There appears to be some confusion about the terms “laissez-faire” and “free market.” This is not surprising. The goal of political language is to make rulers appear necessary, and confusing issues to direct blame away from political control is a critical part of this effort. Politicians of all types say whatever they think will get them more power, and definitions suffer as a result.

If the ideas of “laissez-faire” and “free markets” are to mean anything substantive, their proponents must seek to apply them universally. This would be an act in direct opposition to establishment politics, which bases treatment of people on their position within the political hierarchy. Cronies, partners, powerful supporters, and other members of the political class get the most favorable treatment.

A “free market” does not mean that established interests are free to use coercion to monopolize the market and insulate themselves from consequences. A system that privatizes profits and socializes costs and losses is not a free market.

Similarly, laissez-faire is not about letting political cronies alone. Their privileged positions are established and supported by government rule. The population that sustains them is never let alone. Decisions are impacted by numerous regulations, licenses, taxes, and fees that are written by the rich and powerful for the express purpose of strengthening political class control over the economy (that means control over the decisions of countless individuals they have never met and will never share costs with).

The following question must be raised about any alleged free market proposal or society: is there a fundamental layer of coercion upon which the system lies? If there is then the market is not free and laissez-faire within the system is a joke.

It is unlikely that a market can be entirely free, as aggression and wrongdoing will always exist and will affect choices in some way. However, voluntary exchanges that take place outside systems of institutionalized aggression (outside of political class control via the state) deserve to be called a free market. This includes countereconomic ventures. When laissez-faire is applied generally and would-be rulers leave the people alone to make free exchanges, the general market will have been liberated, and we will live in a freed market. This will be a revolutionary change, which will require some kind of revolution.

Though I rarely game anymore, I have to say that video games have been a positive influence on my life. My creativity was certainly enhanced by the settings and storylines of games like Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Mortal Kombat, and Outrun 2019. When you combine space settlement, teleportation, demons, powerful weaponry, and exploding barrels, the possibilities seem limitless to a young nerd. I also recall learning various facts of mathematics, history, geography, and other subjects through video games.

Those who blame technology for obesity should instead consider the values kids are raised with. What actually makes sitting at a screen more desirable than health? For kids and young teens, physical activity and adventure are often supposed to take place only in a supervised, authoritarian, and therefore less interesting setting. Video games provide escape and adventure – room to grow outside the confines of society.

Let’s not forget that evolutionwise, it is a relatively recent development for a large population to have more food than what is beneficial. It certainly doesn’t help that the American’s diet is often unbalanced and out of sync with physical activity.

Do video games encourage violence? Possibly, but violent entertainment has been around at least since Beowulf. Currently popular religious texts contain violent passages, and even instruct followers to kill for a variety of reasons, many of which are completely irrational. Does the recent decline in violent crime in America come at a time when video games are dull or out of favor? Not by my observation.

Even if video games did encourage violence, this would not be a bad thing unless they specifically increased real-life aggression. People who are not prepared to do violence can more easily become prey for those who are.

The accusation is sometimes made that video games promote militarism. Some games do, just like some books and movies do. Government sticks its paws into everything and a society full of militarist desires will produce militarist products. The Army even has a commercial clothing line! The medium is not to blame for the message it can convey.

Video games, an interactive expression of creativity, are a source of good and should be treated as such. Like anything, too much gaming can be harmful, but harm is best determined by those directly involved.

In an excellent ten minute video, Stefan Molyneux describes the political forces at work behind the defeat of the House of Representatives bailout bill. In case you were wondering, it has nothing to do with Congress caring about you. Simply put, your self-proclaimed representatives wanted some measure of control over the money.

This insight has deep implications that Molyneux does not cover in the video. When we are taught about the wonders of “a separation of powers,” the underlying assumption is that tyranny comes from one faction of government asserting control over the others, and that if branches of the government compete with each other then its power will be checked. However, to discover the reality of the situation we must look at what they are competing for.

The desire for power and influence is why people seek elected office. True, there may be noble aspirations concerning what to use power and influence for, but ultimately they are the ends of politicians. Competition between politicians means a contest over who has the most power over the most resources and people. Government separation of powers simply creates guidelines for this competition in a context that has little connection to the needs of the productive class.

The guidelines it creates may keep the nightmare scenario of George W. Cesar at bay, as the executive must deal with the other powerful interests in the political class. However, this does little good for restraining government power, as the rulers know they must cooperate often if they want to keep a hand on the reigns. So the country is run by a greater diversity of tyrants.

Looking at the situation through market anarchist analysis, we see other implications. The concept of competition has little effect on restraining government, as it is a legally-enforced monopoly that takes payment regardless of service and regardless of consent. Competition within takes the form of a bureaucratic power struggle in which the actors are largely insulated from the communicative restraint of the free market (the aggregate of voluntary exchanges). If you still believe that elections serve the function of choice and feedback, consider the obstacles placed before alternate parties, the re-election rate of incumbent congresscrooks, the local machines, and the fact that in the end the public is generally given two options who agree on fundamentals and lie and cheat, and everyone, regardless of their individual choice, is expected to accept their services and the services of those they appoint for the next few years.

However, in market anarchy there would be competition among defense services and social arrangements bound only by individual choices. Competition in this context means a true separation of powers. Community Militia A serves as an obstacle to the expansion of Defense Firm B. Arbitrator X is not necessarily employed by Accuser Y or Defense Agency Z, so she has less interest in ruling favorably to them. Communes must compete with firms, guilds, and independent contractors, so they are more likely to respect individual choice.

Anarchist separation of powers is clearly superior to republican separation of powers, which has succeeded only in setting boundaries within the political class, restricting their behavior against each other far more than it restricts their behavior against the productive class.

Rex Applegate’s classic Kill or Get Killed is a widely available download with some great instructions on wrecking people.  It emphasizes simple, brutal techniques to end a fight as quickly and unfairly as possible.

You might as well skip the section on handgun shooting unless you’re already knowledgeable in the subject and want to learn about methods that are not currently in favor.  For handgun techniques, Massad Ayoob is a better source.  Similarly, the sections on fighting in the dark that must have been written before the widespread use of flashlights are of limited use.

But if you can take the talk of minorities addicted to knife-fighting and communist-motivated mobs in stride, it’s a worthy read.