If you believe that agorism is required to replace the state with market anarchism, then it behooves you to immerse yourself in the world of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is spearheading the voluntary marketplace in ways never before seen. Consider the Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange.

The GLBSE has existed for roughly one year. In its infancy it was designed to be a fully anonymous securities trading exchange. Unfortunately, it was not intuitive for Bitcoin neophytes to participate in due to its emphasis on encryption. The difficulty in navigating GLBSE 1.0 made it prohibitive even for myself. For this reason I never paid it the attention it deserved.

Enter GLBSE 2.0. A site redesign and respect for simplicity lured me in to take another look. As a non-registered observer I felt there were many features that were off limits to me. So, I decided to create an account considering it was free to join. I’m glad I did because it helped me to fully appreciate the significance of the stock exchange. Yes, agorism is alive and well!

Having a small number of Bitcoins in my wallet I decided to purchase a security. There were many companies to choose from, however. In fact, anyone can issue securities on the exchange. This simple feature alone will act as a great equalizing force in the world of finance. No longer must a company have millions of Dollars of assets and revenue to become publicly traded on the open market. The little guy is now afforded the same opportunities.

After having done a few hours of research I settled upon a company whose stocks trade for as little as 1.5 BTC, yet pays weekly dividends of roughly 0.023 BTC. That’s a nearly 2% weekly return on investment!

I purchased one share a week ago with ease and was credited my dividend earnings into my account balance a few days later. The entire process was not only very simple, but cheap! The fee I paid GLBSE for my one purchase amounted to approximately $0.03. TD Ameritrade eat your heart out! No longer must individuals pay prohibitively high fees to trade small values of stocks.

So, considering that in time the GLBSE will pose a serious threat to the Wall Street establishment we can expect offensive maneuvers from FedGov. Fortunately, the proprietor of GLBSE understands the threats posed by the state and seems to be taking all possible precautions to protect against a full-fledged attack. He has neither registered, nor intends to register, GLBSE, preferring instead to operate without permission. The website has servers in multiple countries around the world and is backed up in many locations. The owner is also prepared to operate in the darknet, such as Tor and OpenNIC if need be. Simply put: the Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange is here to stay.

As anarchists we should understand that our money is not safe or ethical when invested in Wall Street. However, as capitalists we understand that stock markets are a cornerstone of capital formation and wealth creation. And as agorists we should be working tirelessly to create alternative institutions. Therefore, we should be extremely pleased that we now have our very first agorist stock market!

I’ve been thinking about this since Ofer Nave spoke in the Agorist Panel at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum this year. He drew a distinction between sustainable and unsustainable counter economic activity, but predicted a series of tipping points when more unsustainable activities become sustainable as the counter economy grows. He also made an economic point that in the current market it makes more sense to spend dollars than silver currency. Greshem’s Law suggests that when legal tender laws exist, if a merchant accepts silver and paper it’s in the customer’s best interest to spend paper and horde silver. But, agorists still spend silver against their economic self-interest out of what Ofer called “irrational exuberance,” or passion for liberty. I have a similar concept that I call the “entertainment premium” on activism.

There is an axiom libertarians use to talk about government spending; that which is economically unsustainable cannot endure. This applies to liberty projects too. I’m concerned that if our liberty projects are sustained by irrational exuberance, and not by actual economic incentives, these projects, maybe the movement itself, is unsustainable without the zeal of converts, because eventually the enthusiasm bubble pops. Even communism works for the first generation, because the labor force is motivated to work by the irrational exuberance to prove the concept. But the second generation has no such enthusiasm. They are motivated only by the actual economic incentives, of which there are none. Lots of revolutions rise and fall based on this dynamic, but I want more for our movement.

Something happened to me recently that indicated this topic needed exploring. There’s a videographer from which I often use photos and videos for blog posts. I make some small coin from blogging so I asked to make a donation to his work. He was shocked, and said no one had ever offered. This is a guy with professional equipment who flies around the world to document political activism. If his video work is all out of pocket it will always need to be subsidized by other income.

In a free market profit means sustainability and growth. So if we want sustainability and growth for the liberty movement we’ve got to figure out how to make it profitable. Part of the responsibility falls on the activists to seek strategies of activism which can be sustained, but another part falls on the supporters of the projects. Sometimes living our values means buying a little less candy and video games. It means being as principled in our economic decisions as in our actions. So, I contacted the activists behind some of the liberty projects that I support to hear their thoughts on the subject.

Agorist Business

Mandrik of George’s Famous Baklava was one of the first people I contacted. He was also on the Agorist Panel at the Liberty Forum, and he’s something of an agorist rockstar, being one of the only full time agorists. He wrote:

“My first job was working for my family’s restaurant. I always considered myself a hard worker and it carried over into my corporate job, but I never received the appreciation I was looking for. I was constantly trying to climb the corporate ladder. No matter how hard I worked it was more about who liked you. You had to play the game and I hated it.”

Since 2009 he has sold baklava at mandrik.com. Starting next month he’ll be selling low carb, gluten free almond cookies too. He cooks at liberty festivals, and works as both a personal chef and housekeeper for personal clients. Mandrik’s primary strategy for sustainability appears to be working like a dog.

It’s truly remarkable if you think about it. Mandrik makes his entire income, puts food on his table and a roof over his head, through voluntary, tax-free, exchanges. Best of all his conscience is clear of all the atrocities committed by the State that the rest of us are paying for. Supporting his work doesn’t even require any sacrifice or generosity on your part. All it requires is that you eat some delicious food. I’ll never order baklava from anywhere else, and I’m eager to try his new almond cookies.

Mutual Aid

Fr33 Aid, founded by Teresa Warmke, is one of the only non-profit liberty projects I’m aware of. It’s an organization of volunteer medical professionals who demonstrate the value of mutual aid as an alternative to government services. They primarily educate people about CPR and offer first-aid at liberty festivals. She wrote:

“Fr33 Aid will sustain as long as our donors and volunteers are willing to keep it going. We’re happy to be as different as possible from government organizations, including in our practice of only spending money we have. There is much more we could do if we could afford to pay our staff and start some of the other projects we’ve considered. Meanwhile, we’re all volunteers who have chosen to spend money on programs rather than taking salaries.”

Among their future plans is to begin offering effectiveness data and critical reviews of healthcare products, competing with the FDA, and eventually growing into a chapter-based global organization where members can organize their own local projects. And all the while they talk to people about healthcare in a voluntary society and help people to see we don’t need to depend on the State to keep us healthy.

In the beginning Fr33 Aid ran in the red in the sense that those who donated the startup capital for equipment and medical supplies wanted to be reimbursed, but today Fr33 Aid’s operating budget comes completely from donations made at fr33aid.com. Volunteers keep everything running even when donations are low. Now Fr33 Aid stays in the black by not over spending, but to grow and launch new projects fund raising is a constant necessity.

The constant refrain of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is that we don’t need State aggression in the medical field because doctors could operate in a free market much more efficiently and charitably that they do in the current bureaucratic labyrinth. So, I think it’s important not only to make the economic argument, but to demonstrate it in our actions.

Animated Film

Pasha Roberts is the mastermind behind the Silver Circle Movie which has been in the works since 2009. Now in the final stage of production and ready for a sneak preview at PorcFest this year, and a theatrical release in August. Silver Circle is an animated, feature-length, independent film set in 2019 after a the economic collapse, and a power grab by the Federal Reserve. In the film a group of Rebels take on the Fed, and hopefully educate audiences about honest money along the way.

With a production budget of almost $2 million the project required significant investment capital from Pasha at the outset, but it also subsists on donations, the sale of anti-Fed shirts and stickers and the issuing of their own silver Rebel Rounds like the alternative currency the Rebels use in the film all available at silvercirclemovie.com.

The Silver Circle Movie is essentially an entrepreneurial enterprise and Pasha says he’s “cautiously optimistic” about a return on his investment. The long-term vision is to launch a series of films following the Rebels though other anti-authoritarian adventures. He hopes this will lead to a new genre of explicitly liberty themed films from other studios that reach audiences outside the liberty community, but all that depends on the success of the first film.

Silver Currency

At the Liberty Forum the big names in silver currency were Shire Silver and Don’t Tread On Meme.

Ron Helwig was also on the Agorist Panel discussing his monetary model, Shire Silver. As a Regional Currency Officer for Liberty Dollar before the raid, to Ron “sustainability” also means having a strategy to avoid State aggression. To combat centralized power Ron utilizes decentralized power. The Shire Silver model avoids both a vault and the high cost of minting. Ron embeds measured weights of gold and silver strips into wallet sized laminated cards. This way the value is physically distributed and there is no central hub to raid. But he’s also decentralized manufacturing, so even if the State shuts Ron down, Shire Silver goes on without him, because everything is in the public domain. Instructions on how to launch your own Silver Trading Cards are published on his website: ShireSilver.com.

The Silver Dime Cards at DontTreadOnMeme.com are similar in that they are laminated cards, but they avoid minting costs by laminating existing silver Liberty Dimes minted between 1916 and 1945. They also include a QR code leading to WhatIsThisCoinWorth.info where you can download a SmartPhone app that calculates value of various alternative currencies. Drew Phillips wrote:

“I have been selling the cards slightly over spot price for a ‘profit,’ but if I were to take into account all the events I have gone to promoting the cards it’s a losing venture for sure. What the cards are worth does not compare to what it’s worth for me to go around the country to promote sound money.”

Podcasts

Of all the liberty projects, I am primarily a consumer of podcasts. So, I try to make modest donations to most of the podcasts I listen to. I contacted the hosts of Free Talk Live, Porc Therapy and Declare Your Independence to get their thoughts on sustainability.

Free Talk Live is probably the most successful liberty show there is. The podcast is free, and the radio program is syndicated to over a hundred stations. It’s also the flagship program of the Liberty Radio Network at lrn.fm which hosts a wide variety of other liberty podcasts. Both of the show’s primary hosts, Ian Freeman and Mark Edge, earn their salary from the program making them full time liberty activists. Like many radio shows, the hosts earn their salary from advertisers, but the key to their growth is the donation based AMP Program which stands for, “Advertise, Market and Promote.” Ian wrote:

“AMP is critical to the success of Free Talk Live. Early on, it enabled us to become known in the talk radio industry by attending conventions and advertising in the premier publication, TALKERS.  Without it, we’d be nowhere close to where we are today.  For a paltry $3 per month, we can deliver more new liberty-oriented people to the movement per dollar than any DC think-tank or political campaign can.”

The AMP Program also gives listeners access to high quality, commercial free archives, a toll-free AMP-only call in line, and an AMP-only forum on the message board. Find out more at FreeTalkLive.com. So, Free Talk Live is a fully sustainable liberty project, at least until Ian gets arrested for tax evasion. But even then, the show has many secondary hosts who can fill in when a primary host is in jail.

Porc Therapy is one of my personal favorites, especially when I’m looking for a much needed break from politics. It’s a pro-freedom relationship talk show that applies libertarian principles in our personal lives. The show’s host, Stephanie Murphy wrote:

“I have a policy of investing any money I got from donations or ad sales back into the show to help it grow. I fronted the money to buy some professional studio equipment when it switched from a podcast-only format to a live show, and over time I was able to pay 100% of that money back. I have been able to make several upgrades to my equipment over time, hired other people to produce original music and graphics for the show, purchased printed materials to promote the show, and have been able to fund travel to events where I will do live shows. For now it is not only self-sustaining, but growing.”

The show is available at porctherapy.com, and from the sound of it it’s run on Stephanie’s own passion for broadcasting, and the meaningful relationships she has formed through calls, emails and online chats with listeners.

No one exemplifies exuberance like Ernie Hancock, and based on its web presence FreedomsPhoenix.com looks like a liberty media empire. They’ve got a forum, a newsletter, an E-Zine, a daily radio and video broadcast, blogs, archives, and an online store. Plus it’s all translated into over a dozen languages. Freedom’s Phoenix looks like it runs in the black from the outside, but the first response I got from Earnie was, “We don’t make no stink’n money.” Yet Freedoms Phoenix stays up and running, and it looks like a tremendous amount of time and passion are put into the project… or maybe Ernie never sleeps. He wrote:

“FreedomsPhoenix has positioned itself to have a good chance to benefit from the economic shift as it evolves. I think we are at ‘Peak Government.’ The economic opportunities that will make themselves available will likely be understood only by the freedom oriented individuals. But only our Credibility, Honesty, Accuracy, Value etc. will give us any kind of advantage. The financial benefits come later, and they’ll be benefits that are shared with my fellow human beings without initiating force upon a single individual.”

From the sound of it Freedom’s Phoenix is preparing for the economic melt down. Ernie’s strategy for sustainability is the most long term of all. He’s investing in assets that will be valuable after the collapse, not just silver but human capital. Why worry about financial sustainability in an unsustainable financial system?

Conclusion

Even if you’re engaged in different types of activism, I think it’s important to support projects you want to endure. One of the ways I do this is by separating my agorist income into an activist fund. I have a regular full time job doing graphic design, and I have a separate income from the counter economy doing graphic design, blogging and online marketing. That money always goes back into the counter economy, sometimes as donations to other liberty projects, and sometimes by buying a tray of baklava or another agorist product.

Most of us have one foot in the counter economy and the other in some day job. We’re like superheroes. It’s like having a secret identity. I’d like to figure out how we put both feet in the counter economy. I’m of the opinion that agorism provides the most sustainable strategy because it’s rooted in mutual self interest and not self sacrifice, and it combines the successful strategies of all these projects. Agorists can use a sales model or a donation model. They can accept fiat paper or any alternative currency. But perhaps most importantly successful agorism depends on the relationships and human capital that will sustain us even through a complete economic collapse.

You’ve heard the defense uttered many times before: “I was just doing my job.” It’s a quote that infuriates lovers of liberty and justice and is often the refuge of scoundrels. But it tells us something important about human nature that should not be missed by activists; jobs are more important to people than freedom. And if you think that is only the case for corrupt police and military, think again. It is true for the great many of us, including anarchists. The sooner we understand this near-universal human characteristic the better we can focus our activist energies.

I see there as being two categories that people fall under. There are those that are willing to risk your freedom to protect their own job, and there are those that are willing to risk their own freedom to protect their own job. The common denominator between all individuals is their desire to protect their own job. And it is precisely this point that we should be concerned with instead of our differences.

Consider the police and military. They violate the non-aggression principle on a daily basis. If ever they decide to stop infringing on the freedom of others, they will be fired. Case in point the Jefferson Memorial Dance Party. Watch this video one more time with this thought in mind: the police in this video are threatened by peaceful behavior. Their fear is not of violence, but of unemployment.

Please do not think I am trying to justify their behavior. I’m merely attempting to better understand what motivates us.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. – Sun Tzu

On the other side of the coin you have individuals that will risk their own freedom to protect their job. Consider those who trade contraband for a living. They are essentially risking life-sentences behind bars to maintain work for themselves. Often times these people are criticized for not finding work that isn’t illegal or risky, and the liberty community is quick to aid in their defense. Yet, the liberty community is hypocritical towards police and military; demanding that they give up their jobs for something better.

Even most libertarian anarchists are reticent to give up decent and high-paying white market jobs for low-paying gray or black market jobs. So, the beat goes on. And if you think things will change through political rhetoric you’d be wrong again. When people like Mitt Romney campaign on providing jobs they are all but assuring themselves popular victory over somebody like Ron Paul, who campaigns on freedom. We need to get it in our heads that jobs trump freedom… every time.

So, where does this leave us as activists? It is clear to me that we have no other choice but to offer people better paying jobs in the underground than can be provided otherwise. The economic depression is perhaps our greatest opportunity to alter the paradigm towards that of freedom. If governments could provide massive prosperity and tyranny simultaneously, freedom wouldn’t stand a chance. Fortunately for freedom activists, tyranny precludes wealth creation.

Attention: The world is coming to an end! Buy gold, guns, and gas masks!
The doomsday, Armageddon, impending collapse, mass starvation and war-lording reality, coming to a city or neighborhood near you, is a reoccurring theme among many pro-liberty websites. Whether it’s selling guns, gas masks, and water purification tablets or advising people to place their money into strange and obscure investment vehicles (e.g., nickels), doomsday moneymaking schemes abound throughout the liberty movement.

The yellow journalistic technique of exploiting doom has severe consequences. Not only is the doomsday premise false but its affirmation is damaging to our psyche. It corrupts the virtues of freedom and is counter-productive to the anarcho-libertarian movement. It’s time for a reality check.

Is there any reason to believe the end is coming soon?

In our lifetimes, the answer is no. It’s all about time. The greatest of all empires, the Roman Empire, collapsed over many centuries, not in a few days, years, or even decades.  Most living in Rome were not aware of the decline in real-time.  How could they?

Twenty years ago, my roommate commented that we were living in the decline of the American Empire.  She was most likely right, but twenty years later the change has been practically imperceptible. In terms of economic and political freedom, nothing has really changed. The most glaring exception is the TSA. In market driven areas (e.g., technology, communication, and medicine), things have vastly improved.

Furthermore, the passing of generations adds to the loss of perspective. If you’re four years old today, going to the airport and being molested by the TSA is nothing new to your life experience and hence, you have nothing to compare. God knows how many things I have taken for granted in my lifetime (e.g., income taxes) because I’ve never known any different. Funny, we often laugh at the elderly for their ideas and experiences, yet they are true witnesses of change. Sadly, most have passed on before any of us are old enough to know the right questions to ask.

The point is you can’t plan for doomsday because the process is slow and it takes place in the form of erosion, not catastrophe.  When the demise finally occurs, it has taken so many years to complete that those who might notice have died; others are acclimated from birth and have made the necessary economic and psychological adjustments. Of course, you can leave all your gold, guns, and gas masks to your great grandchildren.

Is it healthy to hoard and hideout?

Do I really want to live in a cave?   Let’s face it, for much of the so-called prepper (survivalist) movement the answer is yes.  I’m all for people taking on the responsibility of self-protection and storing extra provisions for an unexpected emergency, but that is not the psychology of many in this movement.

If you believe in stockpiling weapons and food, among other things, you’re not about preparedness. You’re about paranoia. Your psyche is damaged because you have bought into the marketing hype and propaganda that states it’s us against them. It’s survival of the fittest. You have embraced the idea of excluding people and keeping others out; hoarding resources and protecting your interests against all others, with violence if necessary, all the while crawling in a hole and waiting for…what?

Why wait?  If the U.S.becomes so inhospitable, leaving would be the intelligent choice.  Seriously, do you think stockpiling weapons is going to stop the military might of the U.S.?  Ask the Branch Davidians or the Weaver family of Ruby Ridge how well that worked out.

Will the dollar become worthless?

It is worthless by the standards of 1900. As I mentioned above, time makes this imperceptible to most. No doubt, the value of the dollar is declining, but this process has been going on since the inception of the Fed (almost a hundred years ago). In the late 70’s and early 80’s, the prime rate was increased to 21% to fight hyperinflation. It would be foolish not to consider the possibility of that happening again.  Gold, silver, Bitcoin and other alternative currencies are worth considering as a form of insurance but anything more is ridiculous.

What damage are doomsday promoters doing to the cause of liberty?

Though I am sure there are some well-meaning individuals peddling the doomsday scenario, the clear motivation of many is to make money. Manipulating the fears of common folk, anarcho-libertarians, and the parasites of freedom (i.e., Nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, the Islamophobic, ethno-centrists, etc.), the damage to the credibility of our movement is far reaching.  The most notable casualty is the Ron Paul campaign.

Ron’s newsletters, some written with an extremist, us-against-them survivalist theme, have come back from the past to haunt his campaign.  Even though Ron did not write the newsletters, his name was associated with this moneymaking scheme. The result has tarnished and politically damaged the liberty movement as well as put into question the character of Ron Paul.

The outcome of the doomsday marketing technique is driving people away from the message of liberty, not towards it. Buying gas masks, guns in mass, and other extreme measures are not going to win the hearts and minds of those open to our ideas but hesitant due to the extremist (doomsday) vision many in the liberty movement profess.

If non-libertarians view us as terrorists or anarchists (i.e., Galleanists, Occupy movement, or Timmy McVeigh), then government will grow, not shrink. Our movement will not be the savior of liberty but the deliverer of tyranny.

Don’t misunderstand my message. I think preparing for the future is a worthy undertaking. Learning to use a weapon as the last resort of self-defense, having extra canned goods and water on hand in case of emergency or hedging the value of your savings by purchasing some gold, Bitcoin, Aussie dollar, etc.– all these things have merit as a form of insurance.

Stockpiling gold, guns, and gas masks to prepare for the collapse of the U.S., something that will take centuries to complete and only historians will recognize, is a waste of time and resources. Time and resources that would be better spent by promoting our ideas and encouraging people to join our movement, not out of fear but out of hope.

Of course, I could be wrong and the one in a million apocalyptic vision could come true. In the meantime, as an anarcho-libertarian, I’ll try to enjoy life and spread the virtues of liberty to all who will listen…without carrying a gun or wearing a gas mask.

__________________________________________________

Bruce Jay is editor at the Daily Anarchist.  If you have comments, suggestions or an interest in writing for DA (please send ideas or introductory paragraphs and we’ll talk),  email: bruce_jay@dailyanarchist.com

It’s true that Daily Anarchist has seemingly transformed into the Daily Bitcoin blog. I’ve begun migrating my sponsors to Bitcoin advertising platforms. I’ve kicked out Paypal as an accepted form of payment for my store’s merchandise, choosing to only accepting Bitcoin. I pay my contributors in Bitcoin instead of the Dollar. And many of our articles focus on exciting developments in the Bitcoin economy. But it’s all for good reason. Bitcoin is the global currency of the future. It empowers the market in a way like never before and has afforded me a great deal of independence. I look forward to the day when I have completely replaced the Dollar with Bitcoin.

I am sure Daily Anarchist has many readers who are not tech savvy. And I am sure that upon first glance Bitcoin looks overwhelming. The effort put into learning about Bitcoin far outweighs the benefits. Fortunately, there is a new set of very short videos that will not only break down Bitcoin for the lay person, but will help him or her understand how great the benfits of Bitcoin are. These are a work in progress and I will attempt to add new videos to this article as they are created. Consider using this page as an outreach tool. Enjoy!

Having been under house arrest for some time, Assange has decided to produce weekly interviews with global movers and shakers. It’s no surprise to me that RT has decided to air this series. The state-funded Russian news station has an ironically libertarian bent and prides itself on its contradistinction to the mainstream media. Enjoy this first of many interviews to come!

The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo is an in depth study of mankind’s capacity for evil, beginning with the complete treatise on the Stanford Prison Experiment, taking us through numerous similar studies on obedience and the corrupting influence of authority, and ending with the atrocities committed by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib. But as I was reading, I kept thinking of Ron Paul and the ongoing controversy between the libertarians and anarchists as to whether supporting his campaign is the right thing to do. I think this book has settled the issue for me, as I’ll explain as we go on. Although I started with the paperback, I really can’t sing the praises of the audiobook enough. A significant portion is actual transcripts from the experiment, and the narrator, Kevin Foley is a skilled voice actor that turns the book into a radio play with different voices for each character.

At first I was skeptical because Zimbardo was an expert witness for the defense of these soldiers, but his thesis is redeemed somewhat by acknowledging that those obeying authority are fully morally culpable for their actions. His intention is to show that systemic forces, what he calls “situational power” can transform otherwise conscientious people into authoritarian sociopaths. In the last part of the book he conducts a mock trial, prosecuting the entire command structure of the US military which made the inhumane treatment possible, even predictable. The line between collective guilt and individual guilt gets a little muddy, which makes interpreting it through a lens of individualist anarchy a little sticky, but incredibly valuable. Applied consistently Zimbardo’s conclusions about the corrupting influence of authority should apply as readily to the US Military as to any other coercive hierarchy, especially the State.

In 1971 the Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to study the psychology of the guard/inmate relationship. It is perhaps the most famous psychological study on authority next to the Milgram Experiment. By randomly dividing a group of similar undergraduate students, screened for psychological health, into “guards” and “prisoners” and conducting a two week long mock prison in the basement of Psychology department Zimbardo aimed to identify to what degree their identities and moral compasses could be supplanted by situational forces.

Guards were given uniforms, mirrored glasses, and wooden batons to establish status. Prisoners were dressed in smocks and addressed only by number. Guards were instructed only to keep a fixed routine, and to make the prisoners feel powerless. After a prisoner revolt on the second day, and a brief hunger strike, guards began to display cruel, even sadistic behavior. A system of punishment soon followed including, spraying disobedient prisoners with fire extinguishers, depriving them of bedding or restroom privileges, forcing them to go nude and locking them in “solitary confinement” in a dark closet. Then prisoners adopted submissive attitudes, accepting abuse, and readily following orders to inflict punishments on each other. They even engaged in horizontal discipline to keep each other in line. As Zimbardo explained, both prisoners and guards had fully internalized their new identities, transformed into perpetrators and placaters of evil.

The levels of cruelty witnessed in the experiment were so severe that it was halted after only six days. Zimbardo says now that it should have been halted sooner but his own judgement was compromised by internalizing his prison warden identity. The experiment worked too well, and Zimbardo began to prioritize the continuation of the prison over the ethics of the experiment. He writes of his own feelings of guilt, which kept him from publishing the full findings of the experiment for over 30 years.

Since then ethical guidelines have been enacted which prevent the repeating of the experiment. But similar experiments have been conducted, all with similar results, which Zimbardo goes into at length in the book. The most interesting finding, which I’d never heard acknowledged before, was that no experiment found any significant difference between the level of obedience in either gender. So, the “natural obedience” that theocrats often attribute to women is not expressed when tested. Instead, it seems that men and women are equally willing to murder an innocent victim if an authority figure tells them to.

In 2004 photographs of the torture taking place in Abu Ghraib hit the American media. Naked prisoners stacked in human pyramids, naked prisoners forced to simulate oral sex, and a hooded man balanced on a cardboard box with electric wires attached to his fingers that has become the iconic image of the torture. One guard sodomized a male prisoner with a flashlight, and another raped a female detainee. In many photographs a soldier is smiling approvingly for the camera. The photos were kept as trophies. The country stood in a shock and horror as the details came to light and many cried “how did this happen?!” But Zimbardo already knew, because he had seen it before. It was witnessing the cruelty at Abu Ghraib which convinced him it was time to publish the full results of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The instant refrain of the military was that these soldiers were ‘just a few bad apples’ but Zimbardo insists that their behavior was the result systemic forces from “an entire bad barrel.” Abu Ghraib had been used by Saddam Hussein for public executions, and when it was taken over very little changed. The name was kept the same specifically because it elicited such terror for the Iraqi people. The most striking evidence he presents of systemic evil in the military ranks were the findings of The Schlesinger Report, which was an independent panel to review Department of Defense detention operations. The report includes documented discussions of high ranking military personnel about the Stanford Prison Experiment and similar studies implying they didn’t have to give orders to torture because the research indicated the situation itself would produce torture.

The officers in charge of the prison had no previous experience running a prison, just like in Stanford. The soldiers charged with ‘maltreating detainees’ had no previous record of anti social or inhuman behavior (unless you count enlisting), just like in Stanford. And even though they repeatedly asked their superiors for instructions and standard operating procedures they were given none, and told only to maintain routine operations and to be creative… just like in Stanford.

What’s really disturbing about this is that most of us read these studies searching for ways to oppose evil and prevent it, but for those in power these studies apparently represent instructions they can use to maintain plausible deniability.

So, why do I say this has ramifications for the Ron Paul campaign? I’ve come a long way for a pretty incredulous punch line. But here it is. Let me start by saying that I love Ron Paul like family. No seriously. If he needed bone marrow and I was the only match I’d give it to him. My conundrum has been that even though I have philosophically accepted that democracy is an immoral system, Ron Paul always draws me back in to thinking about voting. If it were a simple race between Obama and Romney not voting would be easy, but Ron Paul challenges my integrity.

What Zimbardo has shown is that all of us, given the right circumstances, are capable of monstrous acts. So, why would I want to put a loved one in those circumstances? People sometimes call America “The Great Experiment.” In reality it’s another prison experiment. The only difference is we elect our warden. If Zimbardo’s thesis is correct it doesn’t matter whether the warden and prison guards are elected, appointed or selected at random. We often mistakenly think that evil people are attracted to power, but that’s not what the research suggests. The studies show that power draws the evil out of people. Even Zimbardo, a psychology professor whose life’s work has been opposing evil, was taken in by it when the systemic forces called for it. Viewed through this lens it’s entirely possible the ambitious promises of presidential candidates are made in earnest, but their priorities are changed by the office they hold. And I see no indication that this wouldn’t happen to Paul. He has remained remarkably resilient to evil as a Congressman. But Congressmen don’t have as much power as a Senator or a Governor, and even Paul plays the earmark game with spending bills. That’s not a condemnation of Paul. It’s a condemnation of the office. It’s a condemnation of power.

In my heart of hearts I would like to see Ron Paul resign from politics and begin a campaign of telling us all the dirt he has seen but was too much of a statesman to expose. I would like to see how his message changes unrestrained by electoral politics. In, short I would like to see the gloves come off.

What is clear to me from these experiments is that human nature is not good or evil, but essentially adaptive. If you take an otherwise good person and invent for them an evil situation they will adjust to their new circumstances, which was perhaps best expressed in an often overlooked passage of the Declaration of Independence:

“All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I don’t want a good man to run the prison. I want to abolish the prison system.

Time and again I read Austrian School economists dissing Peak Oil Theory. They likely do this because they have not taken the time to fully understand the theory behind peak oil. Instead, they get caught up in the doom and gloom predictions made by many proponents of Peak Oil Theory and the erroneous calls for some sort of government intervention to alleviate the matter. The problem with this dismissive attitude, however, is that by not acknowledging the validity of Peak Oil Theory, the Austrians lose legitimacy in the eyes of a large percentage of the population, namely the environmental left.

In my younger days I, too, dismissed environmental concerns such as air pollution and overfishing, because in the back of my mind any acknowledgment of such would seemingly destroy the validity of the free-market. Only after having missed many opportunities with environmentalists did I finally discover a way to reconcile free-market economics with the environment. The same can be said for many Austrian economists who fail to acknowledge the validity of Peak Oil Theory.

One recent example of Peak Oil Theory denial is a piece written by David Deming and published by LewRockwell.com. To be sure, I am not familiar with David Deming or his economic background. My apologies to Austrians if David is not a student of our school. This attack on Peak Oil Theory, among other articles, having been published by LRC and Mises.org does demand a response from at least one student of the Austrian School and proponent of Peak Oil Theory. I will now go line by line of David’s article and pick apart his faulty logic.

Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable.

True. For anyone who studies math, physics, or pretty much any other type of statistics or science, you’ll find that the nature of systems commonly take the form of a Gaussian(bell-curve). Although, it doesn’t have to necessarily be symmetrical.

The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable.

This is a loaded sentence. Whether or not the proponents of Peak Oil Theory advocate the use of renewable energy sources is moot. It has nothing to do with the validity of Peak Oil Theory. This is a smear attempt. Furthermore, he throws in the word “allegedly” as if solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are “allegedly” renewable. They are renewable. I don’t think there is any disputing that.

Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert’s model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil.

True.

Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions.

False. The theory does not rest on any assumptions about future demand. Regardless of whether demand skyrockets or plummets, the rate of production is destined to decline at some point. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong.

He is being extremely deceptive here. First, he writes about theories and empirical evidence, which is fine. But then he writes about false predictions. Predictions and theories are two totally separate beasts and he is trying to attack the theory of Peak Oil by way of false predictions. Example: Everyone on Earth will die(theory). Tomorrow, everyone will die(prediction). Two days from now when it is proven that not everyone is dead, will the theory then be proven false? The answer is no. Poor example, but you get the point.

Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn’t. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas.

Mere false predictions that add nothing of value to his claim that Peak Oil Theory is false.

The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors.

Is oil a static resource or is it not? If anyone can prove that oil is regenerated at a rate of any significance for human consumption then I will admit that Peak Oil Theory is wrong. But that hasn’t happened. By all accounts the reserves(including undiscovered) of oil within planet Earth are understood to be finite. This fact alone shoots dead his entire argument.

But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict.

How much oil can be exploited has nothing to do with the finite amount of oil that exists in Earth. The amount of oil that is exploitable in the future may change one’s predictions when Peak Oil hits, but it does nothing to disprove the Theory of Peak Oil.

The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors’ imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world’s top oil producer.

A nice history lesson that has nothing to do with disproving the Theory of Peak Oil.

For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve.

Again, these were predictions about what would be recoverable. The predicted amount that is recoverable has nothing to do with the amount of oil in existence.

World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high.

This is likely bullshit. I write “likely” because few people know for sure. There are only a handful of entities that have a true stock of global reserves. For example, there are many who believe that Saudi Arabia(the most productive OPEC nation by far) falsifies the true amount of reserves that they have. There is speculation that they overstate their reserves so as to intentionally keep the price of oil low. While one might think that Saudi Arabia would benefit from higher prices one must realize that the Saudi puppet King is beholden to the U.S. And the U.S. Federal Government does not want skyrocketing oil prices. There are also many other political considerations concerning the amount any OPEC nation may produce relative to others. In other words, politics are likely hiding the true quantity of global reserves. Even if petroleum reserves are at an all-time high it says nothing about the future of reserves. It is false logic. Example: Home prices are at an all-time high. We have nothing to worry about. Crash!

The world is awash in a glut of oil.

Bullshit. Even by official reports the amount of oil that has ever been discovered in Earth is equivalent to three Lake Tahoes. And half of that has already been consumed. I would not call that awash. Would you?

Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels.

Deception. Notice he uses the word resources here. There is a huge difference between sweet crude oil and oil shale, for example. Sweet crude can be easily extracted and yields a very high EROEI. Oil shale on the other hand is extremely difficult to extract. The amount of energy required to extract and produce usable oil from shale is relatively low to other forms of oil.

The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.

The resource base has not been growing at all. Oil is finite for all intents and purposes.

In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales.

And we’ll be lucky to net 200 billion of that.

At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that’s a 286-year supply.

If we are lucky to net 200 billion barrels of oil it would mean a thirty year supply for the United States. This is also assuming the current consumption rate remains stagnant. I will admit, however, that in this regard one could count this as increased oil production. But it does not take into account the amount of oil necessary to extract oil shale. The net aggregate of produced oil will, at some point, decline.

Nine years ago, I predicted that “the age of petroleum has only just begun.” I was right. The Peak Oil theorists, the malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.

Notice how he throws the Malthusians in with Peak Oil theorists? It is clear to me that there is a very large difference between food production(renewable) and oil production(non-renewable).

Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal.

Sustainability is a chimera? And this gets a pass from the Austrian School economists? Krugman would be proud! Not only does this line of thinking promote high-time preference but I find it laughable that he could write that “no energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable.” Unless he wishes to employ the strawman argument, I think it’s safe to say that solar energy is a reasonably sustainable resource.

In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable.

This is another prediction which has no bearing on the legitimacy of Peak Oil Theory. And as far as his prediction is concerned, if oil is our primary fuel for the next century it will not be because of its excellence as a resource, but because humanity is still burdened by the regressive beast called The State.

Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, “we can do this.” What’s stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.

Finally, something I can agree with!

To conclude, Peak Oil Theory is real. Many libertarian types are guilty of attacking predictions made by proponents of Peak Oil Theory instead of the theory itself. While I’m all for attacking predictions made by Peak Oil Theorists and their naive(or sinister) calls for government intervention, the refusal to acknowledge the theory of Peak Oil automatically disqualifies libertarians from the discussion table. A strong case can be made that much of what governs United States foreign policy and global finance is a result of Peak Oil Theory. It behooves libertarians to study Peak Oil Theory in earnest and steer the conversation towards free-market problem solving instead of turning a blind eye to the theory altogether.

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

Forbes has also run a series(1,2,3) of articles extolling the virtues of Bitcoin.

I’m always pleased to see Bitcoin receiving mainstream attention and bringing traditionally opposed parties together in the economic realm. Most Bitcoin users aren’t anarchists(and sadly most anarchists are not Bitcoin users). But many of its enthusiasts are being exposed to the Non-aggression principle in Bitcoin forums where other anarchists are quick to defend the natural consequences of private and anonymous money transfers – increased civil and economic liberties and the necessary breakdown of the state.

If you consider yourself an anarchist Bitcoin is arguably the most efficient way to convince die-hard statists that government is on the endangered species list. And this makes sense. Money is what makes the world go ’round. If we can convert the planet to free-market money the rest will follow suit.

In a corrupt and decaying world, conventional wisdom demands that the answer to our problems is to choose which bitter flavor of government we should endure. Many look to libertarianism as the sweet flavor of change.

There seems to be a plethora of supporters and critics who wish to wax eloquent on this subject.  Yet, the discussion always revolves around the utility of libertarianism. How would it work? Who would provide services like roads, schools, and protection? Who would help the needy? These discussions and critiques go on and on ad infinitum.

You see, there is a problem. Libertarianism is not a utilitarian theory. It’s not a political philosophy. Libertarianism is not a flavor or type of government. On the contrary, it is something distinctly and inherently different. It is not proactive. It’s not a way of organizing society. It’s not hierarchical. It’s not a plan. It’s not a direction.

The heart and soul of libertarianism is grounded in ethics and is the foundation of a personal code of conduct.  Libertarianism is defined very simply as:

Free will within the parameters of property rights and non-aggression. 

However, within those parameters, libertarian ethics does not define our actions as ethical or moral.

For those new to libertarianism and those who have forgotten, this means I cannot violate (use violence against) someone’s property or person. At the same time, I have to be tolerant to the personal choices, beliefs, etc., of others — even if I find them personally disagreeable.

For example, if my neighbor is a bisexual woman who practices pagan worship and pursues a sexually amorphous (more than one partner) lifestyle, along with a penchant for drinking moonshine while listening to heavy metal and country music, then I am ethically obligated to respect her and her property.

This doesn’t mean that I have to like her or engage her in conversation. I definitely don’t have to follow her beliefs, choice of beverage, or embrace her musical tastes. However, as a libertarian, I am ethically obligated to respect her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; thus, what she chooses to do on her property and her personal choices are no business of mine.

For some reason non-libertarians, as well as some libertarians, find the observation of moral ambiguity distressing. It is this revelation that makes non-libertarians close their eyes and cover their ears in cognitive dissonance. It’s why many Objectivists (Randians gone wild) berate us and is the origin of the ill-conceived and ill-fated Paleo-libertarian (no fun at parties) movement.

Though critics and weak-kneed libertarians may disdain our moral ambiguity, this ambiguity makes us the most ethical, moral, open-minded, and accepting philosophy surpassing even Christian inclusiveness.  What I am suggesting is libertarianism and its ethical foundation has more in common with religion than politics.

We are the ultimate ethical standard. We accept everybody and exclude no one. You don’t have to ask for forgiveness to join us (as with Christianity) because within our ethical standard you haven’t done anything wrong.

What we worship is freedom. We grant free will to everyone, and our personal code of ethics is the principle of non-aggression (non-violence) towards others and their property. There is nothing more beautiful, pure, and virtuous then those ideals. In the simplest of terms, we believe in live and let live.  A world based on these ideals would be the closest thing to heaven on earth.

Anarcho-brethren and libertarians of all stripes, when you get up each morning and look out at a world that is less free by the minute; in that moment of disillusion and despair remember, as a libertarian, you stand for something greater than a mere political idea. You stand for a way of life — a personal code of ethics.

You stand for the respect of people and their right to exist as they choose. You stand for peace. You stand for tolerance. You stand for so much more. You are a disciple of the most virtuous of ideals.

Stand-up and shout! Let the world know…what it is to be libertarian.

I am, as of this writing, seventeen years old. I am also an Anarchist. Now do away with all your preconceived notions of a hooded teenager looking for a way to rebel against his parents. I came to be an Anarchist the same way most of you did. I did my research and saw that the state was not only woefully inadequate, but harmful and immoral as well. And as how I came to this conclusion? Well It seemed the only right course.

I was (and still to a degree am) raised in a moderate Christian household (and yes I am still a Christian, but Christian Anarchism can be explained in a later article perhaps) by two loving parents. They taught me to view the world with an open mind and a loving spirit. And with those words in my head, I set off on my own exploratory venture into alternate political and religious views. It was during this time (around age 14-15) that I discovered Libertarianism. Libertarian thought naturally drew me in with its ideas of a free market and free people. It promised me a world where war is fought only in self defense, and never to harm another. During this time I espoused my Libertarian viewpoint to any open mind within earshot. It was as if I had discovered a utopia and I had to let the world know.

But then that love fizzled. I saw my beloved Libertarians either not win elections, get mocked mercilessly or simply fizzle out and join one of the “Big Two” parties. I also saw that even a small government would oppress the people. It would still wage wars and levy high taxes and ignore its people. I looked all around for an idea that could so capture my mind as Libertarianism had once done. And then, by total mistake, I found it.

One day while doing research on political parties for a school assignment I happened upon a link to a site discussing “Anarcho-Capitalism.” “Ha, let’s see how these stupid anarchists plan to run a country sans Government,” I thought as I clicked the link. I spent the next three hours pouring over An-Cap thought and ideas. I was astonished at a system that not only had a way to work without a government, but thrive without one. That very next day, I expressed my concerted belief in the Anarcho-Capitalist system to a friend. He too became intrigued, and I hope to one day convert him to the cause.

I know I have a lot to learn, and I look forward to expanding my knowledge. But once again I feel that fire that I had missed for so long. I have long thought myself someone who used thought and reason in decision making. And on that day I saw why they call Anarcho-Capitalism “Reasonable Anarchism.” And as a Christian, I have found a system that does not oppress and wage war, but that encourages individual and economic freedom. It is a system not only based on reason, but tolerance as well. This is how I became an Anarcho-Capitalist. And I thank (my) God every day for it.

It’s no secret that strong encryption is virtually uncrackable and there’s no denying its growing popularity. Creating encrypted volumes with TrueCrypt or Gnome Disk Utility is great for securing portable USB drives and sensitive material within a file system. But that doesn’t solve a major security problem. On most consumer computers the majority of personal information about its users’ life and habits is stored completely in the clear. Even with a login and password, when unencrypted computers or hard drives are stolen, presumably all of the data stored within it is very easily accessible through any number of means. Laptops are sweet targets for burglars. Hard drives are espionage gold to dumpster divers. Beyond that, computer systems are very frequently targeted during police and military raids of all sorts.

The purpose of full disk encryption (FDE) is to lock down the everyday-files including documents, pictures, stored communications (email), memory and application caches, and so on. When a system is properly encrypted a passphrase is required (preboot authentication) before any booting may occur and, without that passphrase, the files cannot be read. TrueCrypt can create a fully encrypted Windows installation and the most recent version of Apple OSX (10.7) comes packaged with it’s own FDE. There are a few security vulnerabilities to be aware of, but in this writer’s opinion every computer system should use FDE as standard practice.

Linux Distributions

When it comes to Linux, a distribution (or “distro”) is an operating system package that usually includes a graphic desktop environment and any number/variety of additional applications. If you’re new to Linux, test drive different distros and desktop environments as they can vary greatly and it’s ultimately up to user preference. Most Linux distros can be booted from a live CD, DVD, or USB. UNetbootin makes it easy to create portable live USB devices with any Linux distro. Unetbootin even offers a comprehensive list of distros available for direct download. It’s very smooth and simple.

Backup everything before proceeding. Installing either Ubuntu or Fedora using the method laid out in this article starts with deleting everything on the installation disk(s). Once the disk partitioning begins there is no going back. Having access to another computer with Internet access is always a good thing when installing an operating system just in case something goes wrong with the installation media and you delete your only operating system. Doh!

Immediately following the installation of any operating system, run system updates to ensure that everything is up to speed with the latest stable software and drivers.

Ubuntu 11.10 Alternate Installer Download

Ubuntu 11.10 offers home folder encryption with the standard installation, which is a great feature, but full disk encryption is only available with the alternate installer. Because of potential problems with USB disks during the installation process, I recommend using a CD or DVD. After booting to the disc the process isn’t visually stunning, but it is straight forward. A network connection isn’t needed; selecting “continue” through most of the network screens will result in bypassing that setup until after the installation. The partitioner is specifically where the encryption magic happens, at the prompt asking “Guided” or “Manual” disk configuration. For maximum control, always choose “Manual.”

At the partitioner:

1. Delete the partition table for the devices that will be used. This will delete everything on the selected device, so make sure that you have everything backed up on external media.
2. Create a new partition for the boot files.
   • The boot partition must be unencrypted for the system to boot.
   • No more than 256MB is needed for this partition and it can be kept on a usb drive for extra security.
   • The file system should be set to Ext4 and set the mount point “/boot”.
   • Since this is the boot partition, “Bootable flag” should be “on.”
3. Create another partition to be an encrypted volume for the swap space.
   • The size of this partition varies depending on the computer. Personally, I make it around 2xRAM.
   • Set “Use as” to “Physical for Encryption.”
4. Create a third partition for the root file system that should be around 6GB.
   • Select “Physical for Encryption” on this partition, also.
5. The last space that needs to be defined is the home partition which will be encrypted by Ubuntu and decrypted at user log in. This is where documents, pictures, music, desktop files and downloads are stored.
   • Make this partition any size that you’d like.
   • Personally, I use separate physical disks for my home folder and system files.
   • Choose “Ext4″ at the “Use as” prompt.
   • Set “Mount point: /home”.

With the partitions created, the swap and root volumes need to be configured:

1. Select “Configure encrypted volumes.”
2. Then “Create encrypted volumes.”
3. Highlight and select the volumes that are listed as “crypto” by pressing spacebar, then continue.
4. Enter a strong passphrase for each encrypted volume. This is the passphrase that you will be required before the system will mount the volumes and boot.
5. Finish and write changes

Each encrypted volume will now have space available inside of it. To configure these volumes, select the space listed under each encrypted volume.

• Setup the first encrypted volume as swap space (choose this option under “Use as”).
• The second encrypted volume, which was previously reserved for root system files, should be set to Ext4 and set the mount point to: “/”.

The final configuration should contain:

• Encrypted volume > Swap space
• Encrypted volume > Ext4, Root (“/”) volume
• Unencrypted Ext4 Boot partition
• Unencrypted Ext4 Home partition.

With everything setup, select “Finish partitioning and write changes to disk” and continue through the remaining installation prompts.

1. Create a username and password (different than encrypted disk passphrase)
2. When asked to “Encrypt your home directory”, select “Yes”.
   • This actually encrypts the user folder inside of the home directory but not the home partition itself.
   • The first time that the first user logs in to Ubuntu, a strong key is generated and can be recorded at that time. This is different than the passphrase(s) used for the root and swap partitions.
3. At the prompt regarding GRUB boot loader, select “yes” to install it on the master boot record, changing this could result in your system not booting.

After rebooting, Ubuntu will prompt for a preboot authentication passphrase that’s needed to unlock encrypted system disks. With this method there will be a prompt for the swap disk and one for the system disk, even if the passphrases are identical. In my experience, there will be an error on boot that says: “No video mode active”, this is caused by missing font files and is nothing to worry about.

Logical Volume Management

Alternatively, or in combination with this method, the disks can be configured using Logical Volume Management (LVM) within a single encrypted volume that will only require one passphrase to unlock. With Ubuntu’s alternate installer partition manager, the process of LVM setup is slightly more complicated and there are various reasons to use either method. It ultimately depends on the desired system configuration and user preference.

Fedora 16 Download

Full disk encryption comes standard with Fedora 16 live CD installer and there are also many variations, called spins, to suit every system configuration and user lifestyle. The installation is much more user friendly with Fedora, versus Ubuntu, and it comes wrapped up in a nice GUI, as well. To install Fedora with FDE, boot from CD, DVD, or USB to the live desktop and locate the installer application. From there, it’s really just a matter of creating the disk partitions and checking the “encrypt” checkbox where applicable.

One of the first screens in the installer will ask what type of devices will be involved with the installation. “Basic Storage Devices” will work for most users, although installing with “Specialized Storage Devices” is pretty straight forward, too. Don’t be scared.

1. Sort through the standard installation prompts, pick a language and create a root password (not encryption related).
2. When the installer asks “What type of installation would you like?”, to maintain control, select “Create Custom Layout” and continue to the disk partitioning configuration.
3. In the next window, choose the target devices to use by placing them on the right side and select the device on which to store the boot loader.
   • Should be the disk where the boot partition is located.
   • For added security, this could be a USB device.

Encrypted partitions for the target devices will be built and configured on the next screen.

1. Start by selecting each device that will be used and click “delete”. This deletes the partitions that already exist on the device, gauranteeing a clean slate to build upon.
2. With clean disks, select the desired boot disk and create a 1MB partition – Set the file system to “BIOS Boot”.
3. Then create a second, standard partition on the boot device for the “/boot” files (about 250MB).
   • File System Type: ext4
   • The boot partition must remain unencrypted to ensure accessiblility to boot the system.
4. Create a standard partition for the swap space
   • Select “swap space” as the file system type.
   • Set the size however you’d like (2xRAM is usually good).
   • Check the “Encrypt” checkbox.
5. Create another standard partition with mount point: “/”
   • Check the “encrypt” checkbox.
   • If it’s only for system files, then 6GB should be okay.
6. Finally, create a partition with mount point “/home” and check the encrypt checkbox there, too.
7. Any number of encrypted partitions can be created here, they will all use the same passphrase and you’ll only be prompted once for preboot authentication.
8. Once the partitions are setup to your liking, click “Next”, write the changes to the disk and continue the Fedora installation.

When prompted about where to install the boot loader, go with the default setting (changing this could result in non-booting). At this point, there’s an option to add a password to lock the boot loader. This doesn’t encrypt the boot loader and also doesn’t actually work, in my experience.

Final Notes

Having a fully encrypted hard disk feels a little superhero like. With the boot volume on an external USB disk, you could take it a step further and install a “dummy,” unencrypted Linux desktop on your internal hard disk which will boot when the USB boot key is not present. It’s important to recognize that Linux distros often come with quirks of their own. Adding full disk encryption to the installation process does add another variable to consider if things go awry, but will usually not cause any additional problems.

The latest versions of both Ubuntu and Fedora are excellent, stable, and easy enough to use that there shouldn’t be any major problems with the installation process. However, it does ultimately depend on each individual system configuration. Internet searches for errors and symptoms usually yield great results for troubleshooting all things Linux.

Known issue: With Ubuntu and Fedora, I have run into a booting problem, which I believe to be connected to nVidia video drivers. Following an error about “nouveau” the system seems to lock but pressing any key on the keyboard reveals the preboot authentication prompt. The error is present with non-encrypted installations on the same system, the difference being that the password prompt causes booting to halt, waiting for input, while the non-encrypted system is allowed to move forward automatically. With Ubuntu, installing the most recent nVidia drivers resolves the problem completely. This appears to be somewhat rare, as I cannot find a solution.

At last! My wife and I have finally made it to the part of New Hampshire where we’ve long wanted to live. Before leaving California in the middle of summer, last year, the goal was to move to Grafton County where the population is sparse and the mountains and trees abound.

We couldn’t, however, head straight to Grafton County from California. As a nurse, my wife was unable to apply for jobs in her field in the state of New Hampshire without first getting her New Hampshire Nursing License. But before she could get that, she’d first have to establish legal residency in the state. Ridiculous, I know. But so is the sad state of affairs when dealing with heavily regulated industries.

So, with this road block in mind we set off for the city that offered the most job opportunities for entry-level workers: Manchester. It took six months for my wife to land a nursing job in the state, and the location of that job decided where we would live. We were willing to live anywhere in the state of New Hampshire but with the long-term goal of moving to Grafton County. Fortunately, that goal did not take long to realize.

During our time in Manchester I was easily able to find two separate serving positions in nearby restaurants and my wife found a sales position at Macy’s. We were also able to keep our overhead low by sharing a porc manor apartment with other free-staters.

To be honest, neither of us particularly enjoyed living in the city of Manchester. It hasn’t really got anything spectacular going for it except the enormous number of free-staters that also live there. This also benefited us little, however, as both of us are mostly home-bodies and relatively anti-social.

That’s not to say I regret having first moved to Manchester. If I could do it all again, I would. It offered us a foot in the door to the rest of New Hampshire and allowed us the opportunity to network with many like-minded activists.

Where we are now is much more our style. Franconia is a town of 1,100 nestled in the White Mountain National Forest. Its nearest sizable city is the state Capital, Concord, of only 42,000 people and is a distance of roughly 80 miles away. Despite the town being well situated for the SHTF, the entire area is thriving. Furthermore, for outdoor enthusiasts like us the mountains offer unlimited activities for every season, including my personal favorites of mountain-biking, hiking, and snowboarding.

If that isn’t enough, the town folk so far seem to be classy, educated, and open to anarchist ideas. Consider a personal anecdote as evidence. Shortly after our arrival to Franconia I had set out to look for work. I applied at a nearby restaurant for a waitstaff position that was available. I sat down and talked with the owner for an hour and a half. The entire time was spent not discussing my skills as a waiter, but of anarchism, Bitcoin, the criminality of the war of drugs, and the immorality of so-called Intellectual Property. This was a potential employer I was talking to, mind you. Sure enough I was offered the job. Within eight days of arriving in Franconia I had searched for, found, and started a new job at a fine dining establishment.

So, my plans for the foreseeable future include working off debt, preparing for worst case scenarios, spreading the message, and spending considerable time outdoors. I hope you’ll join me in the free state. I have every reason to believe that both the vocational and social opportunities here will exceed your wildest expectations.

As a young man I was naturally anti-war. The result of this made me suspicious of governments since it appeared that only governments could start large wars. But other than this tiny seed I was just a “normal” person. I grew up in a labor-union Democrat household but my grandfather had a small business and experienced difficulties caused by the local town codes, regulations, taxes and so forth. I thought that the founders of the USA had it about right; we needed a small government to keep the peace and protect us from foreign powers but other than that the government should let us live our lives. But I also thought we needed the state for still other things: after all, how could the USA have courts and lawyers without government? How could we have roads to take me to another state without the government having eminent domain? How could we get our mail? How could the young go to school? Who would hire and pay the police?

Over time, I read many different voices and realized that there were good arguments to be made for letting the free market handle many things that I previously thought could only be done by the State. An early influence was the economist Thomas Sowell. He taught me that what looks to be one thing on the surface may be something else entirely after you look at it critically (and the facts may not be what you read in that textbook). I read The Road to Serfdom
by economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek. By the late 1980s I certainly would have called myself a libertarian but I certainly still saw the need for a small government. We just needed to find a way to keep a “small” government under control.

Then one day in the mail came an offer to subscribe to the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. I think I even got a sample copy but I can no longer remember the exact specifics since that was so very long ago. I sent off the money and became a reader of the RRR. That was my introduction to the economist, philosopher and historian Murray Rothbard. I found that I agreed with him in many things, but his belief that we could have a country with no government at all left me thinking he was just dreaming of Utopia on that issue. Over the years, I kept thinking that I could find no flaw in Rothbard’s essays but I could just not imagine a stateless society. Then it struck me one day while reading an essay of Rothbard’s on one of our covert wars: it takes a state to do real harm!

Because of reading Rothbard I went and bought the great Mises work Human Action and read it. That was followed by Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. Long before I finished these two great books (and darn long ones!), I saw that the evil of the State far outweighed any small risk that not having a state would entail. These were followed by the other Rothbard classics, and my favorite to this day is The Ethics of Liberty, which I find to be the greatest work on political philosophy that I have ever come across.

In the end it came down to my inner being crying out that aggression was wrong. But the State is aggression! So, how can I be other than an anarchist? It started with Mises and Rothbard, but many other men and women helped me understand the simple fact that the state is our enemy.

Today, the Free State Project has achieved five percent of its goal to get twenty thousand liberty-minded individuals to move to the state of New Hampshire. These early movers, including myself, decided that they couldn’t wait to reap the rewards of living in close proximity to many of the world’s most die-hard libertarian activists. At the time of this writing there are nearly twelve thousand participants, or more than half, of the people necessary to spark a mass migration of libertarians to the “Live Free or Die” state.

If you’re uncomfortable with the lack of freedom in your life or the direction things are headed in your locality, consider moving to a state that liberty lovers are moving to, instead of fleeing from. I can attest to the many opportunities, both social and financial, that await you in New Hampshire. Sign up today!