgp.com

For those who simply can't be bothered with software and swapping keys etc, there
is an alternative. You can use an encrypted email service and get all your important
contacts to sign up to the same one.

To explain: if you use an email service that encrypts via SSL - meaning that all
communications within the environment of that server are encrypted - then
communications between users of the SAME system are secure and private.

196
 The Road To Freedom

What you would do is simply get all your regular friends, contacts and business
associates to sign up for the same service - which is often free. That way you can
then email each other, knowing that your communications are secure.
Two suggested services you can try (out of many) are:

SAFe-mail: http://www.safe-mail.net

MailVault: http://www.mailvault.com

Mailvault also allows you to communicate via PGP both internally and externally - as
PGP is built in.

Snailmail Communication

Of course email hasn't completely replaced normal mail. And I'm sure you have
plenty of occasion to use it. It's a given that you will seal your letters - and even
register them (although I believe plain sealed envelopes still offer the best form of
communication privacy). But have you given any thought to keeping your own
residential address private? Well you should.

The simplest way is just to open a Post Office Box and have all your mail delivered
there. In some parts of the world, opening such a box will involved disclosure of your
identity and actual residential address. But not everywhere.

So, if you have important communications you want to keep private, consider
opening a mail box in a country where you are not asked these things - and where
they will forward mail to wherever you are.

There are many options for mail-forwarding, and some will even forward faxes and
even emails. You can often get a voicemail telephone service combined - providing
you with a virtual office capable of handling all incoming and outgoing
communications.

If you type in MBE or Mail Boxes Etc into Google, you'll find they have a world-wide
presence. There are also many small operators - so try a search using the term
"private mail drop" - and you'll get an idea of what is available.

Private Surfing

Another area where privacy can been compromised is your everyday act of surfing
the web. When you move from web site to web site you leave tracks - footprints,
which point to where you are and where you have come from - tracing you back to
your ISP, who no doubt knows where you live!

Now, if all you do is read Google News every day, then you are not going to be too
concerned about others knowing your online habits. But there are many occasions
when you may be concerned.

One way to hide your tracks is to use the services of an anonymiser of some sort.
This passes your web surfing commands through an anonymous third party - so that
your IP address is not logged when you visit. You are basically "cloaked" and
invisible.

197
 The Road To Freedom

There are many services offering this type of privacy, but one you may like to check
out is:

Metropipe Tunneller: http://www.metropipe.net

Financial Privacy

It's a fact of life that your local bank is an agent of the government. Everything you
tell them, and every transaction you make using them, is readily available to
government authorities on demand. And not only information - but your money itself.

Yes, most governments now have the power to dip directly into your bank accounts
and siphon off money - without you even knowing about it until after the event.

There is a simple answer. Open a bank account in another country, where your
government cannot pry.

Most people find the idea of opening a bank account in another country both strange
and somewhat dangerous. But nothing could be further from the truth - particularly if
you deal with well- known and reputable banks. In fact, you'll find there is a whole
"offshore" banking industry that is constantly looking for your business. You just
need to take advantage of it.

Obviously, some countries are better for banking than others. Some countries
actually respect your privacy - and don't pry into your financial affairs. These are the
banks you want to deal with.

Keep in mind that to open any legitimate bank account, you will be required to
provide ID (certified copy of your passport) and sometimes other bank references.
And since the advent of the "Patriot Act", many banks have been forced to
implement more rigourous account opening procedures and policies.

You can increase your level of financial privacy by operating such a bank account
via an offshore corporation or trust - as this adds a further layer of protection
between you and your money.

Opening an offshore account is not that difficult, once you know exactly what you
want to achieve, and have done sufficient research to make a decision on what bank
you want to use.

There are simply too many banks worthy of consideration to suggest any particular
ones here. And like any business, different banks pitch themselves at different types
of customers.

But here are a few pointers to get you started: Look for a bank that doesn't require
an overly large opening deposit. $1,000 should be enough in most cases, or perhaps
up to $5,000. Look for a bank that has a good online banking system - which allows
you to do a full range of banking transactions, including wiring out funds as required.

Make sure such internet banking has good security - and doesn't leave you worrying
about someone hacking your account and stealing your funds. When choosing what
country, keep in mind the time zone - as you will want to be able to phone them at a

198
 The Road To Freedom

time other than 3 am during your night! It should also be obvious that you need a
bank where the staff speak your language. Make sure they offer accounts in multiple
currencies, as you'll find this a useful feature.

And lastly, find out what type of credit and/or debit cards they issue, and under what
terms.

Increasing your personal, communications and financial privacy is not that hard, you
just need to decide on it, and do it. And once you have started, you'll find an
increased sense of personal control over your affairs - and an increased sense of
security.

Why wait? You can implement privacy strategies one by one, to suit your needs and
circumstances. The important thing is to START.

199
 The Road To Freedom

The Moral Case Against Taxation

A lot of people have a strong opinion about taxation. "It's too high!". "Tax the rich
more!". "Stop tax cheats!". "Avoid, don't evade!" - and so on.

Typically, most people treat it as an economic issue - a matter of raising money to

pay for government services. This approach leads to incessant arguments about the
nature of government expenditure and efficiency etc. - as if one were talking about a
business venture and revenues. But taxation is nothing like business revenue.

Government is not a business. Taxation is not payment made for services rendered -
by voluntary agreement. It is a forced extraction of money from your pocket - in
return for being treated like a chattel slave!

Taxation is not about government services - it is about income redistribution and

"vote buying". Besides, I cannot think of one government service worth paying for -
which could not be better provided by the private sector.

Publicly, if you believe opinion polls, people support taxation, and often agree to
increases in it - if they think they can get a slice of the redistribution pie as a result.
Privately, of course, people act as normal humans, and try to avoid it whenever they
can.

Most offshore-related information sources promote products and strategies for

minimising tax - legally. This can involve something as simple as having an offshore
company and bank account - or as complicated as a complete offshore and asset
protection strategy, costing many thousands of dollars. The official mantra is "tax
avoidance GOOD - tax evasion BAD".

The difference between tax avoidance and evasion is a subtle one, based on
whether it can be done so legally or not. If it's legal (under current, but ever-changing
law), then it's avoidance. If it's illegal (not allowed under current law), then it's
evasion. Take your pick!

Unfortunately this distinction is mostly semantic. It's like recommending pot smoking
in Amsterdam (where it is legal), and warning against it in New York (where it is not).
And as anyone who has given the issue of drugs any serious thought at all, it's really
a matter of morality - not legality. For never forget, just because something is "legal"
doesn't make it moral. And conversely, just because something is "illegal" doesn't
make it immoral.

The irrefutable case against taxation is a moral one. And if we lived in a moral
society - taxation itself would be illegal. Why? Because taxation is theft pure and
simple.

If you don't believe me, then consider this: let's say you're one of the poorer
members of society. And as you look around you, you realise you don't have a nice
home, new car, or annual overseas holidays. Others do, but not you. Given this fact,
would you consider it moral to therefore spend your evenings breaking into the
homes of the rich - in order to get a little of the good life for yourself?

200
 The Road To Freedom

If you're criminally minded, your answer will be that you don't care - you just want the
money. But if you are like most people, you'll realise you simply cannot steal off
others in order to better your own life. Now, does it become moral if a third party (the
government) takes the money off the rich and gives it to you? Of course not!

Taxation is income redistribution. Income redistribution is theft. End of story.

And don't believe the waffle about who will build the roads, or police the streets. This
is just window dressing for what government is really about - and extremely poor
window dressing at that.

Whether the issue is health care, law and order, or national defence - the
government is in the business of income transfers - against the will of those
involved. But there is a much more serious moral case against taxation - the way it
forces you to be complicit with the "system".

When you pay tax, you are supporting a government - its policy and agenda. When
you pay tax, you are in fact endorsing what the government does - "in your name".
And this is of particular interest in times of great moral disagreement - like the
current war in Iraq, or the war on drugs, or the treatment of refugees - or pick your
favourite hot issue.

Ask yourself this: would you have considered it moral or immoral to have invested in
major companies which were profiting from Hitler's war effort in World War II? Would
you have considered it moral or immoral to have sent funds in support of Stalin's
Soviet Union? Or to bring it more up to date, would you be happy to give a monthly
donation to the "Bin Laden fund for global change"?

Now, you may want to nitpick with me and suggest that the above examples involve
voluntary payments or support - whereas taxation involves involuntary payment or
support. But I beg to differ.

Taxation involves conning people into thinking they have no choice in the matter -
that it is an enforced obligation. But does this fact absolve you from moral
responsibility? And is it really a fact that you have no choice?

Let me ask you again: If you were a German in World War II, and you were violently
opposed to the way Jews were being treated, would you be happy that your money
was building concentration camps? Would you be prepared to shrug your shoulders
and say, "Well, it's compulsory, what can one person do? It's got nothing to do with
me!". It's a bit like a soldier, after being caught raping, pillaging and murdering -
saying, "but I was just following orders!".

Let's roll forward. It's more than likely, if you are reading this, that YOUR government
is involved in the war in Iraq. A pre- emptive war against a people who posed no
threat to anyone. Now, if you support this war, then you probably don't mind your tax
money going to fund it. But what if you are morally opposed to the war? How can
you live with the fact that your money is funding something you are adamantly and
morally opposed to?

How would you feel, if you knew your money had paid the salaries of the soldiers
who committed abuses at Abu Ghraib jail? Or of the pilots bombing innocent
civilians?

201
 The Road To Freedom

This brings up an even bigger moral question. Does any state have the right to tax
its citizens in order to fund activities that a good proportion of its people are morally
opposed to? And more importantly, does a state have the right to force any single
individual to fund that which he or she is morally opposed to?

I'm not trying to take moral "sides" here, or say what you should or should not
believe - only that you have a right to your beliefs, and a right not to have to support
those who would tread on them. So let's look at another example:

If you are a fundamentalist Christian, would you be happy paying tax to a

government that was offering free abortions on demand? Would you feel
comfortable knowing your money was paying for something you personally believed
to be immoral?

You can see the moral minefield we have here. And my essential point is NOT to try
to distinguish between good and evil, but rather, to point out that no individual should
be forced to financially support something he finds morally reprehensible.

What is the solution? Well, I can't see any government making a decision to
voluntarily give up taxation. So, it requires individual action on the part of the tax
payers themselves. It requires civil disobedience. It requires getting a backbone and
learning to say "no!".

Forget about voting for change. It will never happen. No, the only way to get out of
this moral quagmire is by you making your own decision and acting accordingly.
This issue is very much like being a "conscientious objector" - a person who refuses
to fight in a war. Such people are treated with contempt usually, but to me they are
moral heroes - because they refuse to be compromised, and act in accordance with
their own conscience.

If you were allowed to apply for conscientious tax objector status - where you could
file a case against paying tax, because doing so violated your own conscience - then
that would be fine and dandy, and solve the problem. Unfortunately, this is a utopian
idea and I cannot see any government wearing it!

That brings us back to individual action. And I should say straight up, that no person
should act in a way that threatens their own life. No one is obliged to put themselves
on the altar of self-sacrifice. Standing in front of government bulldozers or tanks is
not recommended.

However, there are many smart alternatives to such a moral dilemma. There are
ways you can "opt out", disengage, remove your sanction. And it behoves all people
of goodwill, who value individual freedom, to seriously seek out such strategies. For,
in the end, the state is merely the "Emperor with no clothes". It exists purely because
sufficient people believe it should exist. And it only continues to exist because we all
act like sheep - cheering from the sidelines - "what beautiful clothes!"

It's time to take off the rose-coloured glasses, and see taxation for what it really is -
the modus operandi of totalitarian oppression.

202
 The Road To Freedom

How to Live Outside the Box

Have you ever stopped to think about how much of your life is just a matter of
following predetermined rules, which you have learned from your parents, your
culture and your education?

Have you ever desired to step outside of that "box" and become a truly autonomous
individual?

Well, I can tell you, it's a lot harder than you think.

Just consider some of the things you may want to question, and therefore may want
to discard, in the process of freeing yourself from the shackles of various pre-
programmed auto-beliefs.

Education: A better term for this would be brainwashing. And this accusation is
supported by the fact the whole education system is controlled by the state, and that
they won't let go of such control.

My own children are long grown up. But if I was starting over, I'd seriously consider
not sending them to school at all!

Seriously, I think the idea that children should be "locked up" in a government-
controlled environment from the time they are five (or earlier) is really scary.

Who said this type of education is necessary anyway? Is there any scientific proof
this stilted process is any better than simply learning the basics, then being
encouraged to follow your own desires and interests from then on?

I know my own father, in Scotland, left school at 14. And yet, he was much more
literate than most 20 year olds today - in the sense he had a full grasp of the English
language and a fully competent understanding of mathematics. He was equipped for
life at 14 - and thereafter, his "education" consisted in following his own dreams, and
learning what he wanted to learn.

In my book, a basic education should be able to stop at around 7 years old - to be

followed by encouragement to learn that which is of interest. In other words, to follow
one's passion. As I'm sure you know, when you have a passion or keen interest, it's
completely natural, and enjoyable to learn about it.

"But", I hear you say, "what about a college education and a degree - so our children
can grow up and get a good job?"

Which brings me to the second idea that should be challenged.

A Job: What's a job? It's when you sell your labour to someone else - in return for
money. The whole of our educational system is geared towards teaching children
how to get a job. Nowhere is it taught how to CREATE a job.

A job is the last thing you should want (if you value your freedom) - as it ties you to
the objectives and requirements of another person or organisation. Why settle for a

203
 The Road To Freedom

job, when you could create your own? Why be bound to someone else's goals, when
you could be dreaming and acting on your own?

I'll tell you why, because state education has completely removed both the desire
and the means to do so.

All that's left is the crazy drive to get everybody "educated" in order to get into
university - where they can get a degree, to show a future employer - in order to get
a job! It's a merry-go- round from bizarro world!

If I had a young child now, I'd want them to grow up without this mind-numbing
rubbish being drilled into them, and for them to enter the adult world as someone
fully believing in their ability to create their own job, and generate their own income -
doing what they LOVE.

I think this is the reason I admire British billionaire, Richard Branson, so much. He
lives totally "out of the box". He is not limited in his ideas as to what he can and
cannot do.

He started out in business in mail-order music. Then one day had the idea he'd like
to have an airline (Virgin). And wow he wants to take tourists into space. He's a man
who sees no barriers and takes no prisoners. I can only assume that while growing
up - in spite of any official education - he must have been exposed to a lot of
liberating ideas about his own ability to lead a life of his own choosing. A truly self-
made man.

Religion: Now here's a big one. It's obvious most people don't choose a religion - it's
simply drummed into their consciousness at an early age. How else can you explain
that a Catholic country produces millions of Catholics - rather than Muslims? And
vice versa.

Now, if you're religious, don't get offended by what I'm saying, but rather put yourself
outside your own head for a moment, and think about it.

Have you ever stopped to really consider what religion is - and why you should
believe in one?

Have you ever really, seriously set out to prove the validity of your own beliefs - or
did you just acquire them by osmosis?

I can tell you, there is a very good reason why Jesuits have always said if you give
them a child until he is seven years old, then he will be "theirs" for life! They know a
thing or two about the power of religion - or the power of any belief system that is
inculcated at such an early age.

I grew up in a very religious home - and as a result, came back to the "fold" after a
brief rebellion during my teenage years. However, after a studied re-evaluation when
I was older, I discarded my early beliefs. And as a result, I brought up my own
children without religion. Strangely enough - they don't miss it!

204
 The Road To Freedom

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you can't believe what you want - I'm just
suggesting that such beliefs (if not chosen rationally - but "absorbed" while growing
up) can be counter- productive to you leading a life of your own choosing.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that the history of war and conflict - including
the present day - has a lot to do with the consequences of irrationally held beliefs.
You can "test" this assertion for yourself - by noting your own reaction to the word
"fundamentalist". If you're like most people, it will have a negative impact on you -
and will probably conjure up images of zealots with a scary look in their eyes, or
worse, who pose a potential threat to your own life.

But what IS a "fundamentalist"? It's just someone who believes 100% in the literal
meaning and edicts of their own particular religion. This belief is not usually of the
scientifically proven kind, but rather a deeply held conviction born of cultural and
educational input during early childhood.

The State: This is also is a form of religion - the secular variety. We grow up
worshipping the state. We sing national anthems. We fly flags. We fight and die for
it. We pay taxes. We vote. We even kow-tow to the very people who have the gall to
call themselves public "servants" - while acting like public slave masters. And in the
UK (and other Commonwealth countries), we used to stand to attention at the end of
the movies - to the tune of "God Save the Queen".

The state is a form of madness. It's the fundamentalist belief that disorder can only
be managed by force; that the economy is some sort of machine; and that people
must be herded like sheep - lest they go astray.

The question is: how do you undo a lifetime of brainwashing and gain the
knowledge, conviction and courage to live outside the box?

In my own experience, there is really only one way - to expose yourself to very
different IDEAS. To challenge your intellectual status quo - by confronting a
completely different view of the world, and your place in it.

And if someone asked me to point them in the right direction, and suggest sources
of such radically different viewpoints - I'd probably say, "start by reading these four
books".

And here they are:

"Atlas Shrugged" - by Ayn Rand. The story of a man who decided that evil only
existed because people gave it permission - and so organised a "strike" of all the
people of ability. He secretly persuaded all such people to escape to a private
hideaway - and engage in a form of passive resistance, by removing their sanction
of such evil.

"Sic Itur Ad Astra" (This is the way to the stars) by Andrew J Galambos. A brilliant
and challenging thesis that debunks the "party line" that the state (force) can ever
deliver freedom. He goes on to outline why he believes that freedom is a product,
and how it must, ultimately, be delivered by the market.

205
 The Road To Freedom

"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" - by Harry Browne. A challenging look

into the cultural blocks to the achievement of our own happiness - and how to free
oneself from them. He also discusses the essential difference between direct and
indirect action - and shows why direct action is the only way to achieve one's goals.

The three books can be got from Laissez Faire Books

Thinking outside the box is one thing - and a necessary first step. But thinking alone
doesn't achieve anything. Thinking needs to lead to action - to LIVING outside the
box.

I'm not saying it's easy. But it can be done, bit by bit - if you have the flame of desire
for a freer life.

206
 The Road To Freedom

How to Escape The Prison Camp:

A Manifesto For Personal Secession
State education is powerful propaganda. Democracy is a seductive hallucinogenic
drug. And both conspire to ensure you never rock the boat, never renege on your
social "obligations" - and more importantly - never shout "The Emperor has no
clothes" and run away laughing!

In a previous essay - "A Troublesome Document: Musings on July 4" - I outlined

why the right to secede is fundamental to any sort of meaningful freedom. And I also
pointed out that no existing nation state allows such a practical expression of
freedom.

In the modern nation state, you really have no choice but to either accept your status
as a "slave" - and get on with life, or fight some futile, endless political battle to
improve your lot in life - via the ballot box.

At least, that's the official line.

But there IS another choice you can make. There is an alternative - if you have
sufficient moral clarity, financial means, personal conviction, and the sheer audacity
to buck the system and really live your life on your own terms.

You can personally secede. Yes, you can pack up your bags, tip your hat, and say
goodbye to the moochers, looters, scumbags, politicians, bureaucrats, taxmen and
other assorted dross that infest the modern welfare state.

This strategy is often known as being a "PT" - which means Perpetual Traveller. It
can also mean: Permanent Tourist; Prior Taxpayer; Possibility Thinker; Post
Tyranny; Privacy Tactician - and any other positive label you can think of that spells
"PT"!
More recently, this personal secession strategy has become known as being an
"Internationalist".

Some years back, well-known investment advisor and previous Libertarian Party
Presidential candidate - Harry Browne - wrote a path-breaking book entitled, "How I
Found Freedom in an Unfree World". The general theme of his book was that there
are two fundamentally different types of action you can take to achieve your goals in
life - direct and indirect. And only one of them is truly effective.

To illustrate the difference between the two types of actions - consider the following:
Let's say you are not happy with the schooling your child is receiving - and you want
to do something about it. Well, direct action would involve taking your child out of
that school and attempting to find a better one. And if you were unhappy with the
standard of education in ALL schools, then direct action could involve you deciding
to home school your child yourself.

On the other hand, indirect action would involve perhaps joining the school board, in
the hope of improving the situation - or voting for a candidate who promises to
improve educational standards.

207
 The Road To Freedom

The essential point is this: direct action involves acting in a way that directly affects
the outcome on your own life. While indirect action tries to work through other people
and systems - hoping to exert enough influence to bring about the required change.
Here's another example. You live and work in a country which taxes you at 50% of
your income. You are not happy. You can take the indirect route, and campaign for
lower taxes - or you can take the direct route and emigrate to country with lower
taxes.

In the same way, becoming a PT is a "direct action" strategy. When you become a
PT, you are eschewing indirect action. You are giving up on voting and giving up on
the political means of achieving objectives. You are taking your life into your own
hands and doing what is necessary to achieve your goals.

The PT strategy was originally conceived by Harry Schultz, the famous investment
newsletter writer. And it was popularised in a book of the same name - "PT" by a
gentleman who went by the name of Dr W.G. Hill.

The ideas and techniques it promoted became known as the "Five Flag Strategy".
The basic concept is as follows: In order to reduce the effective tyranny of any one
jurisdiction over your life - you need to spread your practical life over multiple
jurisdictions. You could say it's a strategy for "hedging your bets" in life. And just as
investment advisors suggest you diversify your investments, so the PT strategy
suggests you diversify your life.

Each jurisdiction (country) is known as a "flag". And it's more than likely that you are
currently living a ONE flag strategy - with all your "eggs" in the same jurisdictional
basket.

The five flag strategy involves the following:

Flag #1: You obtain citizenship and a passport from a country that does not tax non-
residents on their worldwide income. Almost every country qualifies in this regard -
except the USA, which taxes its citizens no matter where they actually live.

Flag #2: Form a company in a country that does not tax business income outside
that country. Most traditional offshore centres qualify - including such places as
Singapore and Hong Kong.

Flag #3: Obtain a legal residency in a country that taxes only income generated
within that country, not foreign income. Belize, Croatia, Grenada, Malta, Singapore,
Hong Kong and Panama are such jurisdictions.

Flag #4: Keep your wealth in asset havens with strict bank secrecy laws that can
only be penetrated in a criminal investigation, and that do not exchange data with
foreign revenue authorities. Liechtenstein, Panama and Switzerland are such
jurisdictions.

Flag #5: Spend your time in whatever countries you enjoy the most, taking care not
to stay long enough to be legally a tax resident there.

Hill's and Shultz's basic thesis was that governments treat their own citizens much
worse than tourists. As a tourist, you are welcome. The local government

208
 The Road To Freedom

encourages tourism and likes it when people visit and spend money in the local
economy. So, by being a "tourist", you are also pleasing your host country and
contributing to its economic welfare.

This strategy works for almost anyone who wants to implement it - except US
citizens. If you are a US citizen, then you would need to find an alternative
citizenship and passport first - and GIVE UP your US citizenship - in order to step
out on the PT road.

The most common impediment to anyone starting out on this course of action (apart
from the psychological barrier of having to leave home and family), is the need to be
able to work and earn a living while moving around.

When the PT lifestyle was originally conceived and promoted, it was designed for
those with the financial means to make it work. You either needed to be financially
independent, with a private source of income - or have the type of occupation that
allowed you to live and work anywhere.

However, since the advent of the internet, the possibility of working "internationally"
is now a reality for anyone with enough "get-up-and-go", and who is singularly
motivated to achieve such a goal.

With the internet, unlimited moneymaking opportunities present themselves - all of

which can be worked online, and from any country where you can connect to the
net.

Here's just a few suggestions:

Consulting. If you have expert knowledge in any field, then you can potentially do it
online.

Programming. Obviously, a perfect fit. If you can code from your bed - you could be
in "bed" anywhere!

Trading/Investing. If you're involved in trading the markets on your own behalf -

then you can be wherever you like.

Writing. Another natural candidate for the PT lifestyle.

Art/Photography/Music. Now that these forms of work are all done digitally - the
net becomes the ideal medium to move files back and forth.

Teleworking. Where you do "outwork" for various online or offline businesses.

Affiliate Marketing. One of the net's success stories - where you can sell other
company's goods and services on commission.

The list could go on and on. Even Doctors could work online - giving e-consultations.
Or how about Accountants? I can see no reason why they have to be in the same
country as their clients.

209
 The Road To Freedom

In reality, the possibilities are only as limited as your own imagination. And with the
advent of broadband, more and more types of work become feasible - including film
making.

In this "online" day and age, the primary barrier to becoming a PT - that of being
able to work internationally - is coming down. And that leaves only one remaining
barrier - the barrier inside your own head.

For when all is said and done, the desire for freedom is not always matched by an
equal desire to ACT to achieve it. It's a bit like wanting to lose weight. It's easy
enough to do it - if you want it badly enough. Just eat less. But we are creatures of
habit - and changing a lifetime's habit can be very hard. Just ask those who smoke.
Wanting freedom and doing what is necessary to achieve it, are not necessarily the
same thing.

The point is this: The option for achieving a freer life is there for the taking. You just
need to want it bad enough.

Are you ready for PT - Permanent Transformation?

210
 The Road To Freedom

Terrorism and The Decline of The Democratic Nation State

Contrary to the "huff and puff" words of George Bush and other political world
leaders - the war on terrorism cannot be won.

Terrorism is a strategy for achieving political ends. Just as crime is a strategy for
achieving economic ends; taking drugs a strategy for achieving transcendence; or
religion a strategy for achieving life's meaning and purpose.

You can argue that such strategies aren't moral, don't work, or are just plain wrong -
but you can't argue against the fact they are used. And you cannot win a war against
a "strategy".

A strategy arises from human nature - as a way of attempting to fulfil human needs,
wants, foibles, and weaknesses. So, in essence, a war on terrorism (as would be a
war on crime, a war on drugs, or a war on religion) is a war on human nature.

The war on terrorism cannot be won. Instead, the war will gradually, but surely,
undermine the very states who boldly declare their capacity to win it, and who
expend financial and human resources in the effort to do so.

In this regard, the book "The Sovereign Individual" - by William Rees-Mogg and
James Dale Davidson - is proving prophetic.

One of its main theses was that the means of violence was no longer the monopoly
of nation states alone, but was increasingly available to any individual or group who
decided to make use of it.

The decreasing cost, reduced size, greater effectiveness and wider availability of
various types of weapons and ordnance - once the sole domain of nation states -
has made it possible for individuals and groups to lay hands on them.

This "democratisation" of the means of violence - allowing any motivated individual

or group to obtain advanced weaponry - is causing a fundamental power shift on the
global stage.

Previously, the cost of obtaining potential WMD was prohibitive, and only available
to nation states - backed by their capacity to tax and spend inordinate amounts of
money on defence matters.

Ever since 9/11, the public has been made increasingly aware of the "power of one"
- as represented by a lone suicide bomber, strapped to the hilt with devastating
explosives. Just one person has the ability to undermine, threaten, disrupt,
dismember, and throw into chaos the whole of a society.

9/11 itself demonstrated how, without a single significant weapon or bomb, it was
possible to bring town two enormous buildings and kill thousands of people.

And again, the Iraq war is undermining all previous assumptions about warfare.
Here, an impoverished nation, attacked by the world's only superpower, is still

211
 The Road To Freedom

maintaining a state of war - due to nothing more than a few thousand determined
individuals - and ready availability of weapons.

It's David and Goliath all over.

The Iraq war is also unveiling another tactic - executions and the taking of hostages.
And as I was writing this, a similar event took place in the province of North Osettia,
near Chechnya - where around 1000 people were seized as hostages, with the
demand that Russian troops withdraw from Chechnya. The outcome was a human
catastrophe - with hundreds of people dead and wounded.

Add to that the brutal realities of beheadings and executions that are becoming the
standard fare of the daily news, and you can see not the "winning" of a war, but the
"spreading" of what we loosely term terrorism.

Of course, terrorism isn't new. It's been around as long as there have been
individuals or groups with grievances. But there is no denying that it is on the
increase. Why? Because, as a strategy, it is increasingly seen as a tactically
effective means of achieving a desired end. And the vital ingredient to such
"success" is the broad availability of the means of violence.

The typical nation state response is, "We will not negotiate with terrorists" - which
taps into the latent fear felt my more and more people - offering at least the hope of
winning the war. But the truth is that a democratic nation state, in the end, has to
deal with the collective response of its hapless voters. And there is one gaping
Achilles Heel - the difference between an institutional and personal response to
terrorist threats, demands and actions.

The first thing we need to be clear on is this: terrorists don't just go around bombing
or abducting people for no reason. There is always a political demand of some sort.
It may be as single- minded as "get all foreign troops out of our country", or relate to
a more complex situation. But there is always a demand of some sort.

The best way to understand the fundamental difference between an institutional and
personal response to a terrorist's demand is to consider the following:

Imagine your own child was kidnapped. Imagine you get a phone call, demanding
that you leave the country, or that you leave your job - or any other demand which
was aimed at you personally. And if you do not comply, your child will be killed.
What would your response be?

Would you boldly state, "I won't negotiate with terrorists", or would you do whatever
is humanly possible to save your child?

Naturally, you would do anything to save your child - even if it meant leaving the
country. Your first concern would be to your child - not the greater issue as to
whether to "give in" to terrorists or not.

And that's what we see happening now. For example, in Iraq, there have been many
cases of kidnappings, and every time, the people personally involved have wanted
the demands met - so either their own life, or the life of a loved one, can be spared.
This is human nature. But it's not in the nature of the nation state.

212
 The Road To Freedom

The nation state can boldly assert "no negotiating", because it is impersonal. It does
not stand to lose a loved one. And it is this polarity between the interests of the
individual and the collective that will drive the democratic nation state "out of
business".

The fact is, any democracy is ultimately maintained by the will of the majority. If the
majority get sick of the personal cost, in human lives, of maintaining a tough, non-
negotiation strategy, then such frustration and anger will ultimately turn up in the
ballot box - leading to a political back-down.

We can see this in Israel. Ariel Sharon's Likud government is the "tough guy" -
epitomising the "we will will not deal with terrorists" stance. However, increasingly,
individual Israelis seek another way to deal with the crisis. And the reason is simple:
more and more individual Israelis are suffering, and have suffered, from the
consequences of various terrorist acts.

The natural response of individual people is to save the lives of their loved ones -
and to seek to negotiate with whomever is making demands - to come to some
agreement, even if it means meeting the demands in some way.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong - in the larger scheme of things - but simply, that
it is.

It is this reality which will undermine the democratic nation state's collective will -
over time - as terrorist acts become more prevalent. And in the end, it will force a
complete rethink as to how to deal with terrorist demands.

Just to take one example - Chechnya. What is the demand of the Chechen
separatists? That's simple. They want independence from Russia. That's it. Now, if
you - as an individual - had the power to grant such independence, and if it was your
child's life that was being threatened, then you'd probably agree, and grant
independence. But not the nation state. The nation state rarely, if ever, grants any
form of independence. It cannot allow any form of secession. To do so, completely
undermines its capacity to rule, to maintain its power base.

Now, take a look around the world and ask yourself - how much of what various
terrorist groups demand is related to issues of territory? Probably most. The
resistance fighters in Iraq want the foreign troops out of their country. The Chechens
want the Russians to leave. The Palestinians want their own independent state. The
fundamentalist Muslims want all "infidels" to get out of their lands. And let's not
forget the Irish, in their long- running battle with the British, to regain control of
Ireland.
But that's just the scraping the surface. There are literally hundreds, if not
thousands, of smaller territorial or secession- related disputes.

The point is this: the nation states will not tolerate such disputes - perceiving them
as a direct threat to their own existence. They provide no political means of resolving
such demands, and thus terrorism - the use of violence - is born.

However, territorial disputes of this nature are NOT a direct threat to any person as
an individual. Therefore, the interest of individuals is ultimately different from that of
nation states. And individuals will only tolerate so much pain and suffering before

213
 The Road To Freedom

they start questioning the fundamental premise on which so much terrorism is

based.

In this way, terrorist acts will drive a wedge between individual people and their
democratically elected governments - forcing such governments to either deal with
such territorial demands, or face electoral defeat. Either way, it is a defeat for the
state.

It only takes one state to "roll over", to encourage more of the type of acts that lead
to it.

Remember Spain? One major terrorist act against the train system was enough to
become a catalyst for pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq. The other nation states
blustered in response - "we must not appease terrorists". However, the Spanish, as
individuals, were simply acting in their own self interest.

The Philippines followed a similar tack. When a single man's life was threatened -
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made a decision that mystified most other nation states
and capitulated to the terrorists' demands. And she did so precisely because of
domestic electoral pressure. The pressure to save one life.

We see the same situation in Iraq, where many hostages have been taken - and
demands made that the companies who employ them pull out of Iraq. In most cases,
to my knowledge, the companies have given in to the terrorists' demands - and
pulled out. From their point of view, they could not put their corporate interests
above their individual worker's lives.

Let me emphasise here, I'm not discussing the morality of terrorist acts per se
(usually defined as violence against unarmed civilians), but rather their utility as a
strategy for achieving certain political objectives. For you have to remember,
terrorism - as a tactic - is resorted to when there is no political means of resolution -
as in when some group wants to secede, or to drive some "foreign" power out of
their country. Unfortunately, the use of violence often works.

This is nothing new. It was Mao Tse Tung who said, "Every good communist should
know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." And nothing has
changed.
Violence has, for aeons, been the means of attaining political objectives. Even your
own government will apply violence to YOU if you do not hand over "protection"
money in the form of tax. And if you don't believe me - try it!

The difference now, is that parties other than governments have acquired the means
of using violence to achieve political ends.

Terrorism is a form of "gang warfare". Governments represent the superiority of one

type of "gang" over another. The rise of terrorism represents a challenge to the
currently prevailing gang's authority.

How will it all end? I cannot say. All I know is the current political order is under
immense stress - both politically and economically. And there is ample evidence to
suggest that fundamental and radical changes as to how we manage and organise
ourselves in a social context are already underway.

214
 The Road To Freedom

The daily news of bombings, executions, killings and maimings, is but the tip of the
iceberg. It's also a diversion away from the more fundamental forces at play. Fear
obliterates all reason.

There are really only two possible outcomes: either the nation states grow in power -
suppressing all democratic functions and individual freedoms - in order to become
the totalitarian states necessary to crush all violent dissent, or they become
irrelevant and wither away over time.

Personally, I believe the latter to be the case - that we are witnessing a fundamental
challenge to the nation state's historical monopoly of the means of violence, and its
capacity to hold territory together. This will, in the end, undermine the very basis of
what we currently understand as "nationhood".

The nation states have every reason to fear terrorists, but is the nation state's
interest equivalent to your own?

215
 The Road To Freedom

Undermining The Levers of State Power

Imagine, for a moment, that you wanted total power over a society and the ability to
perpetually control dissent. What levers of power would you seek to control?
If you were to take a lesson from religion, then it's obvious you'd want to control the
education of children.

If you were to take a lesson from business, then you'd want to control the market.
If you were to take a lesson from people's inclination to chatter, then you'd want to
control all means of communication.

And, naturally, if you were to take a lesson from history, you'd want to control the
means of violence.

Any tyrant worthy of the title would, consequently, want to control all four levers of
power.

If you had your hands firmly on all four levers, then you'd be the dictator of a "total"
state. Of course, in real life, states have different levels of power at their disposal -
depending on what type of social organisation they administer.

You could say that communism represents the "total" state - in that it also attempts
to commandeer the means of production. That experiment failed of course, but at
least communists understand the nature of power and are theoretically consistent.
Fascism is a "variation" on Communism, because under such a system, property is
not nationalised - but simply controlled indirectly.

But what about our modern democracies? How to they rate on the total "full
dominance" spectrum?

Well, the "democratic" state still has monopoly control over the means of violence,
education and money. It doesn't overtly control the media, but does the best it can!
The important point here, is that democratic states have learnt they don't need to
own everything (like in communism), when they can get the voters to grant them as
much control as they desire.

Each of the four levers of state power are important - military, educational, monetary,
and where possible, media. However, there are two levers that are absolutely
essential to the state's continuance: the control of education and money.

These two power levers are much more important than controlling violence and the
media, for they are fundamental, and form the basis of a pre-emptive control
strategy. After all, violence is an "endgame" - something you do when all else fails.
But if you can ensure no one resorts to violence, because no one even thinks of
dissent, then you are ahead of the game.

Similarly, pre-emptive control of the content of people's minds is more effective than
than controlling the media - especially if the media proves difficult to fully control.

It's the same with money. If you give people unlimited access to it, by not taxing
them, and allowing total freedom of business, then this could see the rise of many

216
 The Road To Freedom

economically powerful individuals, which could be a threat to the political order. Best
to keep most people poor. That way, their minds are on more mundane issues,
rather than thinking of challenging the established order.

Therefore, the "efficient" omnipotent state will always divert significant resources to
maintaining control of both money and education. Freedom of speech is not such a
big threat, if people can't think straight, and don't know what important questions to
ask!

So the first line of "attack", to rid us of state tyranny, is to undermine its power over
the critical areas of both education and money.

They are both equally important - but for different reasons.

To control education means to control the mind - what goes into it. And to control
money means to control the market - that organic consequence of the mind, where
people trade the results of their personal efforts. In other words, control the mind
AND the body.

Government control over money is maintained by what we call "legal tender" laws -
which is an assertion by the state that we must accept the paper it prints and calls
money. This paper is intrinsically worthless, but gains acceptance because of the
force of law.

Previously, money has historically been commodities that the market has delivered -
like gold and silver (or anything of widely accepted value). This money had intrinsic
value - as determined by the market, not the state.

Kings of old would often debase such gold or silver, by shaving off small amounts -
so the weight was not as stated. But this thievery could not go on forever,
particularly when the means of assaying the gold or silver became an easy matter.

Modern governments got rid of this annoying limitation on their power by doing away
with gold - and replacing it with paper. Sure, at first they offered paper money that
promised to pay a certain amount of gold (like a receipt), but over time, this promise
was whittled away. These days, if you look at a crisp new dollar, you are likely to see
that it promises to pay exactly one dollar. That means you can take it into a bank
and exchange it for another one. Great!

What the king used to do when shaving gold coins, the modern state is able to do by
creating paper money out of thin air. And in so doing, is able to debase the paper
currency by inflation. Now, contrary to all the waffle about inflation being a rise in the
consumer price index - it is in fact a rise in the supply of money in excess of a
corresponding rise in the supply of goods and services. Thus inflation is the modern
equivalent of shaving gold off coins. Theft, in other words.

The state's control over the supply of money allows it to manipulate its own finances
and the general economy at will. By means of access to virtually unlimited money
(either by taxation, borrowing or money creation) it can buy votes to ensure its
ongoing survival. It can also manipulate the market in many ways.

217
 The Road To Freedom

The solution is to abandon state money - and for a "market money" to come into
being. The transition will not be easy - but now, more than ever, the possibility of
such an alternative is more likely. Internet-based alternatives like e-gold offer a
possible way forward. And the fact they even exist is a major sign of progress in this
regard.

Ultimately, freedom requires a non-state money system - one that is the result of
free market forces and independent of any state control.

In other words, we need state-free banking AND state-free money.

Government control over education is maintained by curriculum laws. It doesn't

matter whether your child goes to a state school a private school - or even if you
home-school him, the end result is the same. You are forced to educate your child
according to the priorities and requirements of the government.

Sure, a private school may deliver a better quality "state" education. Or you may do
it yourself - but ultimately it is necessary to challenge the state's role in determining
WHAT shall be taught.

After all, when you think about it, it is really none of its business as to what your child
is taught. If you are a parent, YOU are best qualified to decide the curriculum, or to
choose who will decide it.

The normal assumption is that if the state does not control the curriculum, then
nothing of value will get taught. What poppycock!

Think of it this way. Commerce delivers what customers want every day - in every
sort of way. And to grasp the import of this, just consider how much useful variety
would be present in your local supermarket - if all food production was controlled by
the state.

Fortunately, you don't have to imagine it - you can read the history books and note
the wonderful shopping available under the auspices of the old USSR.

Education is no different. It is a product. And it is in demand. Consumers of

education - parents in most cases - are more than up to the task of choosing a
suitable education for their children. And education, unshackled from state control,
would flourish into a dynamic marketplace of useful alternatives.

The bottom line of state education is that it is a "one size fits all" philosophy. Sure,
they offer more alternatives than 50 years ago - but in essence, it's a centralised
system doomed to deliver a uniform "mass" end product. And an inferior product to
boot!
Just consider one glaring deficiency of state-controlled education - being educated
with the sole purpose of being able to find a "job".

Think about that for a moment. If everybody is being educated to the standard
required to get a good job, then who is being educated to the standard required to
be able to CREATE such a job? For without "job-creators" there are no jobs.

218
 The Road To Freedom

You'd think, in these times of "unemployment", the primary goal would be to turn out
more job-creators. But that would mean a revolutionary change in how children are
educated - something a monolithic state education system is incapable of achieving.
Such a real-world, creative education market, will only ever come when education is
completely unshackled from state control. And the sooner the better.

As with potential alternatives to state money, there are many potential alternatives to
state education and state curricula. However, a word of warning: the idea of
education "vouchers", as often promoted by various libertarian thinkers, is NOT the
answer. To accept the concept of a voucher, you are accepting the idea that the
state still has the right to take your money first, then hand it back to you in a
controlled fashion, via voucher.

The point is this: even vouchers represent a form of control - for they are only
redeemable at an "approved" school. In other words, control by the back door.
No, what is required is a complete break.

It is my firm belief that there will be no substantive progress towards a truly free
society until the power inherent in the control of money and education is wrested
from state control, and put back where it belongs - into the hands of free agents in a
free market.

219
 The Road To Freedom

Exposing The Criminal Mind

Watch TV, read the papers, it's all the same - an apparent orgy of criminal
behaviour. And I'm talking about real crime here, crimes against people and their
property - not driving too fast, smoking dope, paying for sex, or not paying your
taxes.

The conservative will say it's all because of a slide in the "moral tone" of society -
and usually prescribe a good dose of old-time religion as an antidote.

The liberal will likely mutter something about the "injustice" of the gap between the
rich and the poor - as if this explains and justifies criminal behaviour.

Older people will bemoan the lack of respect shown to others, and long for the "good
old days", when they could safely leave their home with the door unlocked.

The mob brays for tougher punishments and demands that the state "do something
about it". The government's attitude is two-fold. First, they attempt structural societal
reforms, in a vain attempt to ameliorate "social injustice" - while at the same time
implementing ever more draconion limitations on personal freedom, in the name of
fighting crime. And we all know what the ultimate "political" solution to crime is - a
dictatorship strong enough to crush it, and your individual freedom with it.

Meanwhile, crime continues with abandon and unabated.

Is there a real-world solution that doesn't create a dictatorship in the process?

Well, like any problem, it has to be correctly defined before any solution can be
proposed.

So here goes: a crime is the act of violating another person's property - whether their
own person, or their possessions.

The solution, therefore, is to create a society where all forms of property are
sacrosanct. Of course, you can never eliminate crime completely, but a code of
moral conduct which puts people and their property at the pinnacle, would go a long
way towards reducing it significantly. Trouble is, such respect for other people's
property is impossible in a social culture imbued with the criminal mind.

If the very foundation of the social system is criminal in its essence, then why is it
any surprise that individuals within such a system exhibit the same trait? It's like that
old saying, "do as I say, not as I do."

The fact is, the modern welfare state is both the logical consequence of, and the
perpetrator of, the criminal mind - and here's why. At its core, the welfare state is
based on the idea that the initiation of force is justified in order to do "good".

And thus, the only way to attack the root cause of criminal behaviour is to attack its
premise - that the use of initiatory force is justified.

However, if you suggest abolishing the welfare state, you are branded as a heartless
thug or worse. After all, the welfare state is supposed to be about caring for the

220
 The Road To Freedom

powerless, the needy, the poor and downtrodden - and any attempt to undermine or
get rid of it is surely akin to the resurrection of Hitler!

That's the propaganda. But it's not the truth.

The fact is, the welfare state is the crucible in which the criminal mind incubates. Its
moral premise is that the use of force is justified when doing "good". And once that
pandora's box is opened, there is no end in sight of the number of good works
needing doing - nor the force required to achieve them.

To get to the root of this issue, consider the following:

One of the questions libertarians get asked most often, when suggesting the
abolition of the welfare state, is: "What about those people who receive a welfare
benefit because of circum- stances that are no fault of their own. Who looks after
them in a libertarian society where there’s no government social welfare?"

My usual answer is that in a free society, where goodwill hasn’t been eroded by the
immorality of the welfare state, there will be a flowering of private and corporate
charitable organisations.

But the questioner fires another shot. "Yes, but what if nobody voluntarily gives to
such organisations - then what?"

The unspoken premise behind all such questions is that somehow the welfare state
is compassionate and proof of a caring society. And that wanting to abolish it is a
sure sign of barbarity.

Firstly, I would ask - what is compassionate about a society that only helps the
unfortunate through compulsion? Are you morally good if forced to do good deeds?
Are you compassionate if forced to be compassionate? Is morality achieved at the
point of a gun?

Surely, the essence of any sort of morality is that it must be freely chosen. If you
only behave honestly and don’t engage in shoplifting - because it’s the law and you
don’t want to end up in jail, then you have no personal commitment to the virtue of
honesty. Obeying the law is not the same as acting morally.

The welfare state is certainly not built on compassion - but on compulsion.

But there is an even more insidious premise behind this sort of question.

Let’s accept the critics' argument at face value, that people will not voluntarily help
those who, through no fault of their own, need help. Then what? The so-called
"caring" person says others must be forced to help. Human nature is such, that
people must be forced to do what is right - through taxation for example.

The interesting thing, of course, is that the person asking such a question is likely to
believe he is generous enough to help the needy voluntarily. But what concerns him
is that OTHER people aren't! And his solution to this dilemma, is for others to be
forced to do it.

Now we come to the crux of the issue.

221
 The Road To Freedom

If someone is lying in the street, seriously in need of help, should passers-by be

forced to help? Should they be forced to empty their wallets, make a room available
in their own home, take the clothes off their back, sell their car in order to pay for that
person’s hospital care - or do whatever needs to be done? In other words, is the
"Good Samaritan" good if he is forced to be good?

Your answer to that question puts you on one side or the other of a great moral
divide. Either you agree the use of force in that situation is right - or you do not.
That choice, that decision, sets in motion a set of inevitable consequences.

I believe the essence of the criminal mind - the starting point of all criminal thinking -
is the belief in, and the willingness to use such force. The minute you concede that
force is justified in some circumstances, you’ve opened the way to use force in a
multitude of other circumstances where some sort of need is present.

Criminal thinking starts with the acceptance of the idea that it’s okay to force people
to do something, as long as it’s for a good cause. Just as the active criminal can
easily justify his own well-being as a cause worthy of enforced support from others.
After all, what essentially is different - in principle - between a person who steals
directly from others to fulfil his own needs, and the person who asks the government
to do the stealing for him?

Is arms-length theft by government proxy any different, morally, from acting directly
on your own behalf? Of course not.

And given that "theft-by-proxy" is morally sanctioned in our society, it should be no

surprise that it breeds people who are willing to violate the property of others with
impunity.

The welfare state, and all it represents, is the breeding ground of the criminal mind.
It's a vicious circle, for not only does it foster criminal behaviour, but in doing so
perpetrates the ideology that force is justified to achieve "good" ends.

In contrast, the essence of the libertarian political philosophy is that no single person
or group of persons may initiate force against another person or group of persons.
No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

And if you think otherwise - then check your own premises. And then check your
wallet!

222
 The Road To Freedom

What Exactly IS Freedom?

Everybody loves freedom. Everybody wants it. At least, that is a common
assumption. But a lot of questions need to be answered. For example: What is
freedom exactly, and can it be accurately defined?

Is freedom the same as democracy?

Is freedom the the right to do anything I want - regardless of the impact on anyone
else?

Should I have the freedom to:

* Enter your house and steal your money? * Smoke marijuana or inject heroin? *
Drive at 150 km per hour? * Say anything I like? * Kill someone, if they ask me to?
These are troubling moral questions. All the more so, because they deal with highly
contentious issues.

Is there any received moral code that can answer such questions unambiguously?
In our technologically advanced, but socially backward societies, the answers are
usually provided by religious or traditional belief systems. And as such, such issues
often end up in a mess of contradictions.

If you subscribe to Proudhon's statement, "property is theft", then you would

obviously think your freedom entitled you to take other people's money. If you are a
welfare-statist, you probably don't consider a person to have the freedom to take
drugs, not when the taxpayer has to pick up the tab. And if you are a fundamentalist
Christian, it would be safe to say you wouldn't agree that you have the freedom to kill
someone, even if they asked you to.

The truth is, all existing systems of belief and morals are simply not up to the task of
clearly defining personal freedom and its limits. That's why we have such a moral
and legal mess where the issue of freedom is concerned.

The question is always: "At what point does my freedom impinge on another
person's freedom - and therefore nullify such freedom?"

If this "point" could be nailed down, unequivocally, then there would be a rock-solid
point of reference for dealing with such thorny issues.

Fortunately, there IS such a "point of reference" - property rights.

After years of thinking deeply about the issue of freedom, both in a personal and
social context, I believe that only by reference to property rights can order be
brought to the existing chaos.

Enforcement of property rights is the foundation of justice. Justice is a prerequisite

for freedom.

Andrew Galambos - the astrophysicist who formed the Free Enter- prise Institute in
the 1960s - came up with a neat and precise definition of freedom. He said:

223
 The Road To Freedom

"Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e.
100%) control over his own property."

This is certainly a radical statement. And I believe it to be 100% true.

Provided the word "property" is understood, then there can be no misunderstanding
as to how to apply this dictum.

So, what is property? Well, first of all, you are your own property. Your body is your
property. Your mind is your property. When you apply your mind to the creation of a
physical good, that is your property. When you apply your mind and body to working
for someone else, the money you receive in exchange for your effort is your
property. When you buy something off someone else, it becomes your property.

The whole free market is the mechanism by which property is exchanged by

voluntarily agreed means. If there was no property, there would be no market.
In fact, proper protection of property is a necessary precursor to any economic
advancement. And it is this little-understood fact that is causing so much lack of
progress in most of the undeveloped world.

If you establish a foundation of justice, based on the protection of property - then a

market economy is the natural consequence.

I don't believe the concept of property is hard to understand, and in fact, it has been
understood for millennia.

You could say that property is just common sense. Even children have no problem
understanding the concept.

Moral dilemmas arise when my property rights come up against yours. And they can
be easily sorted out by reference to exactly whose property is at stake.

Obviously, as my body is my property, then I can smoke marijuana and it's nobody
else's business - unless I smoke it in your house without your permission. As for
driving at 150 km/hour, that depends on who owns the road - and whether they mind
or not. And a reference to property rights also sorts out the issue of euthanasia.

In fact, the beauty of enforcing property rights is that everyone is then 100% free to
do whatever they want with THEIR property, and equally 100% NOT free to infringe
on anyone else's.

This is the ONLY definition of freedom which ensures that every individual can attain
it.

The issue of taxation is easily dealt with. Your money is your property, and no one
has the right to force you to hand it over against your will.

What about a really contentious issue - like immigration? What does property rights
have to say in that regard?

Well, under a property rights based society, you would have the right to emigrate
only if you were invited by the owner of the property concerned. And in the case of a
town, or city (for remember, everything would be privately owned - the roads, the

224
 The Road To Freedom

buildings, the open spaces), then such an invitation would need to be consistent with
whatever "body-corporate" bylaws everybody had voluntary signed up to.

Under a property rights based society, there would be no such thing as the "national"
interest - only the interest of the individual property owners.

Property rights morality sorts out the problems of free trade. If I want to sell you
something, or buy something from you - then no matter where on earth you are - it is
nobody else's business as to what you and I agree to.

What about smoking in restaurants? Easily fixed. Who owns the restaurant? That is
the only question needing answering, because the restaurant owner is the only one
with the right to determine whether his customers smoke or not.

Are you a landlord? No problem, by reference to property rights, you have absolute
control as to who you will rent to - and under what terms.

Every currently divisive social, political and moral issue can be rationally solved by
applying the question of, "Whose property is it?"

Once the essence of property rights is grasped, and how such rights define the
nature of justice, it becomes apparent that freedom is the natural consequence.
On the basis of property rights, there is no such thing as freedom from hunger,
freedom from illiteracy, or freedom from unemployment. All these bogus freedoms
are unable to be upheld when put under the microscope of property rights.

In the same way, democracy is NOT freedom, and in fact is most inimical to it.
Democracy rests on the notion of majority rule, and of the right to determine morality
by counting heads.

More often than not, the democratic system is used to undermine property rights -
not protect them.
In a society where property rights were 100% protected, there would be no need for
democracy, or voting of any kind. The law would be sufficient to cover all
contingencies. Everybody would have equal rights - equal property rights.

But the very term "property rights" has been attacked incessantly by those with a
vested interest in looting.

How many times have you heard the cry, "But property rights must take second
place to HUMAN rights!".

The fallacy of that statement is in the fact that property rights ARE human rights.
More fundamentally, it is impossible to have any genuine human rights, without
accepting the preeminence of property rights.

Equally fallacious is Proudhon's statement, "property is theft". For how can you have
theft - if there is no property to be stolen?

Under a property rights based society, you wouldn't need a judicially proactive
government, forever creating new laws. No, the law could be stated simply and

225
 The Road To Freedom

forcefully once and for all. And all that remained would be the need to interpret
different situations in the light of the foundational respect of property rights.

Property rights also solves another problem - how to achieve genuine justice. Justice
can be defined as respect for, and the enforcement of, property rights. No other
justice is required.

So called "social justice" is just a figment of the looters' imagination.

So there you have it - the solution to moral greyness, moral equivocation, judicial
activism, and a host of other current social evils.

Next time you read or hear of any contentious issue, try applying the question,
"Whose property is involved here?", and you'll be surprised how much clarity it
brings to bear.

Don't fall for the idea that equates democracy with freedom, and don't fall for the raft
of bogus "freedoms" tossed around with abandon. Protection of property is the
anchor of justice, and this would result in all the freedom you'll ever need.

226
 The Road To Freedom

A Troublesome Document: Musings on July 4

The trouble started with "The Declaration of Independence of The Thirteen Colonies"
- the underlying philosophy of which is encapsulated by those immortal and inspiring
words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's a rallying cry for freedom that echoes far beyond the borders of the USA - and, in
fact, has become a universal code of freedom lovers everywhere.

However, as a "political" document, I believe that what follows is equally important -

the operational principle by which these "unalienable rights" are to be ensured:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. 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 "trouble" I'm referring to is the explicit right asserted by the Declaration - the
right to "alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

It's surely trouble for existing governments - because such a notion is talking about
the right to not only forcibly abolish or alter such a government, but more
importantly, to start a new one. And, ultimately, that means the right to secede. Not
an idea that any government, anywhere, is happy to countenance.

To secede means to break away, to separate or withdraw from. In other words, to

opt out. And in the case of the 13 Colonies, they were announcing their breaking
away from the British Crown - the British Government.

Thus, if July 4 means anything at all, it celebrates the right of individuals everywhere
to determine the method and means of how they will be governed - and explicitly
states that should a government become destructive of such rights, then it is proper
and just that it should be altered or abolished - and that a new government may be
formed.

Strong words indeed!

The question is how, in a democracy, can one abolish an abusive government? Of

course democrats will say this is not necessary, and that we have the right to "alter"
government through the democratic process. Bollocks of course, as any sane
person knows. Democracy is code for head-counting, mob rule, and the unseemly
spectacle of people voting themselves money from other people's pockets. It's
certainly not a tool of freedom.

Besides, even if you DO attempt to assert your right to alter the government by
voting - fat chance you'll succeed. For no matter what party gets in - you've still got
government, the SAME ruling class. It's called the "Arthur or Martha" syndrome.

227
 The Road To Freedom

No, "voting" in no way grants the sort of rights the Declaration of Independence had
in mind.

That leaves only one alternative - the right to SECEDE. If you can't change or alter a
state of affairs you find objectionable, then it is only right that you be allowed to opt
out of such an arrangement. Freedom, if one is to take it seriously, must at least
include that right.

And the right to secede must, as a matter of principle, apply not only to groups of
individuals acting in concert (like a town, or a city, or region), but equally to
individuals themselves - if no other option is available.

The right to secede is thus the one right that is absolutely necessary in any society
that calls itself "free". Anything less is totalitarianism in disguise.

So, how do the nations of the world stack up in this regard? Dismally, of course. Not
one of them grants such a right - no matter whether you are a group, city or town - or
an individual. You have no such right, according to the given theory of state. In other
words, there is no country on earth that recognises the rights asserted in the
Declaration of Independence - not least of which, the country of its origin - the USA.

Not being able to secede, completely undermines the idea of freedom of association
- the right to decide who you will associate with. To have any meaning, this right
doesn't just apply to who you will invite for dinner - but to what type of government
you will submit to.

I am convinced this one idea alone, the right to secede, has the power to change the
world - for the better. Just consider the logic of it - with which most normal people
would agree. For example, who would disagree with the right to secede (or to
separate from) in the following scenarios:

The company you work for: Would you consider it justified if they could force you to
stay against your wishes? Or worse, prohibit you from leaving them and starting a
new company in direct competition?

The sports club you are a member of: Would you consider it fair if they prohibited
you from leaving and joining, or even forming, another one of your own choosing?
The restaurant you frequent: Would you consider it businesslike if they demanded
you always ate there? Or even worse, prohibited you from opening your own
restaurant?

Of course, all the above are obvious examples of how we take for granted to right to
choose our associations. So what makes it different when it comes to who we allow
to govern us? Why must I subject myself to a government I find intolerable?

I can almost hear someone suggesting that we do in fact have the right to secede
from a particular government - by leaving the country. Well, firstly, having a right to
leave a particular jurisdiction is not much use, if you cannot get into another one.

And secondly, having the right to leave a country, a government, a jurisdiction - is

most definitely NOT the same as having the right to establish a government of your
choosing, to "most likely effect (your) safety and happiness".

228
 The Road To Freedom

Having the right to leave a country is better than nothing, but it is far removed from
what the Declaration of Independence is talking about. The early colonists had
already "left" Great Britain - but still found themselves ruled by it. Seceding in their
case, didn't mean moving again - but separating from the government of Great
Britain.

The right to secede is also the only way to prevent the ongoing and relentless
movement to world government - an idea too scary too think about (if you believe
Lord Acton's dictum that all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely).

There is an inbuilt "logic" to the existing nation state - and that is to forever centralise
and expand. The original 13 colonies ended up becoming the USA. The many
countries of Europe are moving towards a European super state - and the same
drive can be seen in other parts of the world. Even the United Nations would like to
see the implementation of a "world" tax.

And if you think your own government is wasteful, bureaucratic, corrupt, or tyrannical
enough - then just imagine what a WORLD government would be like! And to put it
into perspective, just imagine how puny your vote would be then!

At present, your only opportunity to "opt out" is to leave where you are, in the hope
of finding a freer country to "join". But as more and more nation states "roll" into one
- even that poor excuse for the idea of secession will become worthless.

I believe it is imperative to spread the idea of secession as a legitimate idea, and as

the only strategy available to us which will allow us to "secure these rights".

Another important point about secession is that it is a peaceful freedom strategy. To

leave something is not an act of violence. Certainly, violence may ensue - but that
would be initiated by those trying to stop you from seceding.

It's also an idea that fits in perfectly with the concept of being a sovereign individual.
A sovereign individual is one who believes he is quite capable of governing himself -
so the right to secede is a paramount strategy of anyone so inclined. In fact, the
whole sovereignty/expat/PT strategy is an attempt to secede (in limited areas) in the
face of overwhelming odds.

The right to secede would also undermine the warfare/welfare state - in all its
manifestations. For just imagine, if one could secede, then any number of
communities, cities, regions - or even interest groups, would have the right to opt out
of the present regimes, and be free to set up alternatives.

Yes, The Declaration of Independence is most definitely a "troublesome" document -

for governments. For it not only lays down a foundational principle of freedom, but
also provides the practical means for ensuring it.

But for those of us who truly value freedom, it represents a statement of belief,
intent, and a blueprint for action.

229
 The Road To Freedom

A Dollar is The Only Vote Worth Having

Let me ask you a question. If someone offered you $1 million dollars for your lifetime
right to vote, would you take it?

I certainly would. Sheesh, I'd even take $100K!

Let's face it, a vote is about as worthless as toilet paper, but with a million dollars in
the bank you could set yourself up for life - if you planned it carefully.

In this age of democracy, we are all encouraged to value the vote and to make sure
we exercise it when required. Obviously most of the European Union citizens do not
agree - judging by the poor turn out at the recent EU elections.

Then just the other day, I read an article online at the Village Voice - which went on
to describe how young women under 25 have a very poor voting record. One on-the-
ball clothing company has even come out with a t-shirt saying, "Voting is For Old
People".

And voting is only going to get more unpopular - especially as people's regard for
politicians continues to slump to all-time lows. It's getting so bad that it's quite likely
more and more countries may attempt to introduce compulsory voting - as in
Australia.

I've often wondered why Australians are compelled to vote - given that most nations
don't impose such draconian measures. I can only think of one answer really - that
Australians are such a bloody-minded bunch, that if voting were voluntary, they may
not turn out at all!

The fact is, any sane person knows that their vote is not worth much. Oh sure, at
election time the politicians will harp on about the need for you to express yourself.
But that's all it is, just "expressing" yourself. It doesn't achieve anything else. May as
well express yourself by standing on a soapbox in your own city park and mouth off
about your favourite topic. Or better still, just let off steam in the shower.

No, give me dollars instead of votes anytime! Now, a dollar in the hand is the
greatest voting mechanism every invented. You get to vote every day, exactly as
you wish. And you vote according to your personal requirements. Even better, you
get EXACTLY what you voted for - which is more than can be said when you cast a
political vote.

Want a better house? Vote for one with your dollars and it shall be yours. Want a
good bottle of wine with your dinner? Vote for one, and there it is. Want a weekend
away with the love of your life? No problem, just cast your vote.

Dollars are REAL votes, not useless ones as handed out in the political game of
Crapopoly. Each dollar you hold has power - the power to get you what you want.
Of course, everybody knows this intuitively - how else can you explain the inordinate
effort to which people will go to get dollars - and how little effort they expend in trying
to make their political vote amount to anything.

230
 The Road To Freedom

Dollar votes represent the most democratic system of allocating resources ever
known. If you've got the dollars, then you have the power to achieve what you want.
Don't listen to the losers and complainers of the world, who are forever playing the
political game in order to get a hold or your dollar-votes - by way of taxation.

In fact the political vote is the "official" tool of the moocher and looter. They are
incompetent at the task of accumulating enough dollars by their own efforts, so
resort to using their political vote to extract YOUR dollars instead.

Yes, dollars are wonderful things - and with them you can vote yourself everything
your heart desires - almost.

But there's a rub. These dollar votes are not free. You have to expend effort to gain
them. In fact, you have to find ways of fulfilling the needs and desires of other
people, in order for them to give you dollars in return.

This is a hard fact of life - a fact than many people would prefer to blank out. But it's
true. As they say, money doesn't grow on trees.

On the other hand, your political vote is totally free. They give them away. No effort
is required. Just be born, grow up, reach a certain age - and voila!

Not only are they free, but no matter how often you vote, you never run out of them.
The only thing you have to do, to keep your side of the bargain (the social contract
you never signed up to) is to spend them appropriately - once every few years, on
the politician who promises you the most in return.

For the sovereign individual, dollar votes trump political votes every time. And that
brings me to an important point. You can increase your practical freedom to the
same degree you can accumulate dollar votes. More dollars, more economic votes,
more practical freedom.

Trouble is, most people are trapped. Trapped economically, trapped by high taxes,
trapped by debt, trapped by a dead-end job, trapped in a life-draining relationship,
trapped by bad habits - and trapped by their own faulty thinking.

Most people think, "If only I could lay my hands on more money, then I could sort out
my problems". And it's true, many problems have an economic component, and are
either caused by, or exacerbated by, too little of the folding stuff.

Certainly, in the case of achieving greater practical freedom, dollars play a critical
role.

So how do you, if you're an aspiring sovereign individual, get enough dollars to make
the break, to set yourself free?

Fortunately, there is a way - if you have enough motivation and persistence. Just as
in the "old days", if you wanted to get ahead, you went out and got a second job - so
it is today. You need a "second job". But governments don't much like people who
get second jobs, and usually devise the tax system to penalise such party-poopers.
Greedy economic vote-grabbers!

231
 The Road To Freedom

Even more fortunately, getting a second job is a lot easier than it used to be - if you
get your head around how the internet works, and how you can make money on it.
Personally, I think the internet is the most revolutionary tool for freedom ever
devised. You may not know it, sitting in your first-world home, but the internet is
opening up opportunities and breaking down national barriers.

The internet is colour-blind, age-blind, race-blind, appearance- blind, and religion-

blind. All that matters is ability. And that means if you have ability of some sort, then
you can benefit by joining the ranks of aspiring internet entrepreneurs.

For the sovereign individual, this is even more significant. Not only can you earn
extra dollars in a "second job", but you can use this alternative source of income to
build up a freedom dollar account somewhere nice and private - like in an offshore
bank, or in digital precious metal.

Okay, I admit, people are trying to make a dollar on the internet every day - and
failing. Why? That's simple, they don't know how to do it. Most opportunity seekers
on the net are consumed by one thing - how to make money quick. The "get rich
quick" mentality is a complete crock, and can only lead to pain and suffering.

However, it is seductive, especially to those new to the idea of online business.

Every day I see totally useless "opportunities" promoted with misplaced optimism.
So, there is a learning curve involved. But at some point, people wise up - and either
give up idea completely, or discover what it really takes to make online business
work.

After all, an online business is like any business. It requires motivation, effort and
persistence. But if you're prepared to do that - then you CAN make money on the
net. There are plenty of successful examples to prove it. Even better, an online
business does not require oodles of capital. And this is what makes it so attractive.
You can literally start such a business on a shoe string.

If YOU are looking to increase your freedom, then you need more dollars to give you
economic voting power. If you don't have enough of these already, then there is a
myriad of ways you can earn them - if you take it seriously and work at it.

Personally, I love the way the internet market works - and there is nothing more
fulfilling and exciting than the rush you get when you build a business online.

For the sovereign individual, there is more than money at stake. Just imagine, a
small, part time income could grow into a full time one. And once you reach that
stage - the ability to earn all your income online - you have the means to
"internationalise" your life. At that point, a whole new world of opportunity opens up -
giving you not just dollars in the bank, but the freedom to lead the life you want to.

232
 The Road To Freedom

The Right/Left Hoax

Words are tools of thought. That's why, in George Orwell's "1984", the political goal
of IngSoc was to reduce the number of words available, through a process of
continuous redefinition and elimination. By reducing the number of words, and
eliminating "undesirable" ones, the Party intended to utterly control the thoughts, and
therefore the minds, of all its subjects.

In a prophetic way, we see this Orwellian "newspeak" going on today. And just one
example is the way that political debate is constrained by the use of loaded terms.

For example: Are you right wing or left wing? Or are you in the middle?

Whether we like it or not, political labels are useful. Terms like racist, feminist,
fascist, socialist, environmentalist, capitalist and so on, encapsulate a set of beliefs
and are a verbal shorthand for particular world views - if there is a clear definition as
to the meaning of such terms.

But there are two labels which, under closer scrutiny, prove to be utterly confusing
and fundamentally flawed. I'm talking about the terms "right wing" and "left wing".
They refer to a political spectrum which has the "right" on one side and the "left" on
the other. And most people accept these terms as both legitimate and self-evident.
But are they?

More importantly, do the labels "right" and "left actually reflect reality, and enable
clarity of thought? Or are they, in fact, an Orwellian tool of obfuscation that only
obliterates sound thinking?

It's a fair enough question, because the whole of our democratic system of political
discourse is based on using such terms.

The concept of a political spectrum is sound enough, as it provides a frame of

reference for various ideas and opinions. And the reason for using an axis of "right"
and "left", is to provide a means of identifying supposedly philosophically OPPOSITE
ideas. Trouble is, "left" and "right" are NOT opposites - not in this case.

If I asked you to define extreme right wing, you'd probably come up with the term
"fascism". And If I asked you to define extreme left wing, then your answer would
likely be "communism".

So what we have is a political spectrum with fascism on the extreme right and
communism on the extreme left. Now, because both of these extremes are usually
considered undesirable, moderate people find themselves squeezed into the middle.
The middle becomes the IDEAL. Which is not surprising really, when you consider
the nature of what is waiting for you at either end of the political spectrum!

The middle ground becomes the "desirable" ground, and is supposed to represent a
compromise between two opposite and undesirable extremes. But what is the
fundamental nature of these supposed opposites?

233
 The Road To Freedom

Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in
collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed "on paper", but
because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the
term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual's
interest is subservient to the national interest.

Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state.
Government and business are the same thing - as the state owns the means of
production. Under a communist system of government, the individual's interest is
likewise subservient to the national interest.

Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the
status of serfs - under a ruling class. And we have plenty of historical examples to
prove it - Germany under Hitler, The Soviet Union under Stalin, Italy under Mussolini
and China under Mao - not to mention present day North Korea under "Dear Leader"
Kim.

So here we are, stuck with a political spectrum where the extremes on both sides
are variations on an identical theme (collectivism and property confiscation) - rather
than actual opposites.

It's like saying the "temperature" spectrum - zero to 100 degrees celsius - has the
same state at both ends - freezing (or boiling, take your pick)! Such a temperature
scale would be worse than useless.

And so it is with the current political scale/spectrum. Worse than useless - downright
dangerous.

Whether you move to the right or the left, your final destination is essentially the
same - the philosophy that the individual exists for the benefit of society and that
your property can rightfully be expropriated. As the Nazi Goebbels said, "To be a
socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the
whole." He could just as easily have been speaking of Naziism or fascism.

The way we currently define the left/right political spectrum leaves no room for
concepts like individual freedom and property rights. They are obliterated in the no-
mans land of the mythical middle.

And this also explains why political parties, of all persuasions, now do battle over the
"middle" ground - seeking to win the "middle" or centre vote.

Sure, these parties (no matter in which democracy) attempt to distinguish

themselves in some way - but in the end it's just Tweedledum and Tweedledee,
forever moving closer to each other in the fight for the middle ground.

I believe it's time we got rid of this notion of a political spectrum running between the
false alternatives of fascism and communism. They are not opposites, they're
philosophical bedfellows, and should in fact be on the same side of the fence.

The opposite of the idea that the individual exists for the benefit of society, is that
society exists for the benefit of the individual. The opposite of collectivism is
individualism. The opposite of property confiscation is property rights. So as the

234
 The Road To Freedom

philosophies of fascism and communism are both at one extreme of the political
spectrum, then at the other extreme should be the opposite - the philosophy of
individual freedom and property rights.

There has been an attempt, on the part of political libertarians, to rectify this false
alternative - with a modified political spectrum that would put "minimum" government
at one end, and "maximum" government at the other end. And while this appears to
be an improvement, and perhaps closer to the truth of things - in fact it is neither.
One tool to illustrate this modified political spectrum is the "world's smallest political
quiz" - which promises to uncover your true political leanings:

See: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

However, in truth - having "small" government at one end, and "big" government at
the other - is not really the solution, because it assumes as a given the very nature
and need for the "political" means of organisation itself - government. A more logical
axis would be total government at one end, and no government at the other.

Just as the traditional political spectrum has totalitarianism at both ends, in a similar
way, the modified libertarian spectrum has "government" at both ends. So you could
say that such alternative spectrums are simply a means of casting one's own ideas
in a more favourable light!

To get down to the nitty gritty of things, it is necessary to deal with fundamentals,
with philosophic foundations.

So, my own favoured political spectrum could go from right to left, or bottom to top -
or forward and backwards! The direction of the axis is unimportant. What IS
important is that any attempt to define a spectrum of political philosophy should at
least have opposites on either end.

And so, my own suggestion would be to have a political spectrum which has
FREEDOM at one end and SLAVERY at the other. However, to make that work, it is
necessary to define freedom in a practical way.

I find Andrew J Galambos' definition fits the bill:

"Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e.
100%) control over his own property".

This definition clearly identifies freedom in a way that can be measured. And keep in
mind that "property" includes your own life and body.

So, in my favoured alternative, you would have 100% control of one's property at
one end of the spectrum - and zero control at the other. Or in other words, having
100% freedom at one end of the spectrum, and 100% slavery at the other.

Such a political spectrum would immediately clarify issues and allow for meaningful
discussion and disagreement.

235
 The Road To Freedom

However, I believe there's one thing that wouldn't change - and that's the fact most
people would still consider themselves to be in the MIDDLE - not too much freedom,
and not too much slavery!

To be "extreme" on one side or the other would mean to hold consistently to either
the property rights/freedom or the property confiscation/slavery ideal. Ideas that
were a mixture of these philosophical opposites (like "I'm for semi-slavery, or semi-
freedom"), could rightly claim to be "middle" or "centre". This "centre" would then be
exposed for what it is in reality - not any sort of ideal at all, but an inherently unstable
compromise between two antithetical philosophies.

Being a "centrist" politician would have a distinctly unpleasant odour - that of being
someone who is for a mix of freedom and slavery, in other words, a champion of
moderate enslavement.

At least such an unequivocal political spectrum would draw the bugs out of the
woodwork!

236
 The Road To Freedom

The Collapse of Control

Controlling information has always been the primary means of controlling people.
Through most of history this was done by means of religious dogma and the practice
of installing intermediaries between "god" and man.

Before general literacy, and in early societies based on oral systems of knowledge,
there was always the priestly class - those special people who had a direct
relationship to a god.

A typical example was in ancient China - where the Emperor was the earthly
representative of "heaven" on earth. The Emperor was the only human in "direct"
contact with the gods, and the people were subject to whatever information was
forthcoming from this relationship.

Similarly, the Pope was and is the direct representative of the Christian God on earth
- according to Catholic tradition - and his utterances still influence and control the
lives of millions of people world wide.

In more primitive societies a similar function was carried out by the "medicine" man
or witch doctor.

In effect, such god-man relationships established the idea that "truth" can only come
from authorised channels.

When the first Bible was printed, by Gutenberg in 1456, it was a momentous event.
And for the first time it was possible to widely disseminate the supposed "word" of
god beyond the priestly class.

It wasn't long before such a "democratisation" of information had dire consequences

for the Roman Church - assisting in bringing about the Protestant Reformation.

Of course, this was in reality just a shift from one external authority, the Pope, to
another - the Bible. But it was an important step towards making information more
readily available to ordinary people.

The printing press was certainly revolutionary technology - and broke the
"monopoly" of knowledge via oral tradition and hand written manuscripts.
The powers-that-be soon discovered the latent power of books to undermine
authority - especially as literacy increased - and so the practice of political and
religious information censorship was born.

Censorship is still very much with us - both overt and covert.

Obvious overt censorship is seen where any state forbids the publication of certain
books - as is still the case in China, among other places.

There is also covert censorship, where those who publish books and other types of
information products, self-censor themselves due to fear of political or economic
consequences.

237
 The Road To Freedom

Historically, there has never been a time when ordinary people could say and read
whatever they liked about everything and anything. Not until now, that is.

The internet has changed the rules of the power "game" forever.

The internet, like the printing press, is a revolutionary technology. It is revolutionary

because it completely bypasses the authorities in allowing the dissemination of all
types of information. It has, for all intents and purposes, utterly destroyed censorship
Today, using the internet, it is possible for anyone, anywhere, to read and state any
opinion on any subject without any form of censorship. This has never been possible
before.

It is SO revolutionary, that in many cases the "rulers" have only just started to catch
on to its potential to undermine their power.

The war on Iraq is a clear example of how true freedom of speech can impact on
events. Up until recent years, information from a war zone was 100% controlled and
disseminated according to the strategic goals of those in power. Not any more!

In fact, the traditional media have been caught with their pants down. What is
happened is unprecedented. Now, anyone, anywhere, can become an instant
journalist - or "blogger" - simply by plugging into the world wide web and hitting a few
keys. News and views travel at lightning speed from server to server around the
globe - being read by potentially millions in the space of just one day.

A credibility gap has opened up. You pick up your morning paper - and read a
particular story. Or you turn on TV to catch the evening news. Strangely, you notice
discrepancies between what you hear and read there, and what you are reading on
the 'net. Soon, you start relying on the 'net as your primary source of information -
realising it is far more trustworthy than your own local information "mouthpiece".

The market for information is massive, and constantly hungry for the truth of an
issue. And this is where the internet succeeds. It can deliver what people want,
faster and more accurately than mega-media newspapers and compliant television
stations.

So, traditional media are on the horns of a dilemma. They can continue to spin the
official line, while their audience becomes convinced of their irrelevance and departs
for greener pastures of information. Or, they can start broadcasting/printing what is
really going on without fear or favour.

Just one current example of how this new information reality is working, is the story
of the beheading of Nicholas Berg. When it first broke, all that was published was
the official party line. The major media are still on that story. However, on the 'net,
the story was already out that the event was staged, and that a number of things
didn't stack up. Within a short time, that story had found its way into a major media
newspaper - the "Asia Times" out of Hong Kong - offering reliable evidence to
suggest that Berg was already dead when the video was made - not to mention
other anomalies in the official line.

The reality is that now, the internet is driving the news. More and more smart people
are realising the 'net provides a true mechanism for free speech. And that includes

238
 The Road To Freedom

all the types of speech most people would despise or disagree with. But that's the
nature of freedom, and a testimony to the revolutionary power of the internet.

What this means is that censorship is effectively dead and buried - even in a country
like China. Officially, many views and opinions are still censored in that country, but
in reality, anyone with an internet connection can circumvent such authority and say
and read whatever they like.

We have reached a time in history like never before - a time when information is no
longer controlled by those in power. And the only conclusion one can come to is that
their primary TOOL of control - information - has been neutralised. This is big news,
and the ultimate consequences of it have yet to be realised.

The pessimist will say, "So what? Governments will simply close down or control the
internet". But I disagree. Essentially, the existing power structures are no
competition for the way this new freedom tool is organised.

Unlike governments and all external authority mechanisms, the internet is not
centrally controlled. Its basic mechanism and mode of operation is "distributed". You
can blow up one computer or even a thousand, and you will not destroy the internet.
It is decentralised. Its power comes from the anarchy of its organisational principle.
In reality, the internet is a self-organising technology - with no ruler, no central
authority, no army and no police force. It is a NEW form of organisation, one not
susceptible to the centralised control of governments.

Not only that, but no government in its right mind would actually cut off the internet in
their own country. To do so would be an act of economic suicide. The proof of this is
clear. China, to use that country as an example again, had every reason to fear the
internet - but instead realised it could not afford to lag behind if it wanted to achieve
its goal of economic advancement.

"What about North Korea?", I hear you say. What about it? North Korea is already
finished as a totalitarian state. It will either self-destruct, or it will reform and play
catch-up with the rest of the world. It has no other option.

Contrary to George Bush's delusional thinking - we don't need constant war to bring
about freedom. It will happen by itself, in its own good time. And it will happen in
spite of politicians' and bureaucrats' wishes and efforts. They are dinosaurs. And just
like their animal forbears, they will become extinct. Their ultimate demise is being
brought about by a technological "catastrophe" - the destruction of their only real
weapon, the ability to totally control information.

Next time you turn on your computer - spend a moment to reflect on what you have
at your disposal. You have the means to express yourself freely; to read the
expressed opinions of others, from all over the world, without fear or favour. That is
no mean achievement. In fact, it is the engine of a true freedom revolution.

239
 The Road To Freedom

Unleashing The Dogs of War

Up until now, I haven't personally commented on the "war" - the war on terror and
the war on Iraq. However, the subject of "war" is saturating the news right now - and
to avoid making a comment would be like ignoring an elephant in your living room.
And not only that - war has a lot to do with the issue of freedom. No, I'm not talking
about war as a means of ensuring freedom - but as a means of losing it.

The following commentary is a piece I wrote a few weeks ago, in response to some
heated debate on an Objectivist forum I visit. "Objectivism" being the philosophy of
Ayn Rand.

Ever since the lead-up to the Iraq war, I have noted a peculiar phenomenon - the
rabid support for that war, and the war on terrorism, by both Objectivists and
libertarians. Not all such people, of course, but a disturbing percentage of them.
I say "disturbing" because I'm at a loss to fully explain why those of similar
political/philosophical persuasion, can end up at opposite ends of a political
argument.

Amongst such pro-war Objectivists and libertarians, there seems to be no scepticism

of the official "war" line at all. And to them I posed the following question: "Do most
of you believe everything you read in the papers or see on TV?"

Ah, three cheers for the Ministry of Truth!

This whole Islamic terrorist phenomena is based on two fundamental issues - the
continuing non-resolution of the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, and the ever-
present activities of the USA in the Arab world - whether by proxy, or directly.

I'm not even convinced Bin Laden and Al Queda were responsible for the 911
atrocity. He denied it when asked at that time - which seems very odd, as terrorists
are never shy in claiming responsibility.

Not only that, the modus operandi of the 911 plot was of a scale and design unseen
before or since. I don't see how any rational person can automatically claim it was Al
Queda, when there remain so many unanswered questions.

I think Al Queda have let responsibility for the attack settle on them - as it suits their
purposes to have others believe they are that powerful.

Think about it. Until 911, terrorism was not a big issue. It is as old as history, and it is
always on the margins of society. Only one event raised it to the centre of the world
stage — the attack on the World Trade Centre.

At that point a "war on terrorism" was declared. And what a bogus concept it is! We
may as well have declared a "war on religion" - as that is what this war certainly is.
The terrorists are surely motivated by their religious beliefs.

And where will this religious war end up? In tears for sure. The USA made a fatal
mistake in deciding to wage war on Islam. It is a war like no other. War, as we

240
 The Road To Freedom

understand it historically, is something waged between nations, with visible territory

and military targets.

A war on terrorism, is a war on an idea, a motivation, an ideology. It is a war on a

religion. How do you win a war against an idea, with guns and bombs?

Are we asking what, exactly, these terrorists want; what fuels their hatred? What is
their purpose? Well, they state it quite clearly. They are Islamic fundamentalists, and
they want Americans out of their lands and Israelis out of Palestine. That's what they
want — the "infidels" out of the lands of Islam.

Saying Islamic terrorists are motivated by their hatred of our freedoms is a complete
crock. And such a false conclusion can only lead to a false solution, which is exactly
what we are seeing now, the escalation of violence around the world, with no
apparent end in sight.

The solution is quite simple. Mind our own business.

The liberal mindset has taken hold worldwide — constantly wanting to interfere in
the affairs of other people — to "help" them, for their own good.

I wonder how many Americans are thinking to themselves, as they watched the
news of American citizens being killed, dismembered and dragged though the
streets of Falujah, "yes, I want to help those poor Iraqis".

Hogwash!

I say leave everyone alone. Let those whose belief systems and culture cause them
to wallow in poverty, disease and violence, simply be left to the consequences of
such beliefs and actions. Let them die and rot if they insist. So what?

I've had it with "helping" people who don't even want to help themselves. The whole
drive of western, developed nations to want to improve and change the lives of
everyone on the planet, (whether they want it or not), is fundamentally flawed.

The world is full of economic and political basket cases. And people get the "politics"
they deserve - whether it's because of their religious beliefs, superstitions, cultural
habits, or simply fear of revolt. Nothing will change for the better, until and unless
such peoples rise out of the ashes of their own despair — by their own volition and
will — and make such changes themselves.

The Arab world is a mess? Let it remain so. Let those who live there work out the
best way to solve their own problems.

Africa a basket case? Let it be a basket case.

Iraq was under a brutal dictator? Well, let the Iraqis topple him themselves.

By contrast, consider China. Historically, surely a case for international interference.

A communist state, with political suppression, human rights violations — the lot. But
history is proving that the best way for the Chinese to rise above their own past is to
make the changes themselves. Fortunately, for them, they have a practical streak —

241
 The Road To Freedom

and this leads them to see the advantage of change. Not only that, they sank to the
depths of communist practice — and know it failed them.

Just as an individual alcoholic or drug addict cannot be "helped" by others — but

must sink to the bottom, in order to get the will to live, and do something about it - so
it is with with groups of people (nations). No amount of external help, pressure,
education or force can get people to change their own lives — unless THEY want to.

America has a simple choice. Continue with its foreign policy of open and hidden
interference with other countries (military, diplomatic, economic) — or withdraw to its
own borders and mind its own business.

I make a prediction. America will lose this "war;" and in losing it, it will expend and
ruin its own, "capital," both economic and moral.

242
 The Road To Freedom

Income Tax: The Worst Tax of All

I'll say it bluntly - so there is no misunderstanding. I consider all tax to be immoral.
And by "tax", I mean any money collected by the government by force. If the
government was really about providing "services" - then they would act like other
entities that provide services (businesses) - and allow us to pay for what we choose
to use. In other words, a voluntary transaction.

However, in the world as it is, taxes (like death) are a certainty.

And given that, I'm always in favour of any move to reduce or eliminate tax.
The first tax I'd get rid of is the "income" tax, as I consider this to be the worst of all
taxes - for two major reasons.

An income tax is a tax on effort

An income tax is just that - a tax on your income. Your income is derived by you
exchanging your effort (in your business or job) for money. The government steps in
here, and demands a very large percentage of your earnings.

Most people don't really notice this, because the tax is taken out before they get
paid. Politicians, very early on, realised that if they wanted to siphon off the earnings
of citizens, then they'd best do it in as hidden a way as possible.

However, people DO notice it as their income grows - either as a result of a pay rise,
working longer hours, taking on a new job, or an increase in business profits.

In fact, due to the "progressive" nature of income tax (the more you earn, the higher
percentage you pay), the average worker is bound to notice what is often called
"bracket creep" - meaning how their taxes go up once they enter a higher tax
bracket.

In the 60s, I recall the Rolling Stones expatriating themselves from the UK - in order
to avoid such "creep" - which in their case put them in the top tax bracket - over 90%
of their income at that time!

Of course, it doesn't take a genius to work out the effect of such a policy.
Just ask yourself the question: "Would I prefer to work 40 hours and be taxed at 28
cents in the dollar - or add an extra 10 hours and have those extra earnings taxed at
48 cents in the dollar?"

The same calculations are often made by the unemployed - when they consider the
financial advantages of either sitting at home and receiving the dole, or getting a job.
In each case, a rational person will take the easy option - less effort for more money.
That's human nature.

So, in this modern industrialised world, we are lumbered with a pre-industrial tax
policy. A policy which actually acts as a disincentive to work.

243
 The Road To Freedom

Consider this: if you win $10 million in the lottery, in most countries I know of, you
won't be taxed. In other words, get your money by luck - and you get to keep it. But
get your money by honest work - then sorry buster, hand over 35% to the tax man!
What sort of message does that convey? What sort of society taxes work and effort,
but rewards luck?

To make this clearer - imagine the income tax being applied to sports teams, as in
the following scenario: You belong to a top- rated sports team of one code or
another, and you are a professional. What makes your games interesting is the fact
that the more successful you are, the higher your tax rate. Win one game - and pay
10% of your earnings in tax. Win 10 games during the season and you end up
paying 90%. Mmmm, I wonder how many members of your team would feel a slight
disincentive in this arrangement - and perhaps make a clandestine decision to only
win 5 games, in order to keep the tax rate under 50%!!

The developed world will pay a high penalty, in the near future, for such income tax
policies - as they compete with mean, lean and hungry "developing" countries - with
a much lighter income tax burden.

An income tax is an attack on your financial privacy

There is a much more insidious effect of income tax - than just taking money out of
your pocket. The fact your "income" is the target, means the government needs to
know exactly how much you earn - and for that matter, how much you spend also.

In the days when a larger proportion of the workforce were employed on wages, this
didn't really surface as a problem - as the tax was taken out at source and the whole
process was less "public". But now there is rapid growth in the small business and
self-employed sector. Such people are paying their tax on self- assessed income -
and have to pay it manually, one to four times each year.

This trend towards self-employment, contracting and consulting means more and
more of the government's taxes come from people who are not in the "taxed at
source" net. And there is only one way then, to ensure tax compliance - the full and
complete disclosure of all your financial affairs.

This is what "self-assessment" means. It means you have the privilege of calculating
your own tax due - but you must have all the documentation to back it up, and it
must be made available to the government on demand.

Perhaps you don't consider this loss of financial privacy to be much of an issue - but
I can assure you it is.

Financial privacy is closely linked to personal freedom. If you cannot go through life
without the government needing to know everything about your financial dealings -
then I'm afraid that whatever freedom you perceive you have, is illusory.
Financial privacy is of the same order as personal privacy.

When you go to the Doctor, you don't expect him or her to divulge your personal
medical information to the government. Well, it's the same with money. In a free
society you wouldn't have your bank or accountant divulging your personal financial
information to the government either!

244
 The Road To Freedom

So, income tax is a two-pronged danger. It removes both the possibility of financial
privacy, and the essential incentive for effort and self-betterment.

A tax on income is bad enough, but the fact it is "progressive" makes it even worse.
If you earn $40,000 a year, then a 25% tax rate will take $10,000 off you. If you earn
$80,000 a year, then the same tax rate will take $20,000. So even a "flat" tax is
progressive in this sense - the more you earn, the more you pay.

However, a "progressive" tax takes this one step further. Once again, if you earn
$40,000 and pay 25% - you're out of pocket by $10,000. But, by earning $80,000 -
the extra $40,000 is taxed at a higher rate - say 35%, making the total tax grab
$24,000.

So, what to do? Well, any reduction in income tax would be a good thing. Even
better if such a tax were to become "flat" - i.e. the same rate for everyone (as in
Russia, 13% - or Hong Kong, 17%).

I think the economic engine would receive a kick start if a flat rate of income tax was
implemented - and yet that is a very minor reform as far as I'm concerned.

Shifting tax to spending (a sales tax) would be even better - comparatively, because
it would completely remove the need for reporting income as an individual - as well
as removing all road blocks to working smarter and harder.

A sales tax would break, forever, the link between tax and income - and although still
a tax, it would go a long way to liberating human creativity and maximising individual
freedom.

The downside, of course, would be that all those in business would be defacto tax
collectors. However, in reality, this already happens in most countries (VAT, GST
etc) - and what's more, it happens on TOP of the income tax regime.

Removing at least one such tax would have immense benefits.

Will this happen? Not likely - not as long as people see the government as some sort
of parent-substitute, and go running to it on any whim and for any "need".

Not until the very principle of "income redistribution" becomes a dirty word, will there
be any serious reduction in taxes.

Of course you, personally, don't have to wait that long!

245
 The Road To Freedom

Being a Libertarian Can Play Havoc With Your Sex Life!

Anybody who has hung around any libertarian-type organisation, or forum will have
noticed the paucity of women.

And if you've ever visited a libertarian conference or think- fest, don't say you never
noticed what a "men-only club" it appeared to be.

The situation is so bad, that a new class of person has evolved, the libertarian
"groupie" - a very small group of switched-on women, who have worked out the
benefits of attending such gatherings of intelligent men. After all, what woman
wouldn't want to be automatically the centre of attention - on a 1:100 (or better)
ratio?

On the other hand, a man is likely to do much better, in search of interesting female
company, attending religious gatherings, "green" protest meetings, and even anti-
global capitalism events.

Why is this so? Why are most women apparently not interested in the serious issues
of "life, liberty and property"?

I'm not qualified to answer that with any certainty, so what follows are just musings
and observations - plus a few pet theories.

I think freedom started down the slippery slope to slavery once women were given
the vote. In fact, not only women, but everyone who had a stake in wanting the state
to provide them with a better life.

In the "old" days - in Great Britain - voting was something that only certain men of
property could participate in. An old boy's club of sorts.

The type of government that these men voted for was primarily concerned with the
protection of their property - their business, their money and the rule of law. In other
words, a fairly limited government.

But once women's suffrage took hold, and the franchise was extended to every
adult, the floodgates of socialism opened up wide!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of voting at all, and don't see any value in it.
However, plainly women of that time saw some value in it - and obviously hoped to
gain some advantages in having the vote.

I think the essence of why socialism began "creeping" into politics was because
women are essentially "socialistic" by nature. I don't mean to disparage women by
saying this - but to simply point out the fact that women have different instincts than
men - more "social". Instincts brought about by millennia of evolutionary
circumstances.

Women (whether they like it or not) have, in evolutionary terms, been primarily
"mothers". And as such they have a different take on the world than those other
humans - men, who spent their time "hunting and gathering".

246
 The Road To Freedom

The role of a mother is by definition a role of caring, support, relationship-building,

nurturing, and many more worthy attributes.

However, these "caring" attributes extend beyond the boundaries of the nuclear
family, or even the traditional extended one - and seek to include all lost souls and
disadvantaged persons.

Such sensibilities are fine and praiseworthy, when applied to voluntary interactions
between people (as in a family) - but once they enter the "political" domain
(coercion), they become a tyranny in the making.

My own experience, as a man, bears this out. In general, I find that men are more
inclined to want to talk about issues like freedom and property - while women are
more inclined to talk about human rights - or what they perceive as human rights.

On the face of it, there should be no disagreement between those two positions - for
I'm fully of the mind that freedom, property AND human rights are indivisible.
But, that's where all the confusion starts.

The very nature of "human" rights has been subverted and twisted.

If we all agreed as to exactly what human rights were, then there would be no
dichotomy between freedom, property - and such human rights.

That is why it's so important to DEFINE the meaning of words. If I want to talk about
"human rights" - and find myself arguing with someone else who also claims to be
for human rights - then the likely disagreement is to be found in the definition of the
term itself.

Is getting a good education a human right? Is having access to health care a human
right? What about having a job, is that a human right?

These are important questions - because the commonly held answers to such will
determine the essential nature of most political discourse and activism.

I don't know what answers are spinning around your head as you read the above -
but I'm going to chip in and say that in every case - they are NOT human rights.
Why is this so?

Because you cannot have a "right" which imposes an unchosen obligation on

someone else.

Let me reinforce that: You cannot gain something at the expense of someone else -
and then call such an exchange a "right". If you do, then you are claiming a right to
impose obligations on others.

If I claim the right to education, health or a job - I am in fact demanding that

someone else provides it.

Education, health and jobs do not grow on trees, and cannot be found to
spontaneously occur in the natural environment. These things are the result of
individual people expending their energy and life.

247
 The Road To Freedom

So to demand a job is to demand that someone, somewhere, create such a job in

the first place. And to demand an education is to demand that someone,
somewhere, be commandeered to provide it.

So, what is left? What constitutes a legitimate human right? Actually, the list is quite
small.

As a human, you have the right to ACT to sustain your own life. And that's it! Simply
the right to act.

That's why the American Declaration of Independence said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Having the right to life, means having the right to act to sustain one's life - not having
the right to force someone ELSE to sustain it. Having the right to liberty - is to have
the freedom to act. Having the right to pursue happiness - means you must be free
to SEEK happiness, not be guaranteed happiness by someone else. So, it follows
that almost all the so-called rights we hear bandied about these days, are not rights
at all - but are bogus.

And that brings us back to the supposed dichotomy between freedom and human
rights - the supposed difference between the essential natures and outlook of both
men and women.

It also presents the solution to the problem of too few women attending libertarian-
type gatherings. :-)

Woman are right to have concerns about others. And men are right to be concerned
with freedom and property. The two are perfectly compatible by inserting just ONE
proviso - that all human interaction must be voluntary. No one should be forced to
provide a good or service for anyone else.

So men - convince more women of that - and increase your dating prospects!

248
 The Road To Freedom

Smoke and Mirrors

If you haven't already, it's time to wake up to the fact that most politicians are
charlatans and liars. And no, I'm not talking about the "war on terrorism". That's just
a more obvious manifestation of the consequences of "power run amok".

Lying is endemic. It's structural. It's in the very nature of what we call "democracy".
And much of it is about things that don't make the news, and are too subtle for
general discourse.

The extent of this lying is far too huge to talk about in just one essay, so I'll confine
myself to one aspect of it - the economy.

Much of what we are told about economic matters is "smoke and mirrors" - an
illusion, similar to a magician drawing attention to what his right hand is doing, while
his left hand is where all the real action is. It's called "sleight of hand".

Think of this illusion as a pyramid. It has a wide foundation at the bottom, and rises -
layer by layer - to a peak. So, by the time you are discussing matters relating to the
top layer, (which is based upon the layer below, and below that), it's quite possible to
be talking gibberish.

This is lying by default. Lying because lying has become a way of life. And hardly
anyone can unravel such lies, because the foundation of the entire system itself is
corrupt and false.

To illustrate what I mean - let's discuss the issue of inflation. I recall - back in the late
'70s and early '80s - how predatory inflation was. At that time I had a home
mortgage at a rate of 18.5%. I accepted it as normal then, because that's the way it
was. But in retrospect it was outrageous.

It was a time of intense real estate speculation. You could buy a house one week,
for a certain price - and a few months later, sell it for 25% more.

An obvious question, you'd think, would be, "what caused this inflation?" And it was
a question I did ask - and found the answer, though not from any representative of
government!

So, let's get the real definition of inflation out in the open now - before the murk of
obfuscation sets in. Inflation is caused by a increase in the money supply - in excess
of any corresponding increase in goods and services for sale. And it results in the
devaluation of the currency. More dollars are needed to buy the same amount of
goods or services. However, this type of monetary inflation (and accompanying price
rises) is NOT to be confused with price fluctuations caused by individual market
supply and demand situations.

For example: when tomatoes are $1 per kilo one day, and $2 per kilo the next, the
explanation is simple - the demand for tomatoes went up, without any corresponding
increase in the supply of tomatoes.

249
 The Road To Freedom

This price rise in tomatoes is NOT caused by inflation. It's caused by the supply of,
and demand for, tomatoes.

Now, if your friendly government or government-appointed monetary authority,

increases the supply of money - in excess of any corresponding increase in the
supply of goods and services - then you will have more money chasing fewer goods.
And the end result will be an increase in GENERAL prices (not just tomatoes).

This relationship between inflation (manipulation of the money supply) and increased
prices has lead governments to "redefine" inflation - to suit their nefarious purposes.
The "old" definition was a bit blunt - as it pointed the finger at the governing
authorities, if inflation should become troublesome. Under the "old" definition, Joe
Public could easily put the blame squarely where it belonged.

The political culture of lying had to find a "solution".

Inflation is a form of hidden tax. If your government can be shown to be inflating the
money supply - and decreasing the value of your own savings and purchasing power
- then you can clearly see the link between government policy and the shrinking
value of your own money. It's tax by stealth.

So, the definition of inflation underwent a "facelift" - to something much more

palatable, and something much less likely to induce finger pointing by disgruntled
citizens.

The powers-that-be decided that inflation was NOT to be defined or measured by

increases in the money supply (government action) - but by increases in the
consumer price index (CPI). However, the two are NOT the same. It's quite possible
to have no increase in the consumer price index - and at the same time have an
increasing money supply.

When you read the "official" inflation figures, you are being told whether a "basket" of
prices are moving up, and by how much. If they go up 3% in one year - then you are
told there is 3% rate of inflation.

But this is a FALSE definition. And like anything false, it leads to a false conclusion.
If prices aren't rising, or not rising very much (2% per year, for example), then we
assume inflation of the money supply is low or non-existent.

But we are missing something - something we cannot see. We are missing the fact
that prices are in fact FALLING. But these falling prices are hidden by massive
increases in the money supply - which neutralise such price falls.

The government gets to have its cake, and eat it too. It gets to use the mechanism of
monetary inflation, for its own ends - while having such a process defined almost out
of existence. The fact is prices should be falling - for all sorts of reasons.

You can see this everywhere - particularly in areas of rapidly changing technology.
For example - this last week I upgraded my computer of the last two years. I
purchased a new version of the very same model.

250
 The Road To Freedom

In every way, it is a better machine. It's faster. It has more memory. It's running a
newer operating system, and it allows me to run newer software. And much more
besides.

But the one fascinating thing is that this new computer cost me 33% less than the
earlier one. In other words, more for less. This "more for less" phenomenon is
everywhere. And it's the way it should be. That's what an improving economy and
standard of living means - more for less.

If you are buying clothes this week, chances are the label will say "Made in China".
What that means is you are paying less for those clothes than you would have, had
you purchased the same made in your home country.

So, whether its technological advances, or reduced labour costs due to global
competition, the reality is that prices ARE falling. And the full impact of these falling
prices is being hidden, or absorbed, by the policy of monetary inflation.

You are being cheated out of lower prices (and therefore higher standard of living)
by a hidden inflation and the false reporting of it.

So, where does this "new" money actually go? I think the evidence suggests it has
been used to fund the purchase of shares and other assets. And, as a result, the
prices of such have risen rapidly. Assets such as these are not usually included in
any consumer price index - and therefore not part of any analysis of the inflation
rate.

Back in the late '70s and early '80s, inflation was nailed to the door - and everybody
could see it, and complain about it. Now, its been redefined - and this is allowing
state-mandated monetary authorities to actually inflate our currencies - while
appearing not to. Sleight of hand.

It's bad enough that such hidden inflation is robbing you and I of lower real prices,
(and hence, better standard of living) but more importantly, it's laying the foundation
for the re-emergence of 70s/80s style inflation. Inflation that is yet to come.

You cannot "cook the books" forever. And you cannot avoid the consequence of
history-proven economic laws. So, next time you hear some mealy-mouthed
politician ramble on about lower taxes, more jobs, and how they are responsible for
keeping the economy ticking - remember this: politicians create nothing. They are
parasites on the body economic. They add no value to anything. In fact, they are net
value destroyers.

Political control of the economy and the money supply is a disaster waiting to
happen - and madmen are at the helm.
What's worse - they're lying madmen.

251
 The Road To Freedom

Privacy is an Individual Right

How to Secure Your Personal and Business Communications

How often have you heard the phrase, "Well, if you have nothing to hide, then you
have no need to be concerned with losing your privacy" - or something similar?

It's an argument from intimidation - designed to stop further questioning, by implying

guilt on the part of anyone who disagrees. And when confronted with it, you ARE put
on guard - as perhaps someone who DOES have something to hide!

However, there are many, many reasons why you would legitimately want to retain
your privacy - both for personal and business reasons.

Just ask yourself the question, "Would I like it if anybody could read a personal letter
to my romantic partner?" Or, "Would I be happy knowing some unauthorised person
was reading my business correspondence?" The answer, of course, is "no"!

For any self-respecting individual, it is an absolute right to be able to conduct one's

personal and business affairs in private - regardless of whether one NEEDS such
privacy or not.

If one has a right to one's own life - then one also has the right to keep the details of
such a life private - to oneself, and to those with whom you intend to share it.

At one time this was relatively easy. Go back 100 years, and you'd be surprised how
much effective privacy the average person had. But today it is very different. Ever
since the development of the electronic database, telecommunications, computers,
and of course the internet - your right to privacy has been under an increasing
threat. And in the "war on terrorism", the state has the perfect excuse to undermine
your privacy even more.

So, where do you start? My advice is to start with the small, but obvious things - to
get yourself used to operating in a more private life-environment.

Take the humble letter. It's true to say that the ordinary letter is still generally secure.
If you want to say something private - it is probably better to send it by ordinary mail,
than by courier. With a courier service, the package is subject to a much higher level
of scrutiny, and intrusion. Sure, it may get there quicker - but at greater risk to your
privacy.

Strange as it may seem, in this technological age, the simple act of enclosing a letter
in an envelope provides a level of privacy that is hard to find anywhere else.

To improve on your privacy even more, you should consider renting a PO Box, or
using a private mail-drop service. Make it a policy to have all your mail sent to an
address that is NOT where you live.

Now, in most places, you will be asked for an address when opening a PO Box - and
most often, it is quite easy to provide a "slightly wrong" address. If that is not
possible - then make sure to NOT advise the PO Box people next time you move

252
 The Road To Freedom

house. If even this is impossible, then you may have to employ the services of a
professional mail-drop service in another jurisdiction.

And what about the electronic letter - email? Well here, unfortunately, it is much
easier to let your words end up in front of prying eyes. With a letter, you seal it in an
envelope. With an email, you send it fully exposed. In this way, an email is very like
a postcard - with the words visible to anyone who cares to read them.

Enhancing your email privacy is not that hard to do. The very simplest strategy is to
use one of the many free web- based email services - like Yahoo or HotMail. These
operate like an anonymous PO Box - allowing you to send and receive email with no
trace as to WHO you really are, or WHERE you are.

You can open different mailboxes for different purposes - and there is no need to
disclose your real name. This strategy doesn't, of course, stop your email from being
read along the way - but it does protect the identity of the correspondents (provided
they don't disclose such within their emails).

If you mostly use POP-based email - the sort where you have an email address as
provided by your ISP - then you will need to ratchet up your privacy strategy.
There are a few ways you can do this. The best, in my opinion, is to download the
software package, PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), to your own computer, and encrypt
your sensitive communications on the fly.

Encryption is just another word for turning your words into code, code that cannot be
read by anyone other than the intended recipient. Code that can only be "unlocked"
by a special type of key.

When you write an email using PGP - you write it as normal, but just before pressing
the "send" button - you press "encrypt" - which will then convert your words to
unreadable and random characters.

To use this system you, and the person(s) you are writing to, must also have PGP
installed, and you need to have exchanged public "keys" beforehand - the
instructions necessary to decrypt a message when received, and encrypt a message
when sent. To learn more about PGP go to: http://www.pgp.com

Some people balk at using encryption software - claiming it's too difficult. Well, let
me tell you - it ain't! Once you have downloaded and installed it, it really is a breeze,
requiring only the press of a button to send, and the entering of a passphrase to
decrypt received email. However, there are a few EASIER ways to secure your
email, if you don't want to use PGP, or bother with a desktop solution.

If your need for private communication is limited to a small group of individuals - then
you can all open a web-based email account - offering SSL encryption - with the
same provider. This is where the network itself encrypts all data sent over it. So, by
all having an email address within the same server network - you can achieve 100%
privacy for communications sent to the same domain.

SSL encryption is the process used by companies when asking you to quote your
credit card details, when purchasing online. An SSL web-based service I can
recommend for this purpose is SafeMail: http://www.safe-mail.net

253
 The Road To Freedom

All you need to do is open a free account - and get all your friends and associates
(whoever you want to communicate privately with) to open an account with the same
service. And from then on, you simply send an email from your own address:
you@safe-mail.net - to your friend at: yourfriend@safe-mail.net.

A third alternative for enhancing your communication privacy is to use a web-based

service that actually uses PGP to encrypt your messages, without the need for you
to download PGP. This works whether you are sending messages to users on
thesame network, or to others outside the network (who have PGP on their own
computer).

As an example, someone wants to send you a PGP-encrypted message, but you'd

rather not bother downloading and using PGP on your own computer. In such a
case, you can open a web-based account, which automatically includes the creation
of your own PGP keys, and then allows you to send and receive PGP-encrypted
email from there.

Basically, the "rule" regarding the use of privacy tools is this: if what you want to say
is something you'd rather nobody else saw (for whatever reason), then you should
be taking steps to either encrypt it directly - or by using one of the suggested privacy
services.

Words can come back to bite you. Don't expose yourself or your communications
unnecessarily - especially when it's relatively easy to prevent it.

254
 The Road To Freedom

Voting, Like Gambling, is a Rigged Game

If you've ever stepped inside a casino and played the tables, or the machines, then
you must know the game is rigged against you. Casinos know their systems
guarantee they are the real winners, and rely on people's hopes of striking it lucky to
bring in the punters. Or in common parlance, "The house always wins". Well, it's the
same with voting.

You, the voter, are the punter. You hope you'll be lucky and get the life you want. But
the reality is that the "house" always wins. So, the issue that needs to be identified
is: what is the exact nature of the political "house"?

Consider your voting options. No matter what part of the world you live in - you're
probably very familiar with them.

Take your pick: Republicans/Conservatives/Tories, or Democrats/ Liberals/Labour.

They represent the big boys of the two-party system. And in countries with some
form of proportional voting system, then you may have additional choices like:
Greens, Libertarians, Nationalists etc. The name doesn't really matter - because
they all represent the "house". And the house always wins.

To clear the fog from your decision-making at voting time, you need to be very clear
on the nature and purpose of the political "house". So let's get it out in the open.
No matter which way you vote, you will always get the same result - which is, you
will be RULED over. Of course, there are subtle differences between the various
voting options - and the consequent ways you WILL be ruled over.

Republicans and Conservatives will generally promise more economic freedom, less
taxes and more personal responsibility - while at the same time promise less
personal freedom (what you do with your own body).

Democrats and Labour/Liberal will generally promise more personal freedom, while
at the same time promise less economic freedom - more taxes, more regulation.
Libertarians are a little unusual, in that they promise more economic AND personal
freedom - making them hard to classify under the two party system.

Greens, Nationalists and other special interest parties usually promise specific
policies of control in respect of their pet issues.

So, no matter what and who you vote for - it really comes down to a matter of degree
- the degree to which you will be ruled.

The name of this voting game is democracy. And when push comes to shove,
democracy means rule by the majority. So, you are ruled over by the majority - as
represented by the rulers so voted in.

What if you don't want to be ruled over? What if you see yourself as a self-owner
and self-ruler? Who can you vote for? The answer is no one, and you shouldn't vote
at all.

255
 The Road To Freedom

If you know the odds of losing your money at the casino - then you probably won't
play there. Likewise, if you know the "odds" of getting what you want by voting in the
political casino - then you won't "play" there either. So, what's the alternative?

To know that, you must first clearly understand that the political game of voting only
offers you a choice between the DEGREE of rule you are subject to. It doesn't offer
you the choice of opting out - of NOT being ruled.

And that is the ONE choice we desperately need.

I personally don't care if other people want to pay taxes, be told they can't ingest
certain substances, have their business regulated, that they can't watch certain
movies, must send their children to government schools, or can't make an alteration
to their own home without official permission. It matters not one whit to me if OTHER
people desire these rules - provided I'm not forced to go along with them.

You see, I don't want to be ruled. I believe I can rule myself. And the term "self-ruler"
is a good definition of a sovereign individual.

In more common usage, the word "sovereign" is usually applied to a king, or to a

nation - as in national sovereignty. But this is "old-think".

The history of societies, from the beginning up until now, is the history of ordinary
people being subject to the rule of others - whether king, dictator, president or
parliament. And, as you would expect, the rulers aren't ruled themselves. A
sovereign individual is thus someone who declares themselves to be their own
"king" - their own "government". It's a declaration of personal independence.
Is there another name for this political position?

Yes there is: "anarchy" - the absence of "archy" (which is a suffix meaning "rule", as
in monarchy, oligarchy or minarchy). Or to quote the dictionary: "absence of any
form of political authority".

Being an anarchist doesn't mean you are against social order, but against the
"political" means of organising and achieving it. Self-rulers work on the proposition of
voluntary interaction with others - not forced compliance to edicts from above.
The political means of social organisation is the opposite of the voluntary means - for
as Chairman Mao Zedong once said, "All political power comes from the barrel of a
gun".

A free society, organised on the principle of voluntarism, relies on give and take,
agreements and contracts, and the free market. A "ruled" society relies on force to
get things done.

In a social order without POLITICAL control - the market would be the provider of
everything.

So, there you have it. The real choice should be either a society based on force (the
political order) - or a society based on voluntary co-operation (the market order).
Of course, sovereign individuals are not interested in forcing others to think or do as
they do - and would never presume to demand everyone live that way. No, all we

256
 The Road To Freedom

require is the freedom to opt out of the force-based social system - and to live
according to our own ideas and values.

How could this work practically?

There are a number of possibilities. One would be to allow such people to come
together, in a specified geographical area, and live according to their own beliefs -
without being disturbed or bullied by other states. This option usually involves the
idea of a "new" nation being set up somewhere - but many have tried this and failed.
The fact is that all land is under the sovereignty of one nation or another. The only
possibility of a new state being "born" would be if a particular existing nation agreed
to lease or sell not only the required land, but the sovereignty over it.

Another possibility would be to allow various "opt-out" choices on the voting paper.
For example: An opt-out as regards certain taxes - in return for a signed agreement
that says you won't draw down any social security. Or, an education opt-out, where
you get to keep your kids out of government schools, and make your own alternative
arrangements, in return for a tax deduction. Or, a health care opt-out, where your tax
is further reduced in response to your agreement not to use public health facilities.

A third alternative is the "virtual" opt out - where you use your wits to dodge as much
of the current system as you can. This at least has the advantage of being doable -
right now. For an interesting insight as to "how" this could come about, then I'd
recommend you read "A Lodging of Wayfaring Men". (We are currently offering a
free pdf copy of this book to all new members of SovereignLife.)

Now, you'd think that nation states, democracies and so-called freedom loving
countries would not be averse to such ideas - or letting those who choose to, to live
them. But of course you'd be wrong.

The very idea of "no political rule" threatens the status quo and a myriad of vested
interests - so don't expect such "opt-out" choices to be on your voting paper any time
soon!

Is such an idea utopian? Absolutely not! A voluntary, market- based society would
not in any way guarantee HOW such a society would evolve or turn out. It is not a
plan, but a process.

Those who support force-based social organisation are the true utopians - whether
marxists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists or liberal do-gooders - because they
are never content with man's nature as it is. They are forever meddling and planning
to produce preordained, ideological outcomes - at the point of a gun.

There you have it. The current voting system gives you all the choices you'll ever
need - IF you are content to be ruled. On the other hand, if you want to be a self-
ruler, you have no choice at all.

Voting will be on the minds of many this year - so use your mind, get smart, and act
accordingly. It's your choice whether you play the GAME or not.

257
 The Road To Freedom

How to Build Yourself a Second "Private" Income

A First Step to Becoming a Sovereign Individual

One of the questions I'm asked most frequently is, "How can I break free of the
system, when I've got responsibilities, a mortgage and a 9 to 5 job holding me
back?" Well, I'll be honest - it's much easier if you don't have a mortgage, or too
many responsibilities. But it's not impossible.

Basically, you have to "moonlight" - if you want to break the cycle. You need to
create an alternative "you" - a moneymaking alter-ego. And you CAN do this - if you
really want to. The key is "wanting" it bad enough. Why? Because it will require
significant effort on your part.

When I first logged on to the internet (back in 1996), I was immediately motivated by
the idea that here was a brand new opportunity to do business with the whole world.
Dollar signs popped into my eyes, as I considered selling some widget for $10 - to
100,000 people across the globe. And obviously, I'm not the only person to have
ever considered the possibility - given the amount of spam I receive!

I can recall my first internet "venture". It was a web hosting concept - set up like a
Business Mall - and using a MLM system to lure people into selling web space on
this mall. Well, it didn't take me long to realise I'd never get rich this way. I think I
made $50 or so. But it was a start to the learning curve - which is still going on.
The point is this: Although the internet is rightly considered as a wonderful medium
through which to conduct business - it requires knowledge and effort.

Coming to grips with exactly HOW you make money on the 'net is fraught with traps
and difficulties - not least of which are the many downright scams that are out there -
promising you the sky, but leaving you decidedly earthbound.

The nitty gritty is this: you can put up the most professional looking website, and
offer the most worthwhile product or service - but you will languish in the cyber-
backwoods, unless you learn how to attract qualified visitors to your site.

If I could put it in a nutshell - then I'd say (as someone who has been making a living
on the internet for 5 years) that a successful online business is ALL about marketing.
Sure, you have to have something to sell - that's a given, but it's not enough by itself.
You're not out of the woods yet though, because even though you accept the
challenge of marketing your site, you will still need to wade through all the conflicting
ideas as to exactly HOW you should do this. Not everything you may read about
actually works!

And, I can tell you, there is no shortage of advertising "gurus" to help you on your
way - for a price of course! I've read most of them - both online and offline - and a
few of them are very good. And when I combine what I've read with what I've
learned from the business school of hard knocks, then I can reduce the essentials to
the following:

258
 The Road To Freedom

Obviously, you need a product or service that will sell. If you don't have one, or can't
create one - then, you can sell someone else's product/service. But it's better if you
can source or create your own.

Once you have decided on your product/service - you will need a website. If you're
reselling on someone's behalf, then it's likely the website will be provided. You'll also
need to decide on, and register, a domain name. This is very important, as you want
it to reflect the nature of your business.

If you're selling your own product/service, then you'll need to write up (or have
written) some good sales copy. The internet is an "information" based medium - so
your copy must provide all the relevant information, in an easy-to-read style - and
trigger a desire to ACT - on the part of your prospective customer.

To create a "private" income - you'll need to carefully consider the need for an
offshore corporate set-up and bank account. This is not difficult, but requires
research, to ensure you get what best suits your circumstances. In many cases, you
can get by with just a personal offshore account.

You will need to accept credit cards - and for this you must use a card processor.
There are many to choose from - and the easiest for start-ups is perhaps PayPal.
However, consider using a processor where you are able to remit your earnings to a
bank account of your choice - outside your home country.

You will need to promote your website - and this is where the real work begins. I've
tried many things - and I can pass on what I know - and what works. Bear in mind,
the process of marketing never stops - as you always need to test new ideas, or
refine existing ones. But it can be tremendous fun - as you can quickly gauge the
effect of a new idea and decide on whether it is effective or not.

The following are my "tried and true" methods. This is not exhaustive by any means
- but it represents my own experience with what works and what is worth trying.

Build your own opt-in list. This is absolutely essential. An opt-in list is a mailing list
where the subscribers sign up voluntarily. The best way to build a list is to offer
information for free - like an e-zine of some sort. In this way you can build an
ongoing relationship with people - something that is essential in an "anonymous"
medium like the internet. When you hear of some internet guru making $25,000 in
two weeks, you can bet your bottom dollar that he (or she) is selling something to
their own in-house list. And some of these lists are huge!

Spend time learning and implementing the basics of good web design (from the
perspective of the search engines). For example, you don't want to build the selling
part of your website in "frames" - as search engines will ignore you. You need to
create key words, metatags, page titles and a host of other things which will make
your pages more "desirable" for the little spiders the search engines send out.

Getting visitors via search engines is the main name of the game. Why? Because
when someone wants something - he or she types in their query and begins to read
the results. This is the type of potential customer you want - someone who is looking
for what you offer. So, you need to make sure you are registered with all the major
search engines. Be wary of site-submisson services.

259
 The Road To Freedom

Build link partners. This is a very effective way to drive traffic to your site. What you
do is seek out other websites, which have an affinity (but not directly in competition)
with your own website - and ask them to exchange links with you. Make sure you
have a standard link text to provide - one which matches keywords you have
chosen, and which you have in the title of your web pages as well. The benefits of
reciprocal linking are twofold: First, you will get visitors clicking on your link - as it
appears on other websites. Second, the more relevant inbound links you have, the
higher you are likely to be ranked on the search engines. If you can gain 100 such
links - then you will definitely see traffic coming to your site.

Advertise in related e-zines. There are hundreds of thousands of e-zine publishers.

Some of these e-zines have over 100,000 subscribers. By looking for e-zines that
are likely to have readers who could be interested in your product/service, you can
build a cost-effective campaign to attract visitors to your site. Another effective
option is to write articles for other e-zines, where your link appears at the bottom.
This can get your name across to thousands - with not a penny out of your pocket.

Use the pay-per-click advertising methods now offered by many search engines -
where you can "bid" for certain keywords, and only pay when a potential customer
clicks on your ad and link. These systems are now highly advanced and very
sophisticated - and will allow you to "scientifically" test and monitor various
advertising ideas and strategies. Word of warning - only bid on key words that are
not super-popular. You don't want to be paying $1 or $4 or more per click! It's much
better to go for the more targeted key words - and therefore, usually cheaper.

Set up your own affiliate system. You'll either need to buy the software, or "rent" it off
a a provider. The obvious benefit of having affiliates is that you only pay them when
they deliver a customer. So, apart from the cost of the affiliate tracking software, you
can have a growing sales force working for you - who are only paid for results. Keep
in mind this reality - that only a small percentage of affiliates ever actually "work" - so
it's a numbers game.

What NOT to do.

Stay away from FFA classified advertising, link farms, and other dubious "get
visitors" systems - which also includes such things as buying pop-up or pop-under
ads and various ways of getting people to visit your site. There may be some cases
where a pop- under ad campaign may work - but it will need to be a product or
service which 99 out of 100 people are potentially interested in.

The point is, you don't just want ANY visitors, but those who are likely to be potential
customers. In other words you want "qualified" visitors only.

And I shouldn't have to mention - stay away from spam - and spam related systems.
You may be tempted to join one of the many bogus opt-in list services. But, you'll
simply find yourself amongst thousands of other "opportunity" seekers - all
attempting to send emails to each other. Waste of time!

FINAL WORD: It's always best to create your own product/service. But reselling is
certainly a second option. And when you think about it - it's no different to setting up
shop on main street, and selling someone else's products. I can work and it does
work.

260
 The Road To Freedom

But the same rules apply. You need to choose the right products or services - AND
you need to market your affiliate sites in the same way as outlined above. After all,
it's business.

There are some very successful affiliate marketers - but they didn't get there by
sitting on their backsides.

So, at the end of the day, you can build yourself a second, "private" income - by
applying the basics, as outlined above.

Take the time to learn as much as you can. It will pay off.

Once you begin to accumulate income for your private alter-ego, then you can begin
to grow that nest-egg in various ways. The important thing is there will be a part of
you which is truly YOURS - and you'll be building a platform from which you can, in
the future, launch a new life.

The possibilities are endless - you just need a good idea, and the motivation to see it
through.

261
 The Road To Freedom

The External Authority Scam

I'm sure you know what a "scam" is - an arrangement, set-up or organisation of
some sort, the purpose of which is to defraud you of your property.

The essence of a "good" scam is that it not only succeeds in getting you to part with
your goods - but does so on the basis of exploiting your weakness (whether it be
gullibility, greed, guilt, or whatever), while, on the surface appearing to be legitimate
and inspiring CONfidence.

A scam, therefore, is also a "con".

The most common form of scam involves parting you from your cash. However,
there is a much more heinous application of the scam mode of operation - which is
designed to part you from your very life and soul.

Like any good con/scam, it uses a legitimate looking "front", talks a language that is
familiar, and plays on your inbuilt weaknesses. The "external authority" scam is built
on a foundation which is unassailable - that of the relationship between parent and
child. All through the process of your growing up - you are in a relationship which
can be described as subordinate.

Basically, you do what your parents say - or else. It cannot be any other way - at
least, not while you are a child - for your parents' responsibility is to ensure your
proper education and safe upbringing.

As a child, you grow up in a world of "superiors" - those who have the right to tell you
what to do. Of course, this doesn't mean that parents are always right, and often are
not, but never-the-less, this is the actual situation between parent and child.

Children rebel of course - and parents, and later schools, and society at large, do
their best to enforce compliance.

So, we all grow up having been indoctrinated into the role of a subordinate - and at
some point during our maturation, we become more independent-minded (usually
during teenage), where we begin to test the limits of our parents' authority. Then, at
an arbitrarily declared age, we are legally deemed to be an "adult" - and can now go
our own way, without asking our parents' permission.

Would that this transition was the end of being under the thumb of others - but
unfortunately, it's only the beginning.

As a child, you are subject to the external authority of your parents. "External"
because authority over your own life is vested in your parents - outside of your own
control. But, as an adult, you find you've traded one form of external authority for
another. You are now controlled by different entities.

In essence, these new authority figures can be reduced to just two types - the king
and the priest. The king represents political authority - the ability to force you to do
things against your will - with the threat of immediate punishment (or death) if you
don't comply. The priest represents moral authority - the ability to tell you "how" to

262
 The Road To Freedom

live, what to believe - with the threat of everlasting punishment AFTER death if you
don't comply. (Sure, "modern" religion is a bit soft on eternal punishment, but it's still
at the core of what the priestly class is about.)

The king represents force, and the priest represents faith.

Throughout history, the king and the priest have worked very closely with each other
- with the priest having the upper hand. Why? Because even the king needed the
blessing of the priest to legitimise his kingship - his right to RULE over others.

In our modern era both the "king" and "priest" have morphed into different types of
entities - but still possessing the essential reigns of control.

The "king" is more than likely the President, or the Prime Minister - as the
embodiment of what we call democratic government (rule of the masses). While the
"priest" is more likely to be the underlying unifying philosophy of current society - i.e.
collectivism. This can take an overt religious form, or simply be the accepted societal
morality, as supported by various intellectuals.

Either way, between them, they assume to take unto themselves all authority over
your life. You don't think so? Well trying claiming sovereignty (authority) over your
own life - and see what a brouhaha it causes.

Want to smoke marijuana? Want to take your child out of school and teach him
yourself? Want to sack someone from the business you created? Want to try a
new, promising drug to cure an ailment? Want to keep all the money you earn?
Want to make an addition to your house, on your own property? Want to say what
you like - about anything at all? Want to leave your home country - and stop paying
taxes? Want to have sex with whomever agrees to? Want to carry a gun to defend
yourself? Want to buy and sell without filling in forms? Want to start a business
without getting a license? Want to have an abortion?

The list could go on and on.

Now, the most troubling thing about this external authority scam, is that it retains its
power precisely because people believe in it! Yes, we've been so conditioned - by
our parents, our schools, our society and our religions - to accept this situation as
legitimate, that our acquiescence has become the key to the whole fraudulent set-
up.

Like in Orwell's "1984" - where Winston Smith asserts that if there is ANY hope, it
resides with the "proles" - the whole fabric of external authority could be overturned
tomorrow - IF everyone simply stopped obeying orders.

That's the real power people have - to simply say "no". Trouble is - most people don't
even know they are "proles". And what makes this situation even more absurd is that
those who accept external authority as naturally as the air they breathe - also
financially support those who lord it over them.

In essence, allowing others to assume control over your life, means you believe they
have the right to do so. Now, while that may have been a legitimate conclusion while

263
 The Road To Freedom

you were a child - it is certainly not a valid proposition now that you are supposedly
an adult.

The whole premise of allowing others to tell you what to do, resides in the implied
understanding that such external authorities are SUPERIOR to you - are ADULTS,
while you are still a child. You are saying THEY know better. The solution is to grow
up - assume full adulthood, and tell the self-appointed external authorities to take a
hike.

By accepting a child/adult relationship - when you are in fact an adult - means you
have been scammed for sure. You have been scammed out of your birthright -
freedom: the right to be an autonomous, self-directed sovereign individual.

Sure, this scam also plays to people's weakness - in that many people simply don't
want to be adults, don't want to be responsible for their own lives - and are actually
quite happy being proles. Doesn't mean we ALL have to be though.

The scam ends the moment you no longer believe in it - and when you are ready to
take full responsibility for your own life.

The moment you rise up and declare yourself to be your own king, your own
president - and even your own god - you are on the path to true freedom - and you'll
never think, or act, the same again.

Seize the day!

264
 The Road To Freedom

War, Wealth & Worry

Some Simple Tips & Strategies to Protect Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of
Happiness

WAR: The so-called "War on Terrorism" is really a "war on evil" - and as such
cannot be won. Beneath the blather of politicians, as to the so-called reasons - this
war is actually a war of "beliefs" - in other words, a religious war.

On one side are those who believe in Allah (God) - and that all society's rules should
be decided by the will of God (Allah). On the other side are those who believe in
Democracy - and that all society's rules should be decided by the will of the majority.
Each believes the other is evil. Both are wrong.

That being said, you can bet your bottom dollar your friendly government is doing all
it can TO win this war - and could reduce you to the level of a common serf in the
process. And in order to attempt to win a war against evil, it will be necessary for
governments everywhere to utterly trash all commitment to individual rights (or what
little commitment they may have) - maybe not in words, but certainly by actions.

The USA, already headed down the path to fascism, could easily slip into full-blown
tyranny - as a result of another major attack - or even economic catastrophe. The
vital ingredients are all in place.

Recently, we have witnessed how easily it has been to persuade a pliant population
to give up valuable freedoms, in exchange for supposed security. Of course, the
promise of more security is a lie.

Any effective barrier against the state running amok has been removed. The "Fourth
Estate" has reneged on its duty to report honestly and impartially on the goings on of
government - and instead have climbed into bed with them - to become "embedded".

To hold on to your sanity, in such dire times, your first challenge is to start
disbelieving most everything government says. This is hard, for sure, as all of us
grew up believing government is made up of good guys. Now, we know the Emperor
has NO clothes - and no scruples either!

You need to remain highly sceptical and make a more rigourous effort to inform
yourself as to what is really happening. And informing yourself means turning off
your TV news for starters, and spending time on the internet - the only source of
truly uncensored information.

To avoid becoming a slave - you need to be able to recognise the "slave-masters" -

and their strategies. And you won't be able to do that if all you watch and read is the
mutterings of their media mouthpieces.

Like in Orwell's novel "1984" - war is being used as a means of distraction - and a
means of control by fear. War is what states do best. And when your government is
at war - you are in danger of becoming one of its first casualties. This war, being
unwinnable, is therefore a perpetual war - providing the perfect excuse for the
ongoing erosion of individual freedom - all in the name of "peace" of course!

265
 The Road To Freedom

Three strategies for avoiding war propaganda and protecting your freedom:

• Make sure you are fully informed by way of independent news sources -
especially the internet.
• Make it a goal to read at least two or three of the books recommended in the
previous issue of our newsletter.
• Take your privacy (personal and financial) seriously, and make the effort to
"privatise" your life.

WEALTH: Money is a freedom "tool". To protect your freedom, you also need to
protect your money.

In times of war, the state becomes a big spender. They need the cash to fund the
war. But such money can only come from one of three sources - taxes, borrowing, or
printing money (expanding the money supply). And all three methods end up taking
money out of your pocket. Raising taxes is not a popular option - especially as taxes
are already criminally high. That leaves borrowing and printing.

Right now, the USA is on a "printing" binge - pumping up the economy (to forestall a
crash), by keeping interest rates artificially low. This is to encourage its citizens to
borrow and spend, in order to keep the economy going. Trouble is, this strategy has
an ultimate kicker: inflation.

Already, the USD has fallen substantially in value (and will continue to do so) - so
that if you're in America, or holding USD, your cash cannot buy as much on the
global market as previously. Once domestic prices start to rise, then the full effect of
this latent inflation will become apparent. This scenario suggests the need to act
NOW, in order to protect the value of your assets.

Five strategies for protecting your wealth:

Maintain the value of your CASH by moving it out of USD to another currency.
If you want to see the value of such a strategy - then just look at how the USD has
dropped in value over the last 12 months - and calculate what you would have
gained if your ready cash had been held in another currency.

There is a common consensus amongst various advisors "in the know", that you
should put your cash into secure deposits, Bonds or CDs in any of the following
currencies: A "Commodity" currency, like the Australian or New Zealand dollar. An
historically secure currency like the Swiss Franc. Or a rising/competing currency like
the Euro. Not only will you gain on the cross-rates, but very likely earn more interest
than if your funds remain in USD.

You should seriously consider buying gold - either in physical or paper/receipt form,
or gold stocks. There is considerable evidence and opinion in support of an ongoing
bull market in gold - and a lot of people expect the precious metal to continue to rise.
A $500 per ounce price, some time in 2004, is certainly not overstating the case.
Silver and Platinum are obviously other options to consider. When paper currencies
are in trouble, you should be investing in various raw materials and commodities.
For, it's a truism to say that as paper fiat money drops, tangible goods rise in value.

266
 The Road To Freedom

If you want to speculate and play the stock market, then any stocks that will benefit
from war will likely be profitable in the long term - for this war will be a long one.

If you're in the USA, then owning real estate in another country could be a sensible
investment strategy. However, stay away from any sort of "negative gearing" plans,
as an inflationary future will also bring higher interest rates.

WORRY: "Don't Worry, Be Happy" went the song. Lots of appeal, but no substance!
However, there is no doubt we all worry too much. And the way the world is heading
- then worry is the order of the day. (And I say "order" in the sense that those in
power actually want you to worry.)

Consider the following:

If you live long enough to die a "natural" death - then you need to be concerned
about - global warming; genetically engineered food; new viral diseases; war; more
war; drugs; illegal immigration; terrorism; finger printing at US airports; meteor
strikes; unemployment; re-election of George Bush; environmental disasters, AIDS,
SARS, the tax man, the bank, deteriorating health; muggings; rape; extortion; fraud;
kidnapping, car-jackings; murder; road rage; another term of Tony Blair; Ayatollahs;
suicide bombers - and I could probably go on and on (but I won't, for fear of terminal
depression!).

You get the point.

In fact, if you watch TV News, then you are fed this "Fear Feast" day in and day out.
What your mind focuses on - your emotions respond to. And if fear is your primary
emotion - then your freedom is in danger.

If you want to reduce the number of things to worry about, essentially all you need to
do is stop paying attention to them.

Three strategies to reduce worry:

Start your day off with this helpful mind exercise, as suggested by Tony Robbins.
Ask yourself the following question - and let your mind provide the many answers it
will come up with. "What's GOOD about my life right now?" I guarantee that no
matter how worried, or depressed you are right now - by simply asking that question,
and spending a few minutes reviewing the answers that pop into your head, you will
refocus your mind, by pointing your attention to those things which you have control
over, and which give you continued reason to get out of bed!

Remember that those who "hold the levers of power" are only as powerful as YOU
let them be. If everyone refused to be treated like a slave - then slave masters would
be out of business in no time. Victimhood is a state of mind. Ayn Rand calls this "the
sanction of the victim" - meaning, you can only be a victim by granting permission to
those who would rule over you.

Learn to laugh at bureaucrats, politicians and any self- styled leaders. Don't give
them the satisfaction of thinking they matter one whit to you! Don't be a victim. Don't
be hoodwinked into parting with your life or liberty - or wealth!

267
 The Road To Freedom

A Personal Revolution for 2004

Where you are now - whether you are happy, rich, miserable, poor, or somewhere in
between - is the result of actions taken previously. Such actions are the result of
habitual thinking - as in personal goals, values and philosophy.

Ultimately, you are all that you are, because of what you think. And if you want to
change your personal situation, you'll obviously have to change your actions - and to
do that you'll need to change your thinking.

I have found certain books to be a major catalyst for changes in my own thinking -
and therefore changes in my actions and consequently my life. So, in the spirit of
"New Year's Resolutions", I offer the following list of "revolutionary" books that have
the power to change lives - including yours. However, I must provide a cautionary
warning. The following books have the potential to disrupt your existing values,
goals, attitudes and life itself. So, let's begin.

Books that will revolutionise your philosophical viewpoint:

ATLAS SHRUGGED - This is the blockbuster, by Ayn Rand, that will change forever
the way you think! I'm not joking. Atlas Shrugged is a major work. It's fiction - but
intertwined in its suspenseful story is a completely new philosophy of life. If you've
ever wondered why the world is in such a mess - then you need to read this book.
It's the story of a man who invents an incredible machine, then realises that the way
the world is currently organised, his work will be looted. He decides, instead, to
organise a "strike of the mind" - and proceeds to persuade all creative people - of
ability, talent, intellect and integrity, to disappear, and leave to world to fend for itself.
A gripper! If you only read one book - then make it this one.

THE FOUNTAINHEAD - Ayn Rand wrote this in 1943, fourteen years earlier than
Atlas Shrugged. It's my favourite book - about the triumph of the individual over the
collective. Marvellous! The story of Howard Roark, a young architect, who struggles
to maintain his integrity in a world of mediocre fools and evil enemies. Both Atlas
Shrugged and The Fountainhead are essential reading for getting "your head
straight". You need a philosophical foundation if you want to pursue the road to
freedom - and these two books provide the best foundation possible.

Books that will revolutionise your view of the world:

SIC ITUR AD ASTRA - or "This is the way to the stars"- by Andrew J. Galambos.
This book is the perfect "partner" to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Whereas Rand provides
a unique moral base for a life of freedom - Galambos provides a scientific
"discovery" that shows that a free society will never arrive via the political process.
Rather, he shows that freedom is a product - something that must be invented and
built - just like an aeroplane - and then sold to consumers. Rand's moral ideas are
wonderfully inspiring - but she has nothing new to say as to how such ideas can
become a reality. Galambos provides the practical structure for achieving freedom -
without having to wait for a democratic/political mandate. Highly original and
intellectually challenging!

268
 The Road To Freedom

THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL - This path-breaking book, by Lord Rees-Mogg and

James Davidson, takes a long view of history - and examines the patterns and
rhythms in historic cycles. It looks at the events and technology that have lead to
major shake-ups in the world's balance of power, and predicts where the world is
heading as a result of the information revolution and the internet. This is a
fascinating read - although weighty at times. The history alone is worth the price.
With the information contained under your belt, you'll be well equipped to face the
future with a sense of understanding - and hope.

HOW I FOUND FREEDOM IN AN UNFREE WORLD - This book, by Harry Browne,

forever changed the way I think regards taking action. For much of my life I have
been what you would call a "crusader" - one of those people always on a "mission". I
was deeply involved in politics both as a candidate, organiser and founder of a
political party. I always felt it was somehow the right thing to do, to try and change
the world. Harry Browne's book forced me to rethink this strategy. The main thesis is
that there are two types of action - "indirect" and "direct". As an example of both,
consider this: If you want to reduce your taxes you have two options. 1) You can
campaign for lower taxes, write letters, lobby politicians etc. This indirect action will
take up your time, but there is no guarantee that it will reduce your taxes by one
dollar! Or, you could direct your energy into finding ways to practically reduce your
own tax - like using offshore strategies. This is DIRECT action - and much more
likely to deliver a result.

FOR A NEW LIBERTY - the classic Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N Rothbard. He

is a key foundational thinker of the libertarian movement - with his emphasis on the
Austrian School of Economics (as propounded by economists like FA Hayek and
Ludwig von Mises), and the need to create a society without government (as we
know it). If Ayn Rand is a major influence in the 'minimal state' libertarian
perspective, then Murray Rothbard is the major influence in the "no state"
perspective.

PT: THE PERPETUAL TRAVELLER - by WG Hill. This was the book that gave me
hope and a sense of new direction, after I lost everything - around five years ago.
What I needed desperately was "hope". Hope that there was some way out. "PT"
provided that hope by opening my eyes to a possibility I had never considered - that
one can live a completely (tax) free life, on one's own terms, and disengage from the
yoke of the state. Absolutely essential reading for anyone who wants to break out of
the system. Hard to find though.

1984 - by George Orwell, is not the sort of book to inspire, but it IS an important
book, because it presents the story of a society in the grip of BIG BROTHER, and it
does so in a way that is uncannily prescient! Since 911, there has been a rush
towards increased centralised control, and an attack on individual freedoms.
Reading 1984 will give you an insight into the minds of those who seek power over
you - an insight all the more amazing because of when this book was written.
Orwell's prophetic work should be read by anyone who values his freedom, and
wants to clearly understand the nature of the "beast"! I'd go as far as saying that you
MUST read 1984 this year - if you really want to arm yourself against the inane
utterances of politicians and the brainwashing of the media.

Books that will revolutionise your understanding of economics:

269
 The Road To Freedom

THE LAW - this little book by Frederic Bastiat (from the 1800s) is the most lucid and
enjoyable read - and will forever change the way you look at governments and their
interference in public and economic life. A gem! In fact, this book tells you everything
you need to know about economics - in a way that you will thoroughly understand.

ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON - by Henry Hazlitt, is very similar to "The Law" in

that it presents economic ideas in a way that makes them eminently sensible and
easy to understand. A must- have if you want to consider yourself economically
literate.

BIONOMICS - a fascinating book by Michael Rothschild, which shows how

capitalism and the free market are like "ecology" - a completely self-balancing
system that is as "natural" as a rain forest. And when you consider that "orthodoxy"
thinks of the economy as a "machine" - that politicians can forever tinker with - then
Rosthschild's analysis is quite revolutionary.

Books that will revolutionise your understanding of personal finances and investing:

RICH DAD, POOR DAD - the book that opened my eyes to what I was doing wrong
with money! This easy-to-read book, by Robert Kyosaki, is almost so basic that it
can be an eye-opener to realise you've been believing many of the mistaken ideas
and half-truths he exposes. He has a great talent for making important financial
principles easy to grasp and understand. Also recommended are all his other books,
including: The Cashflow Quadrant and Rich Dad's Guide to Investing.

Books that will revolutionise your understanding of how to achieve personal success:

THINK AND GROW RICH - the classic book by Napoleon Hill that started all the
"self-improvement" books abounding these days. Wisdom gleaned from interviews
with some of the world's richest men at the time - condensing it all down to a
workable method for achieving one's goals.

THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE - a "must-have" book by Robert Fritz - will

open up a completely new way of viewing your place in the world and how you can
create the life you want. Unlike most self-improvement books, this eschews such
things as "positive thinking", affirmations, will power - and instead presents a
refreshingly unique perspective based on strategies learnt from the creative arts. His
conclusion is that you CAN learn to become the primary creative force in your own
life - and can do it without struggle, without battles - but by simply learning how to
follow the path of least resistance (like a river finds the easiest lay of the land to flow
over).

Now, if one or more of the above books doesn't throw your brain waves into a high-
energy spin - then, I'm afraid you may be brain dead!

270
 The Road To Freedom

Anarchy in The Real World

If you're like most people, you will probably have a negative reaction to the word
"anarchy" and "anarchist". The reason for this is quite simple - you have been
brainwashed.

The word "anarchist" usually conjures up images of mayhem, disorder, riots, leftist
bomb-throwers, and dirty protesters screaming obscenities against global capitalism.
Anarchism has a bad name for sure.

So what is the dictionary definition of anarchism?

• Absence of government
• Political theory opposed to government

That begs the question - what is "government"? Government is "that which governs"
- or, according to definition - "that which exercises sovereign authority". So, let me
come clean from the start. I oppose government. I believe in the absence of
government. I believe I am sovereign over my own life. Therefore, I am an anarchist.

There, I've got that off my chest. But I didn't start out that way - no sir!

I started a bit left-leaning. Then got the religion bug. Then got political - and started
to lean "rightwards" (whatever that means) - then had a radical lobotomy (when I
read "Atlas Shrugged") and became a libertarian - or someone who believes in as
little government as possible. (In libertarian circles, that means government should
be about law, order and defence only.)

I perhaps spent 20 years in a political mode - and was quite active. All to no avail, I
might add. Then five years ago - I underwent another transformation - sort of the
opposite to Paul, on the road to Damascus. I didn't discover God, rather I discovered
the "god" of government was a fiction, a false god, a projection of those who wish to
control others. My "awakening" was perhaps more like the little boy in the famous
tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" - where I cried out, "But the Emperor has NO
clothes!"

No one was really listening - but never mind.

In polite conversation - saying you are an anarchist is likely to cause coughing and
choking - and at the very least, dry up whatever conversation you were having. So,
normally, I don't utter such words - preferring to maintain my facade of normalcy.
Some things are better left unsaid. Except here.

Of course, the usual response to one's admission to anarchist thoughts (after you've
explained it), is that "It won't work!", or, "It's Utopian".

"If we have no government, who will collect the trash, who will make the roads, who
will educate our children, who will look after the poor, who will protect us from
terrorists?

Talk about failure of vision and imagination! But that's government education for you.

271
 The Road To Freedom

I'm always puzzled by those who assert that health and education are so important -
the government must do it. And yet, the same people are quite happy for the market
to produce the food - which is even more important, and more fundamental to life
itself.

The fact is, the market can provide anything the government can - only much more
efficiently, and more to the consumer's liking. And when it comes down to it - the
government is not a "creative" force at all - but a destructive one.

Just think of all the good things around you - that make life more interesting,
enjoyable, healthy, and productive. I bet every one of those things was created by
the market - not the government. And if there is something you cherish - which was
set up by government - then you can bet your bottom dollar it would be even better if
provided by the market.

But, enough of that. Reason is hardly enough for most people to abandon faith!
So, let's get back to the "it won't work" argument.

Well, it so happens we have a fully functioning anarchist society right in our midst -
one which YOU are already fully familiar with, and participate in - and one which
works!

The INTERNET.

Yes, the internet is fully anarchist. There is no internet government. There is no

internet King. There are no internet elections. There is no internet democracy. There
is no central control. There is no dictator. There are no internet police. There is no
equivalent of George Bush or Saddam Hussein!

On the internet you are a free agent. You can read what you like. You can say what
you like. You can do what you like. You can buy and sell what you like. You can
meet who you like. You can organise whatever you like. You are left alone - and you
are free - in the "internet" world. Of course, government-lovers complain about the
internet all the time. "It's terrible - all that porn, all that immorality, all that gambling,
all that antigovernment stuff. All that freedom!"

But the miracle that is the internet is that so much has been achieved in so few
years - with no one planning it! Sure, there are problems with freedom. You get
spam. You get scams. You get naughty pictures being sent into your email box that
you didn't ask for.

The government's answer is, for example, to try an pass an "anti-spam" law. But
that's just horse manure! Every internet geek knows THAT won't work. The internet
will work out its own answers - and already is.

The internet is a huge virtual "society" - where all barriers are torn down. The
internet is a living example of a self- organising entity - fully capable of adjusting
itself to the myriad of needs of its millions of "netizens". Yes, even the word "citizen"
has been transformed - for indeed, the internet represents a NEW form of social
organisation.

272
 The Road To Freedom

The internet does something else - it encourages an attitude of self responsibility.

When you are on the internet, there is no one to hold your hand. No one to go
running to. You have to assume more responsibility for your life. So, it's not just a
free society - it's a learning experience.

The internet is a glaring example, right under our noses, of how any society can and
should function. Government is just a leftover from the past. A "hanger-on", a looter,
a destroyer of everything. And the only reason it is still here is because government
controls education - and the minds of the world's young. But that's another issue -
and another article!!

Coming to terms with my anarchist inclinations was hard. I rejected it for years - kept
on telling myself we needed government - even if it was just for law, order and
defence. But they cannot even get that right. Far from ensuring our security,
government has simply monopolised those things, so that no market alternatives
have been allowed to develop.

Yes, rejecting a lifetime of government propaganda is very hard. But not impossible.
Just as life without a government "security blanket" is a challenge for sure, but worth
it in the end. Freedom is your reward.

Being an anarchist is a lonely space to be in. There's really no where else to go. It's
the end of the ideological journey. What started out as a belief in a god, gave way to
a belief in government - and finally no belief at all, except in the ability of humans to
be creative (in god's image?), to be able to solve problems, and to learn from
mistakes.

Ask yourself one question: Who should have sovereignty over your life? And
remember the definition of "government" - that which exercises sovereign authority.
It's either you or them. You can't have two masters.

If you believe in self-ownership - then you believe in self- government. And if you
believe in self-government - well, you're already an anarchist!

273
 The Road To Freedom

Democracy is a False God

Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. In fact, it's a system of government with a
built-in self-destruct mode.

Democracy, at its core, is about forming policy on the basis of majority rule.
If you can get enough votes, for example, to make eating hamburgers illegal - then
you can "democratically" deny the right of any person to eat them. Sure, that's an
exaggerated example, but the principle stands (remember the Prohibition!).

From the perspective of a democrat, this is fine - as it represents the majority will of
the people. But what about the minority - which in many cases, could be as high as
49%?

I recall, many years ago, hearing a politician answer a question on the subject of
abortion - where the questioner wanted to know where this particular politician stood
on the issue. He gave a "democratic" answer - and stated that he would vote
according to the majority wishes of his own electorate. He defended his answer by
saying he was a true democrat and a representative of the people.

Bunkum! What he was really doing was avoiding a moral choice and justifying his
position on the grounds that he was being democratic. And in current parlance
"democracy = good".

I wonder if he would have been quite so "democratic" if the question had been,
"Hands up those who support the idea of ethnic cleansing?"

This illustrates the essential problem with majority rule - that it is just as likely to
deliver evil as good - and perhaps, more likely.

If you take an extreme case of democracy - and ask people's opinion on the
outcome - the answers are interesting. For example: If a nation decided that
homosexuality was a capital crime, by conducting a referendum on the issue and
winning 51% of the vote - the outcome would be democratic, and also a death
sentence to all those so convicted.

Or, another example - a nation decides to vote on the issue of incarcerating Muslims
- on the basis of potential links to terrorism. Once again, 51% vote YES, and tens of
thousands of people are carted off to concentration camps.

Of course, any democrat would label such examples as "extreme" or unrealistic. But
that's not the point. In principle it could happen - UNLESS there was some form of
limit on the process of democracy.

This idea of a "limit" is what was behind the forming of the original American
Republic - where there were constraints put in place by way of a constitution. Thus
the USA became a democracy tempered by a constitution.

The idea has appeal - provided the constitution is both sound, enforceable and not
subject to change on the whim of either an individual or the majority - which raises a
whole lot of other issues.

274
 The Road To Freedom

However, the very acceptance of the need for such a limit underlies the real issue at
stake - one to which democracy has no answer. Democracy can be a tool of
despotism, and it has no built-in safeguards against such abuse.

Democracy cannot deliver what it implicitly promises.

What's really important in a societal context is NOT democracy, but FREEDOM. And
the foundation of any meaningful freedom is the nuts and bolts mechanics of
protecting property. If there is no protection of property, then there can be no
freedom. In other words, the essential building block of any free and prosperous
nation is the concept of property rights. If you look after that - then you have
freedom. And if you have freedom - you have no need for democracy or the counting
of heads.

Hong Kong was an interesting example of this policy (while under British control).
Hong Kong had no democracy - and yet it was perhaps the freest place on earth.
Why? Because those in Hong Kong were subject to the best of the British legacy - a
respect for property rights and the Common Law.

Under the "hands off" approach of the British (unlike their hands-ON approach in the
UK), the people of HK were able to build a modern, thriving economy from what
started out as virtually a bare rock. No natural resources, no welfare, no democracy -
just freedom, as defined by the protection of property.

Of course all that has changed now - and one of Britain's tasks - before HK was
handed over to the Chinese - was to attempt to generate some interest in the idea of
democracy. And that was a hard task indeed - for the HK Chinese could not really
see the point. After all, they already could do what they wanted, whenever they
wanted. Things were so rosy, that they had a saying - "you can walk down the street
and kick gold".

Now, they ARE interested in democracy - because their true freedom was taken off
them, and now they have joined the "rest of us" in attempting to protect what they've
got (and trying to get what others have got) by way of voting.

Democracy is like cancer. Once you accept the idea, then politics is introduced into
every nook and cranny of everyday life. From there, it eats away at the soul of both
the nation and the individual. Democracy undermines the very concept of individual
freedom.

You want to open a restaurant? Well, forget the idea that you are the "owner" of
such an establishment. If the government, by democratic edict, declares that you
cannot allow anyone to smoke in your restaurant - then that is the end of the matter -
unless you want to get into trouble.

No one raises the point that it is YOUR property - and that you have the right to
either exclude all smokers, allow some smokers, or even make your restaurant
exclusively FOR smokers. All concerns over "whose" property are swept away
before the god of democracy. Democracy "politicises" all human interaction.
Everything is now a matter of political process.

275
 The Road To Freedom

There are homeless people on the streets? No problem, start a campaign to support
them from taxes - and some political group will join in, and fight an election on such
an issue. And before you know it, you'll be taxed - to solve the problem. In this way,
democracy divides society, by fuelling a feeding frenzy of "needs" and an ever
increasing number of demands. It sets one group against another. It creates an
atmosphere of entitlement. It makes everything subject to "politics".

But this cannot go on forever. The "have-nots" cannot forever vote themselves a
living at the expense of the "haves". The "needy" cannot forever solve their problems
by blaming and draining the "greedy". Society cannot become prosperous by the
process of theft and disregard for property rights.

In the end, democracy can effectively vote away whatever lifeblood is still left in a
nation - and preside, in triumph, over a lifeless corpse. So, is there an alternative?

I'm a great believer in "business" as a template for rational action. Sure, it's not
perfect - but it beats the pants off democracy. In business, there is no room for silly
theories, pet projects, or pointless ideologies. What is required is results. If a
business cannot achieve a profit, then it ceases to be. There is no "democratic"
bailout and no sympathy. Business is organised to achieve its goal - which is profit -
and it either succeeds or fails.

On the other hand, society - via the political process - is largely irrational. The results
of a particular policy are never judged by any scientific method or even common
sense like "does it actually work?", rather by an ideological one way mirror. For
example: Whereas a business knows the limits of borrowing as a strategy for
success. Society, as a political entity, has no such qualms - and will quite happily
borrow itself into fiscal collapse.

Business is organised for success. Sure, if you own shares in a business, you get to
vote. But you do NOT get to vote on strategy or policy. You only get to vote on who
makes the decisions. And because such decisions are evaluated in the light of the
company's profits - voting is always about ensuring the best outcome - for ALL
shareholders. No business shareholder can cast a vote to enrich himself at the
expense of another shareholder in the same company.

And THAT is the difference between democracy and business. Business builds - and
democracy destroys. At some point, enough people will hopefully wake up to the fact
that democracy, politics, voting et al - are all useless in the quest for freedom and
prosperity.

Democracy is like some major religion that has outgrown its usefulness. Maybe it
worked in a local village, a long time in the past - but in the modern world of mass
society, it is hopelessly dysfunctional and downright dangerous. We can no more
vote ourselves out of poverty, war, epidemics, or violence - than we can vote
ourselves into freedom, health and prosperity.

Democracy - like religion - is a matter of faith. It is nourished by tradition,

regenerated by education, and not subject to any form of scientific scrutiny. For if it
was, then we'd all be shouting, "the Emperor has no clothes!"
And that would be the end of it!

276
 The Road To Freedom

The Passport Fraud: Nation States as Prison Camps

I imagine you take for granted that little book you are required to carry with you when
you travel. After all, you NEED a passport for such purposes, don't you?

Well, it wasn't always so. In fact, the international identity document we call a
"passport" is a relatively new invention, only brought into wide use after 1914. As the
name suggests - a passport is supposed to give you the right to "pass" - to move, to
travel from country to country (from port to port).

In the 19th century, it was relatively easy to leave one country and arrive in another -
without the need for such a document - but it appears that World War I put an end to
that. And maybe it's not just a coincidence, for that war was the beginning of the
20th century's clash of the "states". And even more - the rise of previously unheard
of totalitarian state power.

The fundamental premise underlying the passport is the idea of citizenship - the
concept that you belong to a particular nation state, in the same way you belong to a
particular family. Nice and cosy like.

You are born into a family - and you really have no choice in the matter. If you were
born into a rich, happy family, offering the opportunity to get a good education and a
great start in life - well, you are just plain lucky. On the other hand, if you were born
into a family of drifters - living in the nearest rubbish dump - well tough!

Who said life was fair?

The idea of citizenship is similarly explained. You are born into a particular country -
and you become a "member". End of story. In other words, your nation is your
"extended" family - like it or not. Trouble is, in this world of vastly different types of
nation states, being born in the "wrong" country could easily cost you your life -
either in an agonisingly drawn out process, or quite abruptly. But is it a valid
comparison - to say that you are born into a country, in the same way you are born
into a family?

No, it is not. There is a fundamental difference - which is clearly illustrated by the

idea of citizenship and the little document which enforces it - the passport. Sure,
you can't choose the family you were born into, but if that relationship is not to your
liking - you can always move away, or at least keep the family at arm's length. You
CAN leave a hostile, unloving, or even cruel family. You have that choice - at least
when you are old enough to make such a choice.

Not so with your citizenship. Being born into a particular nation state is a much more
cloying relationship - which, depending upon where you were born, may suit you fine
- or may cause you to want to leave.

Any "free" nation will let you leave of course. The trouble starts with the fact that you
have nowhere else to go! In other words, any right to leave is useless for all practical
purposes - because no other nation state will make it easy for you to "arrive" - short
holidays not withstanding. Of course, you could always live your life on a boat!

277
 The Road To Freedom

So, let's step back from the status quo, and ask the basic question: "Why on earth
should nations have the right to restrict the movement of individuals?" Why indeed!

The only reason I can think of is because that's the way it has been. That's what
we're used to. And that's the way your average nation state likes it.

The hard truth is that a passport is just a mechanism of control. Like any identity
document, it has its "stated" intention, and its REAL intention. Since the wide
implementation of passports internationally, after 1914, nation states have been on
an ever accelerating power binge - in an attempt to nail down their citizens and to be
able to know every little detail about them. Yes, as it turns out, you ARE a number!

If you are not convinced of the difference between family and nation - and your "ties"
to each - then consider this:

How would you like a "family" passport - one which restricted your movement
between family homes? Ridiculous, you say.

Okay, what about a city passport - where you need permission to move between
cities in the same country?

Want to move from New York to Los Angeles? Or from Liverpool to London? Sorry -
you need documents. A short stay is fine - but don't even think about moving
permanently!

Or how about a state/region passport - one which restricts your movement between
states or regions within your own country?

How would you like to be prevented from moving from Colorado to California (USA),
or from New South Wales to Queensland (Australia)?

Such restrictions would be totally unacceptable to you - I'm sure. But ask yourself -
what is the difference, IN PRINCIPLE, between such apparently absurd ideas as city
or state/region passports - when compared to passports for nations?

The fact is, nation states are just arbitrary geographical entities, which over time
have established (or fought wars over) borders, in order to separate people - for the
purpose of putting "dog tags" on everyone inside - and to exclude everyone outside.
These entities are reinforced by the ideology of nationalism - which is inculcated
from an early age - in the nations' mind control centres (schools).

But there are signs the system is cracking. The world is increasingly linked by more
and more open communications (the internet for example), more travel, and more
international trade. People are forming bonds OTHER than those imposed by
nationhood. And individuals in undesirable nation states are starting to ask the
question, "why am I here?" and "how can I get out?"

Now, if you're some comfortable, well-paid, mollycoddled citizen of a relatively free

and rich country - such a line of questioning has a distinctly unpleasant ring to it.
Geez, what do these people want after all?

278
 The Road To Freedom

People everywhere want what "people everywhere" have always wanted - the
freedom and opportunity to live a life of their own choosing. And they are
increasingly on the move in search of it.

This is causing a predictable response in the mature welfare states - where the
locals grow up with an "entitlement" mentality (the right to other people's money) -
with more and more draconian border protection and enforcement. After all, who
wants a boat load of freeloaders arriving on one's doorstep - and signing up for the
dole?

It's a huge problem. But when you dig deeper - and take a closer look at what this
really means, then it's clear that the very concept of the nation state is under threat.
And in particular - the welfare state.

There is an inevitability in the concept of "open borders" - when there is a move to

more and more international trade, and international co-operation. For if individual
goods and services can freely roam the globe - why not individual people?
Battle lines are drawing on this issue - and already one can see the clear
demarcation between opposing sides.

There are those who are wedded to the idea of the sovereign nation state - who
want strict border controls to keep other people out - and strict protectionist trade
policies to keep other people's goods and services out. They want their taxes to be
used on their own kind - and not squandered on uninvited guests. They want to
shore up their welfare state and protect their perceived "national" interests.

Then there are those who are more committed to the idea of the sovereign
INDIVIDUAL - who see nation states as artificial barriers, separating people who are
quite capable of managing their own affairs and dealing with one and another in a
truly free market place. Such people want to see an end to the welfare state - and its
corrupting influence on the morals and well-being of those who are subject to it.
The battle lines are hardening - and the rearguard action of those hell-bent on
stopping the demise of the nation state is bound to get ugly. It already is.

However the forces of freedom are unleashed. People are no longer prepared to
accept the idea that if they were born into a Gulag-style country, or economic cesspit
- then they must be compelled stay there.

This force of "people on the move" will become one of the most pressing issues of
our age. It will test the nation state as never before - and it has the potential to
undermine the very thinking that supports it.

Whichever side of the fence you are on, regards this issue, one thing is for certain -
the situation is real, and it is gaining momentum.

Next time you look at your passport - realise what it REALLY is - a membership card
to a "life" camp. Maybe yours is a holiday camp, or a prison camp, or maybe just a
boot camp. But, whatever type of camp you belong to - your membership card is
hard to get rid of - and even harder to replace with a more favourable one of your
own choosing!

279
 The Road To Freedom

Revolt Against The Banks:

The Growth in Alternate Payment Services
Everyone loves to hate banks. And now, it seems, the market is delivering up
possible alternatives.

Banking is a strange business - something that most people cannot do without, and
yet have very little understanding of.

It started simple enough - when goldsmiths issued receipts for gold they held on
deposit. They soon found that they could issue loans also - based on the fact that
not everyone came to collect their gold at once. And the result was the birth of
fractional reserve banking - the idea that you can lend out more than you actually
have. Of course, there were a few bank collapses in the early days - as depositors
got shaky, and rushed to the bank to make withdrawals. But this problem was
overcome when central banks were established. Central banks were able to
advance credit to banks who had a sudden rush of withdrawals - allowing such
banks to satisfy their customers, and avoid panic.

Today we accept the role of central banks as a natural part of the financial
"scenery".
In fact, we accept that banking is a different type of business - and not like an
ordinary company, which can make profits, losses and even fail. No, in our desire for
fail-proof banking, we allowed the whole industry to be virtually taken over by the
state.

Sure, banks may be private - but their business is 100% state controlled (i.e. a good
definition of fascism). It is this state control of banking that has driven a wedge
between the banks themselves, and their customers - you and me.

Since the advent of the perpetual war for perpetual peace (the war on terrorism), the
state has decided that banking needs to be controlled even more rigidly - by the
enactment of such things as KYC (know your customer) and the Patriot Act, which
have given birth to a myriad of obstructive regulations.

The banks have no choice but to kow-tow to their masters and put into practice the
measures so dictated. The result is more and more intrusion into the lives and
business activities of their customers.

Just a few examples should illustrate the point:

Regulations may vary all over the world, but there is an uncanny similarity between
the measures that have been introduced in recent years - no matter where you live.
If you want to wire funds overseas (over a certain amount), the bank is required to
file a report. If you walk into a bank and deposit a fistful of cash, the bank may be
required to file a report. If you have a bank account in another country, you may be
required to report it. And that same overseas bank may ask you to verify the source
of every deposit, and the reason for every withdrawal. If you have a brokerage
account, they will not accept funds from a bank account that is not in the same
name. And so on, and so on. More and more red tape, more and more frustration for
honest people just wanting to get on with life and business.

280
 The Road To Freedom

In fact, I hear reports of the most intrusive practices. Just one example, as related by
someone in Canada. Apparently, this person wanted to wire out a modest amount of
money - to an overseas bank account. The sending bank wanted to know all the
details of the person who was to receive such funds (the beneficiary). This may not
strike some of you as "unusual", but I can assure you it is. This practice of not only
"knowing your customer", but knowing WHO your customer is dealing with - is just
one more creeping intrusion into your financial affairs. And the ongoing erosion of
financial privacy is a direct attack on freedom itself.

Enter the internet.

The internet is a breath of freedom. It is a self-organised, non state-run, anarchic

gathering of people from all over the world, who desire to interact in whatever ways
they please - without Big Brother being in control. As a result, the internet thrives in
all the areas normally circumscribed by the state - like free trade, sex, gambling and
all manner of human activities that most states would rather have stopped.

The internet is THE free market. Most states allow a partial free market - just free
enough to encourage the sheep to work and produce (so they can be financially
fleeced). But on the internet you have a perfect example of a REAL free market - not
strangled by regulations, not rubber stamped by bureaucrats, and not taxed.

Of course, states everywhere would love to control the internet, as they hate such an
expression of freedom - but so far, they have not succeeded.

Because the internet represents a true free market - it provides the means for
various entrepreneurial types to provide solutions to market-driven desires and
demands.

One such demand is for a more private, informal and flexible means of exchanging
value. In other words, there is a crying need for a new type of financial service - one
that treats its customers with respect, doesn't act like the secret service, and
provides an efficient, secure and private means of facilitating financial transactions.
And over the last couple of years, the market has delivered - with the arrival of non-
traditional banking services that fill the "gap" in customer satisfaction left by state-
controlled banking.

These new services fall into three general categories:

• Digital precious metals.

• e-Currencies
• Financial Intermediaries

My personal favourite is the digital precious metals - gold and silver - as represented
by such services as e-Gold, e-Bullion and GoldMoney (to name a few). These
services offer a very convenient way to open an account, fund it, transact with other
account holders and withdraw funds. And a whole subsidiary market has grown up
around them - offering in and out exchange and debit card services.

281
 The Road To Freedom

The added advantage, in my view, is that you are in fact purchasing a commodity
with a market value (gold or silver in most cases), not just a title to some state's
paper (or fiat) money.

Unfortunately, state money has a stranglehold, making it very difficult for a true
market money to gain a foothold. This means all such alternative "banking" services,
must overcome one big hurdle - how to interact with state money.

Theoretically, a service like e-gold could stand almost alone - IF enough people and
businesses could be persuaded to accept it. But the task of moving people from one
"money" to another is an enormously difficult undertaking - one which is only likely to
succeed in a situation where the existing "money" was failing in some way. Of
course, it IS failing - but the process is slow and hard to detect.

Finally, one big advantage is that the major players in this e-metal market have their
metal holdings documented and verified by third parties - ensuring the viability and
integrity of their systems.

E-Currencies offer the same simplicity and efficiency as the digital metal services,
but denominate their unit of transaction as something arbitrary - like the EVO, in
EvoCash. Superficially, they appear to work the same way - but unlike gold or silver,
the backing for such a service is just paper money - most often without any
safeguards or third party verification.

The Financial Intermediaries are presently the most successful - like PayPal. What
they offer is primarily a convenient way to make internet-based payments, which are
underpinned by one's credit card. With a service like PayPal - you can quickly
complete an online transaction (like an auction payment) and reduce the amount of
time it normally takes you.

None of these services are perfect - in that none of them offers a complete
alternative to having to deal with banks and state money. At every point where such
a service must interface with the traditional banking system, then you, as a
customer, are back dealing with banks and all their intrusive requirements.

However, the fact they are not perfect does not negate their usefulness. There is
also a very valuable educational function in this - in the way more and more people
are prepared, for example, to deal in e-gold. By doing so, one is able to compare the
features and benefits - and "vote with one's pocket" on the type of service that one
wants.

The success of e-gold can be measured in their dramatic account growth - and that
at least one offshore bank is now accepting deposits via e-gold, something unheard
of even a year ago.

Ultimately, competition in the means of exchange can only benefit the end user. The
rise of alternative banking services is one of the success stories on the internet - and
is a direct result of the overly repressive and regulated traditional banking sector.

However, the real revolution will come when the money itself is market-driven and
market-created - as it should be.

282
 The Road To Freedom

Preemption is Better Than Cure!

That's the latest political slogan you're supposed to swallow.

Sounds reasonable enough - after all, I'm sure you recall a similar idea from your
youth - "prevention is better than cure".

Put the two phrases side by side, and your mind can easily glide over them without
so much as a murmur of disquiet. That's the nature of words. They can be designed
to lull you into a sense of complacency, to override your critical faculties, and to ease
you into a false sense of security.

And "preemption" is the new doctrine of self defence - ever since 911.

The theory goes something like this: if someone is going to bomb us, then we can't
simply wait until they actually do, but must act BEFORE they do - preemptively, and
hit them before they hit us.

The picture conjured up here is of two prize fighters - facing off in the ring.
Obviously, in a situation like this - you don't wait to be knocked out first! But is this a
valid strategy for conducting world affairs? I say, most definitely, no.

First the "boxing ring" analogy is way off. In that scenario each fighter is there with
the explicit purpose of knocking the other out - and becoming the winner. There is no
doubt as to the motives or resultant actions of both parties. It's a foregone
conclusion.

However, in the case of a potential or feared attack by another nation - a much

greater standard of assessment and judgement is required.

If you are going to attack a country preemptively, then you need to know a few
things for sure - like the other country is definitely going to attack you. But how can
you know this? You need hard evidence and intelligence that forewarns you of an
imminent attack.

Speculation is not enough. Fear is not enough. You need absolute proof that you are
about to be attacked - before you can attack the other country as an act of self
defence.

To illustrate this principle more clearly, take a look at how a preemptive defence
strategy would work between two individuals.

Imagine you and your neighbour don't get on. This "neighbourly" feud has been
brewing for a while. First it started with him cutting branches off your trees - which
were hanging over his side of the fence - and throwing them into your garden. And
when you threw the vegetation back over to your neighbour's side - the next thing
you knew was he was dumping his dog's poo on your front lawn. Naturally, you
scooped it up and put it his letter box!

A recipe for escalating confrontation for sure.

283
 The Road To Freedom

But it gets worse. Now your neighbour is regularly trashing your mail, making
obscene phone calls in the night - and inviting his friends around for all night house
parties, with exceptionally loud music.

You've had enough. You want revenge. No one at city hall appears to be able to put
a halt to your nasty neighbour's actions. You decide to get heavy and threaten him in
some way - some form of bodily harm. And at this point, it is your neighbour who
complains, and calls in the police. He tells them about your threat - and you get a
visit - and a warning!

You've had it with your neighbour. You shake your fist at him through your window -
and throw in a few juicy expletives for good measure - "I'll f_____g kill you, you
bastard!"

Your neighbour is fearful now. He's taken your threat literally, and is convinced you
WILL do him some serious bodily harm. But he's no pussy (and he IS a little looney)
- so he storms into your house one night, very late, and shoots you in the head.
End of story - for you. But not for your neighbour. He's taken away and charged with
first degree murder. And his only defence is you were a threat to him, and that he
was convinced you were going to kill him. So he decided to get you first.
Would this defence plea stand up in court - hell no! Not a chance. He'd be laughed
out of court (well, not quite).

The reason is very simple. Even though you threatened bodily harm to your
neighbour, he had no right to kill you, just because he "thought' you might kill him.

Sure, if YOU had woken up as your neighbour was about to pull the trigger, you'd be
absolutely within your rights to do everything possible to protect yourself - including
shooting him. However, HE doesn't have that same right, because you were not
holding a gun to his head when he killed you.

So the question is this: why should the law be applied differently in the case of two
individuals - as opposed to two nations? If a person cannot kill another - in
preemptive self defence, then how can one nation "kill" another on those very same
grounds?

The moral and legal answer is - they can't.

The idea that one nation can attack another - with no more than some paranoid idea
that they "could" be attacked, and need to act first - is a very dangerous
development in international relations.

For one nation to attack another, in preemptive self defence, it would need
incontrovertible proof of an imminent attack - from sources such as direct
observation (images, message intercepts), and various forms of verifiable
intelligence.

However, events subsequent to 911 have turned a long-standing moral and legal
principle on its head - and delivered a disturbing new precedent in the definition of
"self defence".

284
 The Road To Freedom

Now, don't go telling me that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and imminent threat to
others. The fact is he didn't - not to people OUTSIDE Iraq. But "evidence" was
cooked up, rhetoric was prime- pumped, and fear was communicated by the mass
media. Before long, large numbers of people saw him as some latter-day Hitler, bent
on world conquest.

This raises another difficult question. How do we know when our respective
governments are telling us the truth anyway? How can we know that a planned act
of preemptive self defence is warranted? How can we verify the information
available to our "leaders". You and I don't have our own satellites, or secret service.
We don't have the ability to send our own news correspondents to find out directly.
In other words, we are at the mercy of those who claim to represent our best
interests.

In my judgement the aftermath of 911 has proven, without doubt, that the world has
got a lot more dangerous - precisely because of this new preemptive self defence
doctrine, as implemented by the USA.

They have let the genie out of the bottle. Now, other nations can also rightfully
consider the ramifications of this new self defence policy - in their own "national"
interest.

But it gets much darker and disturbing than that. The doctrine of preemptive self
defence is a useful "power tool" that can just as easily be applied WITHIN the
borders of a nation - against its own citizens.

In fact, preemptive self defence is the ideal weapon to fight "thought crime" (as in
Orwell's novel "1984'). And it is the theme of "Minority Report" - the movie starring
Tom Cruise.

If you saw that movie, you will recall how the legal system had been turned on its
head, due to the ability to read the minds of potential criminals. As a result, those
committing "thought crimes" (who were thinking of committing crimes), could then be
tracked down, caught and imprisoned - before any ACTUAL crime had been
committed.

The thought itself became the crime.

The issue at stake here is the distinction between a thought and an action. Our
whole tradition of law and morality is based on the concept that you may "think"
murder - but can only be convicted of it, if you actually COMMIT murder.

Any wide acceptance of the concept of preemptive self defence, can only have dire
consequences for both international AND domestic law and order - not to mention,
the very concept of justice.

Would you be prepared to be arrested and imprisoned - just because someone else
believed you harboured nasty thoughts about them, and that they believed you might
harm them? In such a world, you'd be a hapless victim of anyone's twisted paranoia.
Well, it's the same between nations. If this preemptive defence doctrine gains any
more traction internationally - then no one will be safe from the arbitrary judgement
of upstart power-hungry politicians.

285
 The Road To Freedom

The Root of All Evil

"The love of money is the root of all evil", is an old Biblical quote (forgive me if I have
got it slightly wrong) - and to most people, it is indeed the "root" of evil (when in
OTHER people's hands!).

Now, while the love of money may cause people to do stupid or immoral things, I'm
afraid I'm not convinced it's the root of evil at all. In fact, I'll go further and state this
as an alternative: "The love of POWER is the root of all evil".

All the trouble in the world comes down to one thing - the desire for power over
others. This is a tendency to be found in each one of us - except we rarely have the
opportunity to exercise it directly. But to those who do, power corrupts. And as Lord
Acton said - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Whether one is talking about the abuse of power by one person over another - or the
abuse of power by one person with his hands on the control levers of a whole
country - it is a fact that having such power is a corrupting influence. It literally brings
out the worst in people.

I have no doubt that Hitler, the "artist", was far less dangerous than Hitler the
"Fuhrer". And the difference was the power at his disposal to rule over others.
But the issue as to whether the love of money or power is the root of all evil is
interesting from another angle as well. For it brings up a fundamental difference in
the idea of what power really is.

Having a lot of money gives you economic clout. Having a lot of power gives you
political clout. And there is a world of difference between the two.

In today's world, people are often inclined to rail against those who have lots of
money - as if such people had power over them.

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Having money does indeed give you
economic power. But economic power is radically different from political power.
Economic power is MONEY in your hand. Political power is a GUN in your hand.

With money in your hand, you can do things, make choices, and even influence
others. But the essential point here is that having money is about trade. You must
get what you want by persuading others to give it to you, in exchange for money.

However, with a gun in your hand, you can take a shortcut. You can simply order
others to DO what you want, or GIVE you what you want - at the point of a gun!
Money or the gun? These two modus operandi are at the root of all social
interaction. You can either choose to trade with others for what you want, using
money - or you can force them to give you what you want - using a gun.

One form of social interaction is voluntary, dealing with each other on the basis of a
mutually agreeable outcome, the other is involuntary - by the use of brute force.

286
 The Road To Freedom

At some point, each individual makes a choice in life - to either work to achieve one's
goals, by one's own efforts, or to achieve one's goals by forcing others to make the
effort.

The world's woes are not primarily caused by money - or religion, or ethnicity or
nationalism, but by the love of power - the love of the gun. And we're all complicit in
this.

You've heard the term, "we get the government we deserve". And here's the rub, it's
true - especially if you're talking about a democracy. People, who would otherwise
never think of stealing from their neighbours, are quite happy to vote for a politician
who promises to do just that (via taxes, to collect revenue, to give to others).

The modern democratic state allows for the "arms length" abuse of power by
everyone on everyone. It's an orgy of power abuse. Everyone's in on the game - by
the sheer act of voting.

If you've voted for more money to be spent on health (or on any other money
redistribution scheme) - then you've voted for more money to be forcefully
expropriated from some, to pay for the health care of others. And in so doing, you
have entered into the world of power abuse, of using your limited power (the vote),
to add weight and moral support to a much larger power (the state).

As long as individuals believe they have the right to the life and life's effort of
OTHER people, then we will always produce a government bent on the abuse of
power to the same ends.

There is only one way to de-fang this monster - and that is to make sure, to the best
of your ability, that YOU are not subject to power abuse by others, and that YOU are
not a supporter of such abuse. And how do you do that?

First, you stop voting. Period! Voting is an act of complicity with a corrupt system.
You will never be able to change it - so if you've got idealistic notions of political
change - forget it!

Second, you start taking direct action to protect yourself from the abuse of power by
others - whether individuals, or the state.

As Christians often say - change must start with the individual. And they are 100%
right.

Don't look for a leader. Don't look for a better political party. Just look to yourself -
and make a conscious effort to live free, and leave others alone.

Winston Smith, the main character in George Orwell's novel "1984", had one
persistent belief - that any hope for overthrowing tyranny lay with the "proles" - the
ordinary people. Sure, the ordinary people were dumb, uneducated and
unsophisticated, but they had a strength (and power) which they were completely
unaware of. They had the power to simply "opt out", to say "no".

It's the same today. The world appears to be heading to more and more chaos.
Politicians appear unassailable. The momentum towards tyranny seems

287
 The Road To Freedom

unstoppable. But it could be stopped in its tracks tomorrow - by one simple act - if
everyone simply said "no".

You can't force others to say "no". And you would be fighting a losing battle to
attempt to persuade others to say "no". But YOU can say "no" That is the power you
have - the power to make such a choice for yourself.

In fact, it's the only moral use of power - the power rightfully at your disposal - the
power to make decisions about your own life - and act accordingly. That's what
being a sovereign individual is all about. Just say "no". Use your power where it
counts.

288
 The Road To Freedom

Property & Freedom

Any publication seeking to further the cause of individual freedom in this world
cannot help but be provocative. The reason is quite simple - the main ideology that
permeates our culture and daily lives is the belief that the individual is subservient to
society.

To hold a consistent moral viewpoint which upholds the rights of the individual,
inevitably creates head-on collisions with the status quo.

So, unless you hold a very consistent view of individual rights, you are quite likely to
be offended by some of the views expressed in this newsletter. And I make no
apologies for that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that in order for a publication such
as this to be worth reading, it must be thought-provoking.

Hey, but there is still some freedom in our world - and one such freedom is your
choice to subscribe or not. No arm twisting here!

Freedom is a catchall word. It rings though history as a clarion call - but,

unfortunately means different things to different people. So I'm going to define
freedom right now - so there can be no doubt as to what I mean when I use the term.

"Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e.
100%) control over his own property." That quote, by Andrew J. Galambos, covers
all bases. One only needs to define "property" to complete the picture.

Most of us think of property as just "things" we own - like a house, a car, a CD

collection. And sure, all such things are property. However, at its base, the most
fundamental property, your primary property, is your own life. You own your life. It's
your property. And if you don't agree with me - then just ask yourself, who owns it if
you don't?

But assuming you agree that your life is your own property, then it follows that all
other personal property derives from that fact.

Your car is your property, because you exchanged money you earned for it. The
money you earned is a representation of a certain quantity of your life's effort. You
work, you earn money. So the tie-in between your money and your life is very clear.
So, most of the things we call property are things we purchase with money we have
earned - during the expenditure of personal effort.

Property can also be intangible. A thought can be your property. A book you write is
your property. A new breakthrough idea you may have is your property. A song you
write is your property. In fact, anything that arises out of your life, your effort, your
mind - is your property.

So, back to the definition: To be free means to have 100% control over your own
property. You'll notice it doesn't say you have the right to the property of others. The
definition provides for everyone to enjoy this same right, and as a result, there can
be no exploitation, and no expropriation of each other's property. Not in a free
society.

289
 The Road To Freedom

The only way you can be parted from your property - morally speaking - is if you part
with it, on terms you agree on, voluntarily.

Such is the basis of all trade and commerce. We enrich our lives by trading our
property. Many of us trade our time (our property) with someone else (an employer),
and receive money in exchange. We can then use that money to exchange it for the
things we want - which then become our property.

So a free society is one in which property rights are upheld - and in which all
property exchanges are done on a voluntary basis, whether sold, traded or given
away. From this, one can easily see that we do NOT live in a 100% free society.

Just some examples:

Your income is taxed - for the purpose of redistributing it to other people. Now
unless you have voluntarily agreed to this, then your property is being stolen.

You could go to jail for taking certain illicit drugs. That's another violation of your
property rights. Remember, you own your own life, and therefore your body - so only
you have the right to decide what you can consume.

You can be fined for not wearing a seat belt, and once again, your property rights
are being violated. Why? Because it's your life and only you have the right to decide
on whether you will wear a seat belt or not.

You could be drafted into the army - to be sent off to a war. No free society would
permit such a violation of property rights.

I could go on, and on. The list of property rights violations in modern society is
forever getting longer. And each new violation sets in motion a new trend, a new
acceptance of such violations.

If your goal is to be free - free to live how you want; free to make as much money as
you want; free to say what you want; free to do business how you want - then you've
got an uphill battle on your hands. And it's a battle that can only be won when you
have a clear idea of your rights, a clear idea of what justifies such rights - and a clear
strategy for protecting your rights.

To be "sovereign" means to be king of your own domain, master of your own

destiny, owner of your own life. To become sovereign is a worthy goal for any one.
And I invite you to travel that road with me.

David MacGregor
http://freedomconfidential.com

290