CFI UK presents Chris French on The Psychology of Possession and Exorcism

Talk by Chris French, Professor of Psychology at Goldsmith’s College, about possession, exorcism, and speaking-in-tongues. 14th June 2014

CFIUK and BHA presents Beyond the Veil - CHRIS FRENCH on Spirits on the brain

Chris French - Weird Science: An Introduction to Anomalistic Psychology

Goldsmiths Department of Art MA Lectures 2014-15 Chris French - Weird Science: An Introduction to Anomalistic Psychology 2 February 2015 Ever since records began, in every known society, a substantial proportion of the population has reported unusual experiences many of which we would today label as “paranormal”. Opinion polls show that the majority of the general public accepts that paranormal phenomena do occur. Such widespread experience of and belief in the paranormal can only mean one of two things. Either the paranormal is real, in which case this should be accepted by the wider scientific community which currently rejects such claims; or else belief in and experience of ostensibly paranormal phenomena can be fully explained in terms of psychological factors. This presentation will provide an introduction to the sub-discipline of anomalistic psychology, which may be defined as the study of extraordinary phenomena of behaviour and experience, in an attempt to provide non-paranormal explanations in terms of known psychological and physical factors. This approach will be illustrated with examples relating to a range of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. Professor Chris French is the Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit in the Psychology Department at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society and of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, as well as being a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and a member of the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board of the British False Memory Society. He has published over 120 articles and chapters covering a wide range of topics within psychology. His main area of research is the psychology of paranormal beliefs and anomalous experiences. He frequently appears on radio and television casting a sceptical eye over paranormal claims, as well as writing for the Guardian and The Skeptic magazine which, for more than a decade, he also edited. His most recent books are Why Statues Weep, co-edited with Wendy Grossman, Anomalistic Psychology, co-authored with Nicola Holt, Christine Simmonds-Moore, and David Luke, and Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience co-authored with Anna Stone. Follow him on Twitter: @chriscfrench

An Introduction to Paranormal Psychology - with Chris French

Do ghosts exist? Is there any evidence for the paranormal? With millions believing in paranormal phenomena, it must either exist or be explained by psychological factors. Chris French introduces the field of anomalistic psychology, which aims to provide non-paranormal, scientific explanations of the seemingly unexplained.

Ever since records began, in every known society, a substantial proportion of the population has reported unusual experiences many of which we would today label as ‘paranormal’. Opinion polls show that the majority of the general public accepts that paranormal phenomena do occur. Such widespread experience of and belief in the paranormal can only mean one of two things. Either the paranormal is real, in which case this should be accepted by the wider scientific community which currently rejects such claims; or else belief in and experience of ostensibly paranormal phenomena can be fully explained in terms of psychological factors. Chris French provides an introduction to the sub-discipline of anomalistic psychology, which may be defined as the study of extraordinary phenomena of behaviour and experience, in an attempt to provide non-paranormal explanations in terms of known psychological and physical factors. Chris French is Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research focusses on the psychology of paranormal belief and ostensibly paranormal experiences, the belief in conspiracy theories and false memories.

The Reaping and Raping of Mind & Body ----- Carving out an Identity for myself that fits me

The year is 2018, and, the morning is early early Thursday, March 22nd. Here I sit a 31 year old, gender being male and sexual orientation being straight. How many people that have been following my story caught onto the fact that I am not in fact homosexual/gay after all? Well, if anyone did not catch any hints to the possibility that I was heterosexual.. surprise!! 

Before you start being triggered that this blog belongs to some Christian Fundamentalist supporting reparative therapy or someone whom identifies as an ex-gay cool down. I do not support reparative therapy or preying the gay away. Nor am I an an ex-gay I am Straight. I would never use the label of ex-gay because of the connotations. Besides it is not accurate to what I am now and that is what ones identity consists of. 

Yet, I can hear you still say that it makes no sense after all I did do consensual sexual things with men in the past. That sounds not very straight probably to you, but, this is not accurate to all straight people. It also fails to make the distinction between same-sex activity and actually being homosexual or even bisexual. I know I did not go into details, but, I never did grow not disgusted with the things Ivan Pjanic did to me. I always do to with other men.. I bat, I pitch, I throw, I thrust.. I never caught the entire time I was identifying as gay as well as bisexual. 

Some might say why do I not just keep the Bi label as it is more accurate given my history? I am not keeping it because bisexual does not define properly the type of man I am. Bisexual indicates I have an attraction to both sexes/genders which is not an accurate description of my sexual orientation. To say bisexual still makes it seem like I have not lost any appeal to top other men. When in matter of fact over time just that has happened. I have no desire in the least even if the man is basically in the sexual role of receiving of a woman. 

My genitalia literally is a limp noodle for men; I see good men as Bros and not receiving holes. Even the idea of topping does nothing to arouse me. As I have grown older my desires have turned out to be simply straight. Bisexual would not be a proper label and would be misleading for both myself and others. In addition, I need to carve out my own identity that fits me best. I cannot be using terminology that others push or try to pressure me to use. I need to do what is best for me and what is most consistent with me for a healthy mental state around sexuality/romance.  

I have over the passed little while had thoughts about what I would do if I were with a woman and people that knew me when I was identifying as gay saw me with them. What would they say? I realize now that such thoughts need to cease. Sorry, I am not gay and they will just need to accept that. My "gayness" or Biness was a way of dealing with being abused/raped and confused. I am not trying to say gayness or biness for others occurs for the same reason. Although I am sure I am not alone in having had some side trips in gay and bi-ville on the way to hetero-town. Also, even if gaynees or biness were an adaptation to abuse for all people it would not affect how the LGBT community should be treated. 

This is not an anti-gay story it is simply a story that does not fit the general narrative of orientation. I have written before about all the information we have on orientation. As well as changes over time; not from ex-gay therapy or preying it away. However, that it does often change over time for people in general. At least according to various long term multi year studies of the same people. I admit I have a self-interested reason for linking to this information as collected in meta-analyze by people like Lisa Diamond with the American Psychological Association. I linked it in previous posts as a way of defending that I exist. That heterosexuals exist that have had bisexual/homosexual activity and even identities in their past. 

In the end I am Christopher Matthew Murphy and that is whom I am. People need to accept me and respect my identity as a person if they want to be in my life. I will not let anymore people that want to abuse me or just use me in my life. That includes people that refuse to accept my sexuality. I am 31 years old, my gender is male and my orientation is Straight... accept it or get out. This has been my story and I hope you got something out of hearing it. However, in the end this post was all about me. It was about mentally taking my power back from all of those whom have used or abused me. 

The Reaping and Raping of Mind & Body ----- The Eyes Of A Stranger

The year was 2008, the band was Flat Brew and the song was "Eyes of a Stranger." In the year 2008 the song, "Eyes Of a Stranger" was written. It was written by Michael Segoiun and myself while drinking beers hanging at his place. This was our Folk Band and I had just been through a crazy time. A time that not many people know about, but, I was a part of it. Most people do not know I had just recently been victimized twice more. One I remember and the other one is a might have been, but, do not know.

Earlier that year I had been in a committed relationship with a woman named Cara M. I will not use their last name to keep their privacy. Our relationship was great; sexually and emotionally we loved each other very much at the time. However, it came to a dead halt one night after mentioning that I was at the time still identifying as Bi even though I was with her. I also mentioned that I thought her ex was cute. This was an extremely drunk conversation after a party we had gone to together. She broke up with me the next morning.

Very soon after like a few days I was online and a person whom I met somehow and somewhere showed up on my MSN talking about killing themselves. I talked them out of it and we began talking with one another. Eventually after talking for a a couple days we decided to meet and we kept meeting. Eventually we started get to know each other a bit better or so I thought. One day he came over to the apartment and he proposed we become fuck buddies essentially. However, what I did not know was this man was a user, and, he was also known for some very shady shit.

I said I would like to be in such an arrangement with him at time as I figured it would help me get over my ex. One of the first things he did though was start trying to convince me I was not bi, but, gay. This was sort of like his main thrust that he liked to bombard men with. He also it turned out did not use condoms. I have long sense gotten tested and I am fine, but, it was a dangerous game of unprotected same sex contact and mental fuckery. I would not do such a thing these days I know better. However, at the time I looked passed that.

The first thing he did was tell my ex girlfriend off and call her a bitch. Something which should have sent my antenna off right away, but, I was naive and young. This was the K Incident, but, I will not give out a name as to not give out his details at this time. The point is that he started a regimen of totally screwing with me and this included bathing with me claiming he was falling for me drawing little hearts. It included not hardly sleeping at all intentionally keeping me up too long to his advantage. While in this "relationship" it also started the process of emulation in someways as well.

By that I mean I was introduced to somethings that were new for me. Some of which was intended to make me gayer as said individual was big on showing me I was actually gay. Which included everything from trying to convince me when I was fucking my girlfriend I was thinking about men to influencing my choice of music/movies. One of this things he did was sit me in front of Devil Wears Prada numerous times. I guess the idea was feminize me more or something? He also would blare the same music every time we fucked. Essentially, he wanted to fuck, but, he did not want me unless I became a flamer or at least he attempted to make me as such.

I was not at this time in my life what one would call effeminate in the sense of being completely womanly. I had more of the Nerd/Geek thing going on and not the flashing gay thing. However, in between all my time with him which included keeping me from my Mom. A tactic I should have recognized from the keeping me away from others Ivan did. As well as all the talk about I fucked too much like a homosexual to go both ways. As well as numerous other methods of manipulation combined with simply sewing a seed of doubt in me. With all of this I came out of our buddies with sex arrangement when I realized I was being played. However, one of this tactics did work I was convinced I was gay and once again I came out of a relationship basically brainwashed about my sexual identity.

It did not help at all that because of emulating him in certain ways people all seemed to doubt I was Bi and helped convince me along with him I was just gay. At this time I decided to come out as gay to people, but, before that I was possibly drugged and raped one more time. I do not know if I was, but, I was at this older fellas house and he gave me this tea. All of a sudden I got very sleepy and I passed out on his bed. The next thing I know I am waking up on his bed hours later with not a single memory of what happened. However, I had this weird feeling of being violated somehow. Was I actually violated? I have no proof, but, I think it is possible.

At this same time I started having questions come into mind about my faith. I had always been an atheist for most of the time that I can remember. I am an atheist as I type this here as well. However, at this time I had some lapses into all kinds of New Thought and New Age Woo Woo and I sort of mixed it together with my own brand of Christianity. You could call it Chris brand Christianity if you will. I also got involved in Pride locally around this time and some of you may have met me for the first time around this point in my story. With no knowledge that I was a several time abuse victim, multiple rape survivor and that I would end up very much not gay at all.

I do not regret one second of helping with the Pride events at the time. Despite my realization as I started to drift away from the sort of hive mind consensus on certain issues that there was at the time at least a very cancerous side to some of the Pride crowd. I did what I did with the best of intentions of promoting individual rights for all people. It was also at this time that I started to second guess how left wing I actually was. Although I did not use a left right spectrum to describe my shift. I used the Nolan Chart of libertarian vs authoritarian, I first started hearing things like Free Talk Live and I absolutely loved things like "The Market for Liberty." I also bought the boxed set of Season One of Bullshit within this time frame.

I was noticing that my politics outside of supporting marriage equality and especially on matters of economics differed from most people associated with the Pride community. For this reason I tended to just keep my views to myself. However, I did give little details out here and there when appropriate. Yet, the eyes of a stranger looked back at me daily. Those eyes of a stranger no longer knowing the owner of them. So much had changed and so suddenly. Was it the real me? Or just some character based on a role I embodied from what others expected of me? Who's eyes are these I just don't know.

So, after much ado I come to writing this song again. It was quite a time for me a time before so much in my life. I wrote a song about eyes of a stranger looking back at me that I did not recognize. Who was that looking back at me I wrote. That confusion was even more pronounced as time went on and I started to wonder which parts were really Chris and which parts were performing a role people expected. Something that would last quite a while still in the story of my life.

The Reaping and Raping of Mind & Body --- Land of killed dreams and crushed souls ---

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Reaping and Raping of Mind & Body --- My Story Begins

Back when I was in high school I had social anxiety due to my sheltered upbringing without getting out near enough. It made for a bad combination already being anxious made me odd to other people and that made the bullying get worse. I never really had many friends when I was younger I was basically a loner and did not really have a place that I belonged. It was not that I was that odd persay in the sense that I would be considered having issues, but, I was just not good with other people. 

In Grade 10 I met a a guy named Ivan Pjanic in my Grade 10 English Class he sat in the seat next to me. He was a new face to me and we quickly began to somewhat hit it off somehow. It was odd for me as I usually did not hit it off with anyone at least that I was aware of. However, for some reason we did and we became friends. We really only hung out once that year that I can remember, but, we were friends. 

We continued our friendship throughout Grade 11 as well. In the meantime I was being loved by teachers and misunderstood by my fellow students. I was very mature for my age and the antics of the other students often seemed juvenile and stupid to me. I lived a half decent life albeit still the life of someone that was often the brunt of bullying and not so niceties. I am sure all the bullying did not help my confidence levels and I am sure it had an impact on my testosterone production during my teen years as well. 

During this time I became obsessed with Agatha Christie novels and classic movies in general. I also began writing my own stories and scripts. In addition, I continued to be an action junkie watching different movies on the weekends with my Dad. I had always enjoyed action flicks and it was something we both could enjoy together. We also both loved video games especially the RPG Genre which dear old Dad himself introduced me to with "Legend Of Zelda A Link to The Past." I saw my dad almost every weekend, we would watch movies together and chow down on chips and dip.

I was not aware at the time that my Father would soon grow much more distant and we would not see each other as much. I was not aware that in fact all male on male time would be consumed and reaped up by one boy Ivan Pjanic. To the point where he would be in constant contact with me even while I was with Dad. My body was with Dad, but, my mind was with Ivan. However, that was an entire year more away from me. For now everything was peachy keen and gumdrops for me and Dad. 

I would write my novels and scripts, but, mainly scripts. They were a mix between movies and plays. Although I wrote movies the most and I even used script writing software to do it. My genre of choice the heroic man that fights and wins against all his foes. He saves the day and he got the girl and I mean got all in there in the end. If you know what I mean in quite detailed descriptions. Sometimes he was a nice guy that also happened to know every single fighting style known to man. Other times he was rough around the edges, but, also soft inside tough guy. However, one thing that was certain he protected and he procreated. 

However, things seemed to change in Grade 12 when Mom moved in and married my now Step-Dad. I started becoming slightly distant from Dad because he did not come around all that often. Instead I would go to his place on the weekends. Or well to his Girlfriends place where he lived. We would still rent movies and I would still eat them chips/dips. However, there were often times when I could not see him as much. I filled that time with an ever increasingly extreme long distance relationship with the newly moved to BC Ivan Pjanic. To me Ivan Pjanic could do no wrong and he was quick to point out what was wrong with other people especially my Dad. 

I want to make a quick jumping off here to point out how awesome my Dad actually is. He has loved me like a rock my entire life and he would want to kill Ivan if he found out that he raped me when I was in BC. Yes, this is a story about literal rape by my at the time best friend. It feels hard to even say that word out loud, but, yes I have been raped. As well as near molested and several other things. It is not something I admit lightly as it is a matter I never tell anyone about. Yes, I am a victim or victor over a rape, abuse, and almost near brainwashing at the hands of two different men. One being Ivan and the other being later in life. 

As Grade 12 went on I became increasingly obsessed with Ivan Pjanic and it was partly due to not having any other friends around. One night late at night while Mom was asleep and the sound was muted Ivan asked me if I would do something different with him. He asked me if I would watch Porn and jack off for him on Cam over MSN messenger. He said he wanted to watch me get off while he got off. Being as I was at the time under the impression outside of Mom he was the only person in the world (except for Dad) that cared if I was alive or dead I did it for him. I took out my 18 year old manhood and tugged off for him. While watching videos of POV women having sex with me.

I had no desire to look at his dick while I tugged off which began to happen regularly. I would put on Straight porn and tug one off to the women having sex with me while he watched me getting off. It happened when no one was home or while everyone was asleep. One day he said something over MSN that was something I never thought of before which was essentially, "who needs to go find a girl you got me." He detailed how he wanted to experiment with me and how when he got off at night he looked at my manhood and not at videos of women. I could not say the same I always had straight porn on when I got off for him. It was not for him it was for the women in the videos that got me to that point.

A few nights later he sent me a link it was to Gay porn and he essentially said to jack to it. Seeing as it was my Best Bro I popped it on, but, keep in mind I had NO IDEA what GAY WAS. No, literally I never heard the word Gay or Lesbian once growing up in my home. Anything sexual was completely off limits we did not go there. I knew something about this Gay Marriage thing being debated, but, I did not know what they meant by Gay. Hell, I used too watch Queer Eye with Mom and not once did I know what Queer meant. So, I put on the Gay porn and did as he requested I tugged one out for him. Much to my surprise it was two dudes fucking and Ivan said he wanted to be the guy in the video. He wanted us to bring his fantasies of us doing sexual stuff to life. 

So, over time he would keep mentioning this to me in our conversations. To the point it became regular for him to talk about us fucking every time we spoke. Eventually I started figuring, hey, I ain't got no women why not just use his manhole instead. So, having been literally told that no one else cares about me, and at this point having my Dad painted as a monster for being busy in life despite loving me too death. Having been weaned off of even trying to make new friends. Been told that no woman would ever understand me like my Bro understands me. Being told that my safe place was with him, alone in BC I decided to move away from home. 

That is where the light and airy experimentation ideas in the head of a isolated loner ends. That is where the dark nightmare called my time in BC begins and where my story becomes worthy of a fucking Oscar. In my next post I will go over the incidents and my abuse at the hands of the man whom told me he was my safe place. Only to find I was safer at home and that is where I should have stayed.   

Voluntarism/Voluntaryism VS Anarchism

Previously I wrote about how I transitioned from anarchocapitalism and into a minarchist framework of government. In that article I mentioned that I moved from anarchism and closer to traditional Voluntaryism. I did so by embracing government was a necessary good and not an evil. That a limited government nation state was needed to make sure people were not left at the hands of predators. However, this might confuse some people because most of the time people mistake Voluntryism to be the same as anarchism. The fact that many anarchocapitalists call themselves voluntaryists does not help clear up confusion surrounding the topic. 

However, traditionally to be a voluntarism proponent has not meant to be an anarchist. Instead it has meant to believe that the government needs to stick to using defensive force and never initiating it on peaceful people. Which means that rather than anarchism it is minarchism which has the honor of originating the term of Voluntaryist. Auberon Herbert originated the term voluntaryism as a term for a government which defends all people's rights, but, does so while never initiating coercion on people. Specifically his input and originating of the term comes from the fact he was against all taxation which was coercive to fund any sort of state activities. Thus alternatively to coercive taxation he was for voluntary funding.  

For this reason it is not oxymoronic to support the existence of the limited government nation state and still be in the spirit of Auberon Herbert's original Voluntaryist philosophy. Even further than this Auberon Herbert strictly spoke against anarchism in all its stripes as it existed in his day. Stating that anarchism would not work because you need a law code and it needs to be enforced. Which you cannot do under anarchism. Which he would be correct about because anarchism has always meant to be against all hierarchy. Which means it has always been an anti-free market, an anti-capitalism and proto-socialism movement. As it has never supported the existence of private property in any form. From the very beginning the terminology meant to be against all archy not just states. 

The view of the world that anarchocapitalism supports does not match anything that any anarchist would ever favor. Thus the term anarcho is not even accurate to the view that one espouses. Part of the wanting to cling to voluntarism meaning anarchocapitalism is due to trying to separate anarchocapitalism from being anarchism in any sense of the word traditional anarchists would mean. Yet, it is still considered anarchy in the sense of it very well absent a law code could lead to the very chaos that name instills in people. One can be a Voluntaryist and push for a limited government over statelessness. In fact, it is the most inline with the original intention of the term and the creed it comes from. 

The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life

(1885) 

"Voluntaryism is the reconciler of differences.

It is the system of liberty, peace, and friendliness.

Under voluntaryism the state employs force only to repel force — to protect the person and the property of the individual against force and fraud; under voluntaryism the state would defend the rights of liberty, never aggress upon them.

It takes part with no sect; it belongs to no faction.

It persecutes nobody, and, except in the defense of self-ownership, restricts nobody, regulates nobody.

It refuses to force the opinions or interests of any one part of the people upon another part.

It refuses to fight for any moral view with the immoral weapons of force.

It compels no services, confiscates no property, takes no compulsory payments.

It refuses to be the instrument of any part in any country that places the power of the state above the rights of the individual.

It is opposed to all privileges, monopolies, and restrictions, and seeks to leave men free to shape their own lives in a free world.

It protests against all forms of salvation by force.

It believes that vast sums are annually wasted in constructing the great force machines of the state and in governing by force; it believes that if human faculties were universally set free, if men were emancipated from the burdens of taxation and official interference, and if they once deliberately resolved not to struggle for power over each other, a new world of peace, friendliness, and prosperity would take the place of the world as it is today, defaced by jealousies and strife and hatred, and saddened by much unnecessary suffering." 

Principles of the Voluntary State

1. To recognize all points and under all circumstances the self-ownership of men and women, and their full right to direct their faculties and employ their own property (within the one limit of nonaggression by force or fraud upon others) as they choose.

2. To recognize that the state should compel no services and exact no payments by force, but should depend entirely upon voluntary services and voluntary payments.

a. That it should be free to conduct many useful undertakings, in connection with education, sanitary matters, poor relief, insurance, post office business, trade, inspection of buildings, machinery, etc., and many other matters, but that it should do so in competition with all voluntary agencies, without employment of force, in dependence on voluntary payments, and acting with the consent of those concerned, simply as their friend and their adviser;
b. That it should use force only to restrain the force of the murderer, of the thief and of violent persons, and certain coarse forms of fraud — thus guaranteeing the self-ownership of the individual by protecting him in person and property;
c. That it should take no property of any kind from any citizen by force; nor regulate any part of his life; nor interfere with any exercise of faculties by force (within the nonaggressive limit); nor seek to obtain any moral purpose by force.

3. To get rid of all public debt, central or local, by selling and mortgaging public property and by organizing a great system of voluntary contribution — certain days in the year being specially observed as holidays for the raising of voluntary revenue, local and central.

4. To extend the voluntary defenses of the country and to place them on a much broader basis and more permanent foundation than that on which they now stand; to depend in war as in peace solely on voluntary contributions; and to renounce absolutely the flagrant wrong of compelling those who are opposed to war to give any support to it.

5. Without abandoning in panic any duty toward those connected with us or depending upon us in other countries, to press forward the peaceful and friendly settlement of all unsettled external questions; to narrow responsibilities; to resolutely give up an aggressive and grasping policy; and to seek to establish international friendly agreements as regards all questions in dispute.

6. By thus removing all burdens, all restrictions and interferences with personal activities, by cutting down officialism, by getting rid of the mischievous interference of the politician with private property, and his constant bribing of the people, only too often for the sake of his own advancement, by destroying the reckless rivalry of political parties for place and power, and by steadily creating free trade in everything, to allow the free development not only of the almost infinite capacities and intellectual resources possessed by every intelligent nation, but also of the friendliness and natural desire of all classes to work together for common ends. By these methods to give to the world an example of the happiness and prosperity that can be won by all nations alike, where the natural right of every person to direct his own faculties and to deal with his own property according to his own desires, and not at the dictation of others, is universally respected, and all undertakings and all services are founded upon persuasion of each other, not upon force.

Some Reasons Why Voluntaryists
Object to Compulsory Taxation in All Its Forms

1. Because it rests on certain intellectual contradictions and absurdities. It requires that wealth should be created by individual energy and enterprise, and then spent collectively; that is, spent under a system which reduces the individual almost to insignificance. It tends to place the owner and the nonowner on a false equality — the nonowner, if he choose to use his power, becoming the virtual master of the property of the owner. For every service conferred it imposes a burden — direct or indirect — and yet gives the individual no choice as to whether he will accept the service and the burden, or decline both.

2. Because it is essentially opposed to a state of true liberty. It is impossible to look upon a man as free, so long as others have unlimited command over his property. It is impossible to separate the rights of action from the rights of acquiring and possessing. A man acts through and by means of the various substances of the world, and if he is not free to acquire and own these substances as an individual, neither is he free to act as an individual.

3. Because it builds up the belief that one man and his property may be used by another man against his own convictions and his own interests. It therefore divides us into those who are only tools and those who are the users of tools; and perpetuates a modern form — though more subtle and concealed than the old forms — of slave owning.

4. Because it builds up and strengthens a number of revolting superstitions. It teaches men that they belong, body and mind, to the uncounted, unknown, voting crowd called the state; for if their property belongs to the state, then we must presume that their physical and mental faculties, through which they earned their property, also belong to the state. In the same way it teaches the cowardly and contemptible doctrine that in presence of any supposed public danger or on behalf of any supposed public good, there is no longer any appeal to the conscience and self-responsibility of the individual, but that all persons are made subject to the decisions — often rash, heedless, and taken in panic — of those who exercise political power over them.

5. Because in strengthening these superstitions it degrades the view of human existence. It destroys the general perception that the judgment and the will are the highest parts of human nature, and therefore sacred beyond all other things; and it leads men to look on each other as mere material to be dealt with wholesale and in accordance with the expediency of the moment.

6. Because free countries have affirmed many years ago that a compulsory church rate is immoral and oppressive, for the sake of the burden laid upon individual consciences; and in affirming this truth they have unconsciously affirmed the wider truth, that every tax or rate, forcibly taken from an unwilling person, is immoral and oppressive. The human conscience knows no distinction between church rates and other compulsory rates and taxes. The sin lies in the disregarding of each other's convictions, and is not affected by the subject matter of the tax.

7. Because it makes absolutely certain in the end a hateful war between classes. It accustoms the mass of voters to the belief that all their wants may be satisfied out of the common compulsory fund; it makes the fight to obtain possession of this common compulsory fund of supreme importance; and thus the nation is split up into two struggling factions — those who strive to take, and those who strive to keep.

8. Because it gives to the politician a very undue and undeserved importance. It places in his hands, often as the reward of mere successful speechmaking, the hard-won resources of large classes of his countrymen; and confers upon him a position which could only be won ordinarily through a much more laborious process and in return for qualities of a much higher order. In this way it may be a satisfactory system for the politician, endowing him with many pleasant things in return for his facile profession of certain opinions; but it is not so good for those who are made the instruments of providing, willingly or unwillingly, these pleasant things.

9. Because it favours the rank growth of a very evil form of bribery. Out of the common compulsory fund that is raised by means of taxes, the politician promises what will please his supporters; and by means of burdens laid upon the nation buys his own way into the legislative body and into office.

10. Because it tends to produce a habit of misty, confused thought and unreal generosity — generosity at the expense of others — in our leading men, corrupting all clear sense of justice, and making them traffickers in phrases and servile to their own party interests; in other words, because in this imperfect world, no class of men, rich or poor, is to be found with sufficient honesty or impartiality to be entrusted with the compulsory taking and spending of the money of others.

11. Because its gives every legislature — bodies which are elected under the influence of passion and strife, and by means of not very scrupulously managed party organizations — far too great power over the movements of the human mind. It gives them power to force certain forms of thought upon the nation; to crush other forms out — at least temporarily; and makes of them little gods, who dispose — but without the knowledge, judgment, or impartiality of gods — of the gravest questions of human existence.

12. Because it makes universal suffrage an entirely unworkable arrangement. Man for man, the whole people should be on a footing of perfect equality as regards certain great national questions (e.g., questions of civil and criminal code, peace and war, monarchy or republicanism, etc.), but as regards property compulsorily taken. In all matters relating to property, it is clear sense and just sense that the opinions and desires of those to whom such property belongs, should count for far more than the opinions and desires of those to whom it does not belong. Compulsory taking of property and universal suffrage cannot reasonably be united under one system. Each makes the other ridiculous when forced to keep company. We may fairly ask — How can the nonowner preserve a sense of justice or of self-respect, while he votes away the property of the owner?

13. Because it inevitably leads to the curse of bureaucratic government. The departments of administration, ever extending and absorbing more public money, become independent of all real control, become a separate solid nation within the nation, create — often for the benefit of parents with unmarketable sons — innumerable places and immense vested interests, and turn out second-rate work, just because such work is exposed to no competition, and is relieved from the danger of the bankruptcy court — all official mistakes being covered over by larger and larger takings from the public.

14. Because — notwithstanding the high character of many permanent officials — it increases the danger of harsh, arbitrary, and occasionally cruel things being done by these uncontrolled and irresponsible public departments, that work very much in the darkness. As their operations grow, and the authority of their agents becomes greater, the resistance of the public to their interference necessarily becomes less, both because the public cannot watch with carefulness the large area which falls under official regulation, and because the sense of public helplessness rapidly increases in the presence of these powerfully organized bodies, possessed, in far greater degree than the public can ever be, of the technical knowledge which is connected with their own class of work and their own methods. Moreover, in almost all cases, the departments are able to count upon the silent support of the government, which is in office and which has to work through them.

15. Because in its practical consequences it is endangering the prosperity and even the existence of old and young countries. The rich and the promising countries of South America have been already nearly wrecked by their mad financial management; at this moment, it is doubtful if the United States can adopt a free trade policy, however strongly desired by a large part of the people, on account of the extravagant expenditure to which the country has been committed, and which, once incurred, necessitates a tariff; New Zealand has for many years been struggling to repair the frightful mistakes into which she was led by allowing a few men the power of compulsory dealing with the property of others; some of the Australasian colonies are suffering acutely from past extravagance, and fortunately for themselves have experienced a difficulty in borrowing; India is in a condition that should cause the gravest anxiety as regards her future; in Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece are apparently nearly outside the possibilities of financial salvation; France has large chronic yearly deficits; Germany, Austria, and Italy — the last country in an almost ruinous condition — stagger along under burdens which they cannot bear, and which will, if persisted in, drive them over the abyss; and Russia lives in a state of constant financial difficulty, which is only partially concealed by official statements that do not err on the side of candour. Here and there are to be found some examples of saner management; but even in Great Britain, where the national debt is diminishing, municipal debt and expenditure are increasing with alarming rapidity, in Mr. Albert Pell's words, “with very little to show for it,” and are now threatening the industrial prosperity of the provincial cities. In other countries, the municipal governments of Paris, Vienna, Florence, Rome and Madrid, repeat in each instance the story of excessive expenditure, excessive burdens, and, in some instances, of grave corruption; in the United States the “boodleism” of New York has become a by-word in most parts of the world, and Boston and other cities have been removed from the hands of their municipal authorities, and placed under commissioners.

16. Because it gives great and undue facility for engaging a whole nation in war. If it were necessary to raise the sum required from those who individually agreed in the necessity of war, we should have the strongest guarantee for the preservation of peace. Once given the power of compulsorily taking the property of others, then a minister “with a light heart,” a general on a black horse, a jingo press, or the shouting crowd of a capital, may turn the scale in favour of war. If neither the French nor the German governments had the power to take such property as they liked from the two nations, it would seem almost certain they would before now have arrived at a peaceful solution of their differences. Compulsory taxation means everywhere the persistent probability of a war made by the ambitions or passions of politicians.

17. Because it is unfitted — as a system — to supply the new wants of an active and expanding civilization. Where in a simple type of community there exist only a few constant wants, it is conceivable that a compulsory system — however unwise and indefensible in itself — might for a time produce no serious inconveniences. In a progressive condition, where new wants discover themselves from day to day, these inconveniences take an acute form. When a certain point of taxation is reached, the hurtfulness of taxes and the friction caused in collecting them advance almost in geometrical ratio, until at last a tax may be increased without producing any greater return of revenue — indeed sometimes producing a smaller return. When, therefore, taxation has once been made the principal instrument of supplying the wants of a people, a stage must presently be reached where each new want can only be satisfied with much greater difficulty and at much greater cost than in the case of preceding wants. In this way civilization — when made dependent on compulsory payments — arrests itself.

18. Because it cannot be arranged on any system that has not far-reaching hurtful effects. It passes “the wit of man” to render the compulsory taking of property harmless. Each system of taxation has its own peculiar group of evils. To take but one example: Income taxes necessitate inquisition and odious interferences; they create a system of government spies; lead to action being taken very improperly and upon questionable guesses by officials whose one view is likely to be to increase their takings; under every imaginable system must be unequal in their incidence; cannot from their nature be decided in cases of dispute either in an open court or in a secret court without much annoyance to the taxpayer; strike all visible property more severely than the less visible forms, lead to much evasion and untruthfulness: become complicated to the last degree owing to the innumerable methods of earning income in modern life; involve metaphysical questions which recall the dialectics of the middle ages; tend to drive capital into risky employments outside the country; whenever much raised, are likely to cause the corruption of officials on whom the returns depend; are a standing menace, [owing to the ease — a mere stroke of the pen — with which they can be increased] to traders and owners of property; are infinitely hurtful to the small men, but tend to be unremunerative, as Leroy Beaulieu has so well shown, except when they are applied to the mass of small properties, since the larger properties, when singled out for attack, even if they do not disappear, are comparatively unfruitful as a field for taxation (thus defeating by a natural check the unwisdom and injustice of trying to make any special class supply the common compulsory fund); destroy the advantage of free trade, even in a country which allows imports to enter freely, since they raise the price of articles produced in an almost excessive degree, owing to the fact that each class of producers necessarily adds his own rate of profit to the tax that he himself pays, and to the tax paid by all those who have preceded him as manufacturers of the same article in the earlier stages of its manufacture — with the consequence that each product of the market that passes through the hands of several producers and distributors, pays the tax several times over before it becomes a finished article, as well as in each case the special rate of profit added to the tax by each producer and each distributor; are therefore unfair to traders who themselves pay income tax and may have to compete with traders in other countries not burdened with income tax (though, it should be said, probably burdened in other ways); and commit the capital crime of making property less desirable, and of weakening the public desire to save and invest. Death duties — a peculiarly mean form of property tax — assessed taxes, custom duties, stamp duties, all have their own special far-reaching consequences of mischief. One reason stands out preëminent; industrial or commercial life is free life, where men adapt themselves in their own way to changing circumstances, and are called on to display infinite tact and mental resource in their efforts to surmount difficulties and to do away with or reduce the various sources of outlay which surround production; but state compulsory payments form a solid unyielding obstacle, which cannot be got rid of or lessened except by fraud, and therefore defy all such exercise of ingenuity or invention or improvement of method. They are as irreconcilable with the free movements of the human mind and the many varied adaptations which make up the delicate process of industrial life, as a rigid iron bar would be, if thrust from the outside and without any other connection, into a complicated machinery made up of joints and flexible parts.

19. Because it introduces hopeless confusion and uncertainty — where all should be most clear, certain, and stable — into the conditions under which property is to be acquired and owned. It tends to weaken the free open market, as the great center of acquisition and distribution of property, the center through which all industrial efforts are set in motion, and through which all industrial efforts are rewarded, and to set up in its place the changing harum-scarum fancies of every set of politicians who make their way to office.

20. Because all taxes, even those placed upon the rich, injure those who are poor. They disturb the course of production and trade; they make traders timid, and so contract industrial enterprise and depress wages; they make considerable payments in ready money necessary, and thus favour a few large houses as against the small traders, and thus again facilitate “corners” and monopolies; they disturb natural values, depreciating the property which is specially taxed; when heavy, they discourage a useful service, which the rich perform unconsciously, of encouraging those inventions which must at first pass through an expensive stage before they can be widely produced in cheap forms; they spoil markets, which in great measure depend for their cheapness and excellence upon their extent; but above all, they misdirect the efforts of the working part of the people. Grasping greedily at the common compulsory fund, out of which every sort of thing is provided, the people lose their faith in free enterprise and their natural inclination to form voluntary societies of their own in order to provide for all the growing wants of life; and instead of setting themselves to build up with their own hands a new civilization — the real work which cries aloud to be done — they waste priceless time and energy in struggling for miserable handfuls out of the devil's quarreling fund — as it has been well called — thus playing the politician's game to his heart's content.

21. Because it injures the working class in another deadly manner, bribing them to give up all real management of their affairs and to accept a purely fictitious management in its place. No better example exists than education. The simplest form of school, really managed and paid for by the working classes, would be worth far more to them and to their children, than the present tawdry and pretentious official systems, in which everybody interferes, and over which no individual parent has the least real control. If they desire endowments — of which, however, be it said, they generally spoil education — the workmen should claim their share of the old charitable endowments, which have been absorbed by all sorts of institutions, and kick tax, rate, central department, and all compulsory management and all compulsory attendance into the dust hole.

22. Because one form of our highest education in life is the practical education which results from our wants and our voluntary efforts to satisfy these wants; and because as long as we satisfy these wants by the use of official compulsory machinery we can never learn to work in friendly voluntary fashion with each other, and to help each other, out of a true public spirit. Thus, the richer classes are being constantly cut off by the effects of compulsion from learning to work with those less well off than themselves for public ends, and in this way their lives become less useful to others, and less happy for themselves.

23. Because when the common fund is placed before the poor man — living a hard and struggling life — as his great hope of salvation, is it reasonable to expect him to forbear from making full use of the tempting resources thus placed under his hand? If taxation or taking from others is in itself a good, true method, why not employ it to its very furthest extent?

24. Because, from the very fact of being compulsory, it is accompanied by great practical inconveniences, inseparable from it. We hear much of the official checks and counterchecks, the expensive, dilatory though unsuccessful safeguards, with which the spending of public money is surrounded; and yet these irritating arrangements are necessary and cannot be dispensed with. The system under which the money of all individuals is compulsorily taken and spent in the name of the nation by a few persons is in itself so unnatural, so topsy-turvy, so opposed to common sense (since the natural safeguard which consists in a man looking after his own interest, doing what he thinks is best with his own property, and refusing to contribute to undertakings which he thinks are expensively, insufficiently, or corruptly managed, is swept away) that no imaginable reform can make any public service satisfactory, as long as it is kept on a compulsory basis. To set aside at the outset and treat as of no consequence the free agency of the individual is to commit an error of so vital a nature that everything falling under the influence of such an error is predestined to go wrong.

25. Because it is an enormous distraction as regards the work of the best workers. Where money is compulsorily taken for all sorts of objects, the most capable men must either frequently detach themselves from their own work in order to form a judgment upon any undertaking which the politicians choose to bring forward, or they must simply allow themselves to be robbed of money, which they neither consent nor desire to give, because it is a smaller loss to be robbed of money, than it is to be robbed of time.

26. Because it tends to turn us all, whether members of legislatures, journalists, or electors, into persons who think superficially and act in a hurry on very imperfect knowledge. The enormous number of undertakings which pass under the hands of legislative bodies, and the enormous number of questions which are submitted to their decision, oblige all those who are concerned with political life to possess innumerable smatterings of piecemeal knowledge of various sorts, to form their judgments in the imperfect light of such smatterings, and to make the best show that is possible with such hastily gathered knowledge. Every member of a legislature ought to be a trained scientist in all branches of human knowledge, in order to perform the duties that everyday are thrown upon him. It has been said by some defenders of competitive examinations that their merit consists in developing the faculties that are specially required for the rapidly changing struggles of afterlife. As regards political life the plea is perfectly just; and the brilliant use of limited intellectual furniture, joined to an intrepid judgment on all subjects on the spur of the moment, is likely to be equally useful to the politician and the successful prize student. But neither the politician nor the prize student represent the best elements in the nation.

27. Because it is essentially socialistic in principle, and offers the easiest and surest means of advance to state socialism. So long as we admit that the property of individuals lies at the mercy of the largest number of votes, we are intellectually and morally committed to state socialism, and it is only certain accidents, liable to disappear at any crisis, which stand between us and the practical realization of state socialism. To put the same truth in the simplest terms — if what is called the state may forcibly take one dollar or one shilling out of what a man owns, it may take what it likes up to the last dollar or last shilling. Once admit the right of the state to take, and the state becomes the real owner of all property.

28. Because this question of compulsory taking offers a decisive battleground between state socialists and those opposed to state socialism. It raises the question of the state existing for the individual, or the individual existing for the state, at once in the clearest and most comprehensive manner. Moreover, it places the combatants on more equal terms. At present, state socialists have the advantage of attacking at any point, and often win, because their solid column is rapidly thrown upon some skillfully selected spot in the widely dispersed line of defense. To a contest persistently fought on such terms there must be only one ending. The fortress that cannot attack is destined to fall; and the defense of liberty by staying behind parapets and bastions is hopeless. Henceforward, we act on the offensive. We admit of no lost or decided causes where liberty is concerned. We care nothing for the many small victories which socialists have won in the last few years. We now invade the territory of the enemy, and attack the point which is the key to his position, confident, that when once men begin to refuse to the state its evil power of taking property by force, socialism will drop into its place amongst the shadows of the past. Socialism lives and thrives upon the principle of compulsory taking.

29. Last, because compulsory taxation is the great typical enemy of all voluntary action. We see in it the very citadel of compulsion, the chief instrument with which every encroachment is carried out, the chief bribe by which men are induced to submit to these encroachments, and an institution which by its very existence preaches to men every day and every hour that they are not really sovereign over themselves, their faculties, and their property, but are subject to the will of others — placed at the mercy of these others to be used or not used, according to their caprices, their superstitions, or their selfishness. We see in it one of the last remaining but one of the most stubbornly defended strongholds of the dominion of men over men. To us, voluntary action stands for the good genius of the human race, as compulsory action, stands for its evil genius. We contrast what the free individual has done, with what the compulsory organization, called government, has done and is doing; we see on the one side all that the human mind has achieved in industry, in commerce, in art, in science, in literature: we count enterprise after enterprise, invention after invention; we see that not only the food, the clothing, the houses, the comforts and refinements which we possess, but that our mental selves, the very thoughts that we think, the very beings that we are, are the outcome of the individual forces that surround us — the outcome of the perpetual action and reaction of the spoken word, the written page, the social intercourse, the outcome of mind acting freely upon mind. How small, how beggarly in comparison, is the sum to be placed to the account of the compulsory association that is directed by the politicians!

We affirm, then, that voluntaryism in everything is the true law of progress and happiness, and that compulsion, or the brute force of law, should be simply retained to hold in check brute force, to protect the individual from the murderer, the thief, and the swindler, to protect him in person and property from injurious acts, done to him in disregard of his consent. Except for such universal and simple purposes of protection, we deny that the brute force of law can ever form a true or moral basis for social relations. We affirm that the brute force of law can never be used to set aside a man's consent as regards his own actions without condemning that man permanently to a lower existence. We affirm that only as men learn to be self-directing, to take their lives and actions into their own charge, to practice and perfect the instrument of voluntary combination for all the growing wants of life, to fight their battles with the weapons of discussion and reason, rejecting all intimidation and coercion of each other, to undertake public duties and services for each other gladly, as free individuals, not driven into any path, however good it may be, by penalties and persecutions — is it possible to look forward to happier and friendlier forms of society. We affirm that there is no such hope to be found at the end of the dreary vista of organized compulsion; of new compulsions resting upon old compulsions, and again buttressed by still newer compulsions; of endless regulations, becoming year after year more minute, and penetrating more deeply into social life and home life — each action of the habit, being more and more jealously scrutinized, for fear that if freedom should be allowed to exist at any point, like a ray of light entering the gloom of a dungeon, it might prove the source from which danger at other points should arise to the huge, unstable, badly cemented fabric of universal regulation. We affirm that all such systems of compulsion are as mere wanderings in the desert, and can lead nowhere. In the breast of every person, however dimly he may recognize it, there is a moral feeling telling him that he has a right to freedom of action and freedom of thought, that he is meant to be self-guiding, and that no organization outside him, on any plea — whether the plea of his own good or of the good of others — can take these rights from him. It is because of the existence of this feeling, which, if often perverted and obscured, yet is deep as human nature itself, and is spread over every region of the world, that we who believe in liberty and hate compulsion, hold the conviction that the victory, whatever yet may be the battles to fight, must at length belong to us. You cannot build upon compulsion — human nature is in eternal revolt against it; every building you rest upon it will prove a building of strife and confusion; every seeming victory will turn against you, and in the end come to naught.

Confessions of an Ex-Anarcho-Libertarian

It was the year 2012, I lived on University Avenue and I was an anarchocapitalist. It was something I was very proud of at the time because I thought it was the most logical conclusion of the libertarian non-coercion principle. For those whom do not know what anarchocapitalism is it is a wing of the libertarian movement which thinks the ultimate end goal of libertarianism is a stateless society. The reason for needing to get rid of the state is because all states by being monopolies backed by coercion are morally illegitimate. Thus statelessness is the end goal to an AnCap and not just a limited government.

However, before you think I was in favor of something I was not let me explain what I had considered a stateless society or Anarchic-Capitalism to look like. It was not what some people whom use the terminology anarcho-capitalism might use it to mean. My vision of what this world looked like will also explain why I was so easily persuaded by what would be considered the traditional Auberon Herbert "Volumtaryist Creed." The original Voluntaryism was not anarchistic, but, instead was a term for a radical advocate for limited government against all forms of initiating coercion. Limited Government Libertarians and Objectivism in politics are the modern incarnations closest to the original Voluntaryism.

Amarchocapitalism to me did not mean as some use it now a market in law creation based on peoples whims. It did not mean a subjectivist wet dream or chaos creators dream environment. Anarchocapitalism meant to me a world where no state existed, but, in its place was an objective agreed to libertarian legal code. This code would be objective and mandatory to follow with laws that if broken were punishable using retaliatory force. I was essentially for a completely private and stateless world, but, not for a lawless one. What I was for was for was the privatization of everything that moves and everything that does not move (as it was worded by Walter Block). However, it being done under the coordination of a libertarian legal code. It would have laws all private entities would need to follow, but, not enforced by a state enforced by private police, courts and so forth.

However, said private entities would not be able to do whatever they wanted. It would be reigned in by said libertarian legal code. Which would include things like making pollution based externalizations being considered infringements on the individual rights of other people that would be affected by it. Pollution would be treated as an invasion of all of your neighbors property rights and dealt with accordingly. Once again though there would be no state no one entity with a monopoly backed by the use of initiatory coercion. Instead all of the laws would be enforced and agreed upon by all private entities involved. If you did not want to agree or if you broke them you would be dealt with accordingly. However, you would be enforced to act accordingly by all the other entities that did agree with the law code and it would be these other entities that you would need to deal with.

It was this always supporting a Mono-Centric and agreed upon legal code that helped lead me out of anarcho-libertarianism and back into minarchism. It led me to rethink if a world without a government to enforce the legal code on others would be able to make people fall into line with not harming others or their property. After all in a world without such an entity could you really expect the numerous private cops, courts and such to police other same entities on the market? What if not enough entities agreed to the legal code? What if some agreed and others did not at such high amounts it caused civil wars in the streets between policing companies?

Then I discovered Objectivism and that helped me discover minarchism could be completely consistent with the defense of individual rights. In fact, in between that and doing further reading I realized it was the only way to consistently enforce the non-harm of people or property on a large scale. Governments are required for enforcing the very libertarian legal code Murray Rothbard said would need to exist to have a libertarian world. However, I still have an ideal of a free society that has not changed at all. I just have a different vision of what that entails. My views are along the lines of the traditional "Voluntaryists Creed." In fact, all Objectivists in their politics would fall into the creed of that classic document of human liberty. Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on egoism and selfishness on politics her ideal end state is very similar to Auberon Herbert.

In the end I never changed having a political and economical moral code based on non-initiation of harm or coercion. I simply discovered my methods to getting there would not really defend the individual human rights I was an AnCap to spread to the world. The reason I changed my mind is because I am serious about peaceful and voluntary life. Anarchism I found could not create and maintain a free, peaceful and prosperous society for all. However, my current form of radical minarchism if you will is a more realistic and possible path to that end goal of freedom for all peaceful people.