Anarchy is not Chaos

Posted: January 22, 2016 in Uncategorized

Anarchy is not Chaos
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 22, 2016

Anarchy, contrary to biased MSM definitions, does not mean “chaos resulting from a lack of government”.

It simply means “no ruler”.

The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), “not, without” and ἀρχή (arkhi), “ruler, leader, authority.”

It does not mean chaos.

It does not mean that the absence of rulers will result in chaos.

In fact, if you think about the chaos that the US government has sown, on purpose, all over the world. the presence of government leads to chaos, not the absence of it.

I Used to be a Constitutionalist

Posted: December 30, 2015 in Uncategorized

I Used to be a Constitutionalist, Before I Knew Better
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
December 30, 2015

I used to be a constitutionalist. I used to believe in “limited government”, in the “night watchman state”.

But eventually I started thinking about the concept of government “authority” and “legitimacy” without preconceptions, and began to realize that all governments, including those based on constitutions, are plain and simple scams.

Think about it.

A bunch of strangers you don’t know from Adam hold a meeting. They call their meeting a “constitutional convention”. They make up a bunch of rules, jot them down on a piece of paper, and call the paper a “constitution”.

Then, and here’s the kicker, they come to your front door and claim that the “constitution” they “drafted” up without consulting you, mean that you must obey their rules, which they call “laws”, and pay them money, which they call “taxes”.

Or else.

Or else they will come back with guns drawn, kidnap you and lock you in a cage, or if you resist their aggression with armed force, murder you in a hail of gunfire.

My question is: “By what right???”

Why couldn’t I do the exact same thing they did, knock on their front door, and demand their obedience and money?

This, when you clear away all the mental baggage about “convening constitutional conventions”, “drafting constitutions”, and “ratifying constitutions”, is the plain and simple, and ugly truth.

Constitutions are meaningless.

I’m Allowed to Rob You!

Want to see a piece of paper that gives me the RIGHT to rob you? You don’t believe there is such a thing? Are you SURE you don’t believe it?

Former Presidents Warn About the “Invisible Government” Running the United States
by Ross Pittman, Guest
Waking Times

The warnings listed below, which appear in chronological order, began with our first president – George Washington. The last president to speak out was JFK, who was assassinated. Read what they and other political leaders have said about the invisible government.

George Washington wrote that the Illuminati want to separate the People from their Government

“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may… actually had a seperation [sic] of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.”
– George Washington, 1st President of the United States (1789–1797), from a letter that Washington wrote on October 24, 1798, which can be found in the Library of Congress. For an analysis of Washington’s warning, see the article “Library of Congress: George Washington Warns of Illuminati”

“I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.”
—Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (1801–1809) and principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), in a letter written to John Taylor on May 28, 1816

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.”
– John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832) and U.S. Senator, from a speech given on May 27, 1836

Note that it appears that Washington’s and Jefferson’s concerns regarding bankers and separation of the people from the government was realized by 1836. This fact was confirmed in a letter written by FDR in 1933 (see below) in which he wrote that “a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Jackson was the seventh president of the United States (1829-1937). Calhoun served as Jackson’s vice-president from 1829-1832.

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
– Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
– Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913

“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”
– New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, New York Times, March 26, 1922

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt…Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here… and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate — a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”
– Congressman Louis T. McFadden, from a speech delivered to the House of Representatives on June 10, 1932

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
— Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945), in a letter to Colonel Edward M House dated November 21, 1933, as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945.

“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means… We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government… This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century… This group…is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”
– Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”
—J. Edgar Hoover, The Elks Magazine, 1956

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings… Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”
— John F Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, from a speech delivered to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 and known as the “Secret Society” speech.


The Difference between Communism and Democracy
December 20, 2014
Taipei, China

This is Communism:

Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un

This is Democracy:

George H Bush, George W Bush, John Ellis Bush

Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton

Any questions?

Firearms Refresher Course

Posted: November 9, 2013 in Uncategorized


Firearms Refresher Course
Edited and Reblogged by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
November 9, 2013

— Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
— If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
— An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
— Gun control is not about guns. It’s about control.
— The Second Amendment is in place in case politicians ignore the others.
— What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

— You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
— A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
— 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
— Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

— If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
— If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
— 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
— Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Wake Up America!

Posted: January 26, 2013 in Uncategorized

Wake Up America!
A letter sent to me by a fellow gun rights defender
posted by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 26, 2013

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the other crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the other burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: the authorities will probably plead the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.

“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all:

“Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up. Then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the surviving thief is preparing to sue you and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The  District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Enmesh, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by 80 years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.

Nine years later, in Dubliner, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dubliner Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dubliner Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?



“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”
–Samuel Adams

If you think this is important. please it forward to everyone you know. You had better wake up, because Obama is doing the very same thing over here. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street who will go right along with him.

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
— William S. Burroughs, icon of the Beat Generation, one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century

And yes, even Karl Marx insisted on the right to keep and bear arms!

Marxists, should the worker be armed? - Quora

“workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon [sic!] and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
— From the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1850.


Minarchism Always Becomes Maxarchism
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 24, 2013

“The end state of every government is tyranny!”
— John Stovall

Or as An Enemy of the State has noted on numerous occasions:

“Minarchism always becomes maxarchism.”
— Quotations from Chairman Chu

“Limited government always becomes unlimited government.”
— Quotations from Chairman Chu

“The difference between limited government and totalitarianism, is the difference between the caterpillar and the moth.”
— Quotations from Chairman Chu

“Limited government is merely totalitarianism in its embryonic stage.”
— Quotations from Chairman Chu

“Limited government is merely the larval stage of totalitarianism.”
— Quotations from Chairman Chu

Corollaries by fellow anarcho-capitalists at Eric Peters Autos:

“The freest minarchies become the most vicious tyrannies.”
— methlyamine

“Limited government is like limited cancer.”
— MoT

“Democracy is the apotheosis of institutionalized slavery.”
— d.c. sunsets

Libertarian Purity Test

Posted: September 10, 2007 in Uncategorized


Libertarian Purity Test
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
September 10, 2007

Free market anarchist Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He has posted a useful “Libertarian Purity Test” at his website.


As Caplan explains:

“This is the Libertarian Purity Test, which is intended to measure how libertarian you are. It isn’t intended to be any sort of McCarthyite purging device — just a form of entertainment, hopefully thought-provoking. I like it a lot better than the more famous “World’s Shortest [sic] Political Quiz” because I haven’t stated the questions with any intent to give an upward bias to a test-taker’s score, and because it gives a clearer breakdown between hard and soft-core libertarians. Enjoy, suggest your friends try it out, and see how you compare to other test-takers.”

Market anarchists and non market anarchists alike may want to check it out and see how they score.

For the record, the author scored a perfect 160. Yup. Hardcore.

The World’s Smallest Political Quiz is also well worth taking.


Chinese Liberalism vs. Western Authoritarianism
by Bevin Chu

Taipei, China
September 7, 2007

It is by no means easy to feel one’s way into such a remote and mysterious mentality as that underlying the I Ching. One cannot easily disregard such great minds as Confucius and Lao-tse, if one is at all able to appreciate the quality of the thoughts they represent; much less can one overlook the fact that the I Ching was their main source of inspiration. I know that previously I would not have dared to express myself so explicitly about so uncertain a matter. I can take this risk because I am now in my eighth decade, and the changing opinions of men scarcely impress me any more; the thoughts of the old masters are of greater value to me than the philosophical prejudices of the Western mind.
— Carl Jung, famed Swiss psychologist

300 (2006) directed by Zack Snyder, written by Zack Snyder & Kurt Johnstad
The Asiatic hordes arrive on the doorstep of the Civilized World!
Dilios: For 500 years they’ve served the dark will of Persian kings. Eyes as dark as night . Teeth filed to fangs. Soulless. The personal guard to King Xerxes himself. The Persian warrior elite. The deadliest fighting force in all of Asia. The Immortals …

… commanded by a ruthless and decadent Oriental Despot

… who “hates our freedoms”

Faceless ciphers, devoid of humanity and individuality

Monstrous subhumans

Queen Gorgo: Freedom is not free, it requires great sacrifice. The price is paid in blood.

King Leonidas: A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.

King Leonidas: This is where we hold them! This is where we fight! This is where they die!

Dilios: The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one. Good odds for any Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a world brighter than anything we can imagine. Give thanks men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! To Victory!

The ‘300’ stroke, Hamid Dabashi writes on pride, prejudice, Persia and other empires

Let’s try a little experiment.

Sit down in front of your PC and Google the words: “authoritarianism, liberalism, Western, Chinese”.

Type them into the search box in any order you choose, hit return, and see what you get.
Come to think of it, save yourself the trouble. I’ll tell you what you’ll get.

Except for a link to this article, and a solitary Wikipedia article on “Chinese liberalism,” you will get page after page on “Western liberalism” and “Chinese authoritarianism”.

Every one of these pages will assume that the West is heir to a noble tradition of democracy and republicanism rooted in Periclean Greece and Republican Rome. Every one of these pages will demand that a “congenitally authoritarian” China emulate the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave by adopting “American style democracy.”

Never mind that the Founding Fathers of these United States made quite clear that they detested democracy, and went to great pains to note that they founded a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Every one of these pages will assume that China is heir to an ignoble tradition of “Oriental Despotism”. Every one of these pages will demand that China jettison its benighted “Oriental Despotism” in favor of enlightened “Western Progressivism”.

Never mind that China’s unfortunate “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a Western European political invention, devised in Great Britain by two progressive Western European political philosophers named Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

As the old joke goes, “When you assume, you make an ass of you and me.”

Economic history tells us a different story. It tells us that China, for much of her history, was as free or even freer than the West, “Athenian democracy” and “Roman republicanism” to the contrary notwithstanding.

China is the most populous nation in the world. More to the point, China has been the most populous nation in the world for most of recorded history. Most people are aware of this. But most people aren’t aware of its political implications.

Economics tells us that only a society that is free is capable of generating sufficient wealth to support a large population. Large human populations are simply unsustainable without freedom. Any society that limits freedom, limits economic productivity. Any society that limits economic productivity, limits its population, through a process called famine.

Without knowing anything else about a civilization, one can confidently conclude that if a civilization has a large population, it is free or was free in the recent past. This is not feel good speculation. This is hard economic fact.

And so it is with China.

China was a hereditary monarchy for millennia. But China was hardly alone. China in this respect was no different from Europe before The Enlightenment. China had her “Mandate of Heaven”. Europe had her “Divine Right of Kings”. China had her Son of Heaven. France had her Le Roi Soleil (Sun King).

Where was the legacy of Athenian democracy then? Where was the legacy of Roman republicanism then? Nowhere to be found.

In fact, the Chinese people often enjoyed a high degree of de facto freedom under China’s nominally “absolute” monarchy, as evidenced by the popular expression “Tian gao, huang di yuan”, meaning “Heaven is high, and the emperor is far away.”

This de facto freedom enabled the Chinese people to prosper and multiply, and enabled China to become the most populous nation in the world.

To be sure, the freedom the Chinese people enjoyed was not unbroken. It came and went, just as freedom came and went in the West. But when it came, it was real. And when it went, it was missed.

Between 1958 and 1961, a Western political system introduced into China by champions of Western style political reform caused widespread famine, resulting in an estimated 30 million deaths. The name of this Western political system was Marxism-Leninism.

The champions of Western values responsible for this man made catastrophe tried to blame Mother Nature, referring to it as the “Three Years of Natural Disasters”. More disinterested, less self serving observers say the disaster was 35% natural misfortune, and 65% the folly of central planning.Rabid Sinophobes would have us believe that China has never been free, that it has been either authoritarian or totalitarian for the entirety of its 5,000 year history.

But three short years of totalitarianism caused the death of 30 million Chinese. If China was no freer during the remaining 4997 years of her history, how did she get to be most populous nation on earth? Obviously these self appointed “champions of freedom and human rights” are asking us to ignore a total non-compute.

In case anyone thinks the de facto freedom individual Chinese enjoyed in ancient times was mere accident, mere happenstance, mere serendipity, think again.

Ancient China had no lack of philosophical arguments for individual liberty. Western critics of “congenitally authoritarian” China to the contrary notwithstanding, the earliest arguments in favor of small government (limited government, or minarchism) and no government (anarchism), were advanced by Chinese, not Western political philosophers. 

The ancient Chinese philosophers Laozi (老子), Zhuangzi (莊子), Bao Jingyan (鮑敬言), and Sima Qian (司馬遷) were the first explicit champions of libertarianism and anarchism in recorded history. 

As the late, great Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard wrote in Chapter One of his book, “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought”:

The Taoists (Daoists) were the world’s first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society.

Laozi 老子 (Lao Tzu), the World’s First Libertarian

To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its “laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,” was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and “more to be feared than fierce tigers.” Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; “inaction” became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. “The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation” and, “where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow.”

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world “stabilizes itself.”

As Lao Tzu put it: “Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves.” 

Zhuangzi 莊子 (Chuang Tsu), the World’s First Individualist Anarchist

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu’s great follower Chuang Tzu (369—c.286 BC) built on the master’s ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. Chuang Tzu, who wrote in allegorical parables, was the first anarchist in the history of human thought. Chuang Tzu’s fame spread far and wide throughout China.

Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu’s devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: “There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success].” Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of “spontaneous order,” independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: “Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.”
Chuang Tzu concluded, the world “does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed.”

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: “A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State.” Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages.

Bao Jingyan 鮑敬言 (Pao Ching-yen), China’s own “V”
no image available

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, “there were no rulers and no officials. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment.” In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder.

Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they “could give free rein to all desires.” Furthermore, the government’s institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale.

To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.

Sima Qian 司馬遷 (Ssu-ma Ch’ien), the World’s First Laissez-Faire Economist

The distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch’ien (145-c.90 BC) was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise.

He saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion. To Sima this was the natural outcome of the free market. “Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?” Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Sima perceptively, “what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?” What need indeed?
Sinophobic “champions of freedom and human rights” assume that China is heir to a long and unsavory tradition of “Oriental Despotism”. They demand that Beijing jettison its
“Oriental Despotism” in favor of “Western Progressivism”

Their simplistic calculus is: 

China is Communist
Communism is authoritarian
China is congenitally authoritarian

The first problem with this facile calculus is that Chinese Communism was not a Chinese form of authoritarianism. It was a Western form of authoritarianism, correction, Western form of totalitarianism, imported into to China.

In a sense, it was a lot like the opium imported into China at gunpoint by Great Britain. To turn Karl Marx’s aphorism back on him, “Marxism was the opiate of Western style reformers.” Today of course, the opium being imported into China by Western reformers is not Marxism, but another defective and dysfunctional political system known as “democracy”, or is it “Democracy”?The second problem with this facile calculus is that China is not “congenitally authoritarian”. China does not need to emulate an “intrinsically liberal” America. China boasts an ancient and venerable tradition of liberal political thought all its own. 

Did I say liberal political thought? That is far too mild. That is damning with faint praise.
Ancient China boasts a legacy of hardcore individualist thought, libertarian thought, anarchist thought. This priceless legacy may serve China well in the coming century. More importantly, it may serve mankind well in the coming millennia.

Who knows? The day may come when Googling the words: “authoritarianism, liberalism, Western, Chinese” may yield page after page on “China’s Historic Contribution to Global Freedom in the 23rd Century.”

See:It all began, as usual, with the Greeks: Taoism in Ancient China, by Murray N. Rothbard

Of Geeks and Wonks

Posted: September 1, 2007 in Uncategorized

Of Geeks and Wonks
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
September 01, 2007

Jeffrey Tucker, Editorial Vice President of

“A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks” by Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of, is one of the best articles ever posted at LRC.

It neatly sums up the psychological and philosophical dichotomy between Pragmatists and Idealists.

It correctly affirms that despite appearances, Pragmatists do not have their feet on the ground, and Idealists do not have their heads in the clouds.

It has far-reaching implications for the Democratic status quo and the inevitable Market Anarchist political future.

Market Anarchist Geeks may strike Democratic Wonks as Ivory Tower Utopians. But in fact Market Anarchist Geeks grasp the comparative merits of political systems far better than “realpolitik” Democratic Wonks.

Market Anarchist Geeks know that the structural defects built into conventional monopolistic forms of government such as Democracy doom them to eventual, inevitable failure. They know that in the long term, mankind will have no alternative but to adopt Market Anarchism, the only political system completely consistent with natural rights and individual sovereignty.

A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks, by Jeffrey Tucker