Who Will Build The Roads?



“Who will build the roads without the state?”

The statists say this as if it is some incredibly difficult question that no one has ever considered.

The same people who build the roads now can also build them in the future, and those people are not the state. They are private contractors with a workforce of roughly 235,000 people, who are merely paid by the state with your tax dollars minus the cost of the bureaucracy. We can eliminate the middleman and directly pay them without the state.

The state is the only thing currently stopping you, me, or a group of us, from paying those same private contractors to build all of the roads that we could ever want.

“But who will engineer the roads?” Continue reading “Who Will Build The Roads?”

The Executive Branch

Have you heard the joke about the United States government being a representative one?

It goes like this: “The people who make the decisions in Washington are accountable to the people, and if they don’t do what we want, we can vote them out”.

On the surface, this appears to be a true statement. The positions of president, house of representatives, and senate are all filled by elections.

The president leads the largest branch in the United States government, and constitutional or not, it is involved in every aspect of our lives.

There are roughly 4,000,000 people in the executive branch, a large number of which make decisions that impact your life every day, yet Continue reading “The Executive Branch”

Ignorant or Evil

I regard the actions of almost every member of the establishment with the following question.

Is this person ignorant or evil?

For example, I believe that Bernie Sanders means well, but is completely ignorant of economics and history, while I believe that Hillary Clinton is evil. She knows exactly what she is doing.

As I learn more about the creation of the US Constitution via the Liberty Classroom courses, I can’t help but wonder the same thing about the various founders.

Where those who argued against the need for explicit language ignorant of the effect that the loose language would have, or were they deviously plotting the all-powerful government that they really wanted?

Patrick Henry smelled a rat.
Maybe we should too.


Why does a blog called No State No Problem have a post about Trump?Why do I talk about Politics on Twitter?

Why will I be writing posts that talk about the Constitution?

These are all good questions.

I decided to name my future blog No State No Problem while reading Lew Rockwell’s Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto and dreaming of a stateless society.The name is easy to remember, clear in its intention, and not taken. If you have never tried to register a website name, you may not be able to understand the importance of “not taken”, but I ensure you, it is the hardest to overcome. 

Against The State
I believe that an Anarcho-Capitalist society would fantastic.

Yet, I recognize that we live in a world where the majority of people believe that the state is not only necessary, but desirable.

We are a minority, and the uninitiated tend to dismiss our ideas when they are presented directly.

The only way to open some people up to our ideas might be to begin with a Constitutional argument.

The only way to reach others may be a political campaign.

Ron Paul introduced me to Rockwell and Rothbard, and he was a congressman running for president. His message first resonated with me because he spoke of what was constitutional, and those arguments opened me up to the others.

I also believe that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think there are constitutional amendments that could make things better.

I believe that there are some candidates that will be better than others.

I believe that if the minarchists make progress, then we make progress, and minarchism is easier for the masses to accept.

So I will talk about the dream of a stateless society, and reference Rothbard, Hoppe, Rockwell, and others, but I will also try to deal with the reality of today, and try to find ways to improve it.

Driving With Coffee

But without the state, who would ban drinking coffee in the car?

If the New Jersey Democrats get their way, it will soon be illegal to drive while drinking coffee.

From the below linked article: The real issue is that we need to try, in every way, to discourage distracted driving, it’s dangerous,” Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat in Central Jersey, who sponsored the bill, told The Star-Ledger. “Education and enforcement can change the attitudes of people.”

First, there is the lunacy of trying to make a law against everything that is dangerous.

Second, there are so many distractions you couldn’t ban them all. Billboards, passengers, the radio, temp controls, seat adjustments, attractive people driving in the lane next to you, food & drink, GPS, etc.

Third, there is the idea that the state should be trying to “change the attitudes of people”.