Nathan Larson: Difference between revisions

From LPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(Undo revision 8619 by 71.63.87.202 (Talk))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Politician
'''Nathan Larson''' is a candidate for the 1st District of Virginia Congressional race in 2008 and a member of the State Central Committee of the [[Libertarian Party of Virginia]].
| image = Nathan Larson Photo.jpg
| name = Nathan Daniel Larson
| nominee      = [[1st District of Virginia|United States House of Representatives]]
| election_date = [[November 4]], [[2008]]
| opponent = [[Rob Wittman]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]])
| incumbent    = [[Rob Wittman]]
| birth_date = {{birth date and age|1980|9|19}}
| birth_place = [[Charlottesville, Virginia|Charlottesville]], [[Virginia]], [[United States|USA]]
| party = [[Libertarian Party of the United States|Libertarian Party]]
| occupation = [[Certified Public Accountant]]
| alma_mater = [[George Mason University]]
| website = http://larson2008.com
}}
'''Nathan Larson''' is a [[militant]] [[anarcho-capitalist]], candidate in [[Virginia's 1st congressional district election, 2008|Virginia's 1st congressional district election]],<ref>{{cite web|date=2008-06-12|url = http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/06/nathan-larson-to-run-very-active-libertarian-campaign-for-congress-in-virginias-1st-district/ |title = Nathan Larson to run very active Libertarian campaign for Congress in Virginia&#8217;s 1st district |accessdate = 2008-07-31|publisher=Independent Political Report}}</ref><ref>{{citation|publisher=Virginia Liberty|title=Larson: Bringing Message to 1st|url=http://lpva.com/Archives/VaLiberty/2008/VL-2008-05.pdf|edition=May/June 2008}}</ref> and member of the State Central Committee of the [[Libertarian Party of Virginia]].<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.lpva.com/HTML/organization.php |title = LPVA - Party Organization |publisher=Libertarian Party of Virginia|accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref> He is also a [[Certified Public Accountant]]<ref>{{cite web|url = https://secure.boa.virginia.gov/searchresultsindividual.asp?searchname=&CERT=32045&ZIP= |title = Virginia Board of Accountancy - CPA Licensure Services - CPA Lookup |accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref> and founder of Acme Private Defense Company.<ref>{{cite web|title=Acme Private Defense Company Opens for Business|author=Acme Private Defense Co.|url=http://acmeprivatedefense.com|date=2008-07-19}}</ref>


==Formative years==
==External links==
Larson was born on September 19, 1980 in [[Charlottesville, Virginia]], the son of Arthur Larson, an [[environmental law]] attorney and [[American Civil War]] battlefield preservationist, and Dorothy Larson, a banker who would later become director of the Prince William County Office of Dispute Resolution. Nathan Larson began his political life as a socialist, influenced by the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] activism of his parents. He frequently argued with conservatives on local electronic [[Bulletin Board System]]s in the early 1990s. He was an enthusiastic supporter of [[Bill Clinton]], and delighted in annoying [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]s by extolling Clinton's many virtues. Larson, ever the proponent of grand sweeping societal reforms, later began spending the bulk of his spare time posting lengthy diatribes on [[WWIVlink]] pitching his idea for a [[utopia]]n society that was essentially a hybrid of the worlds depicted in ''[[Brave New World]]'' and ''[[Logan's Run (1976 film)|Logan's Run]]'', as the concepts of widespread [[sexual promiscuity]] without negative consequences and [[psychotropic drug]]s lacking side effects greatly appealed to him. Later, he read ''[[I, Robot]]'' and concluded that the solution to all of society's problems was to develop [[artificial intelligence|superintelligent machine]]s that, paradoxically, would both serve humanity and rule the world. (He would later find this belief particularly ironic in view of the statement by Dr. [[Susan Calvin]] in ''[[The Evitable Conflict]]'' that the machines might eventually find that "complete anarchy is the answer.")<ref>{{cite book|title=I, Robot|pages=271|year=1977|author=Asimov, Isaac|isbn=0-553-29438-5|chapter=The Evitable Conflict}}</ref> Upon discovering the Internet, he connected with [[David Pearce (philosopher)|David Pearce]], with whom he found common ground on the merits of [[hedonism]]. Larson attained a few honors, such as earning the [[Bronze Congressional Award]], as well as becoming state winner in the [[Future Business Leaders of America]] [[parliamentary procedure]] contest. He was particularly fascinated by [[strategic use of motions]].
*http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43802230494
 
*http://www.nathanlarsonforcongress.com/
Circa 1997, Larson also became actively involved in promoting the cause of [[world government]], seeing it as the logical conclusion of arguments that government is needed to protect rights and resolve disputes peacefully. He joined the [[World Federalist Association]] and became involved in its Partners for Global Change program, where he learned to influence the political process by writing letters to officials and newspapers in support of the [[International Criminal Court]], [[United Nations funding]], and similar issues. He gained notoriety by speaking before the [[Boards of Supervisors]] of [[Culpeper County, Virginia]] and [[Prince William County, Virginia]] to request that the [[UN flag]] be flown above a municipal building on [[United Nations Day]].
 
In 2000, Larson became a business major at [[George Mason University]] and thus was required to take an economics class. He chose the innocuously titled "Economic Problems and Public Policies," taught by [[anarchist]]-turned-[[minarchist]] [[Thomas Carl Rustici]]. Taken aback by arguments presented by [[Nathaniel Branden]] in a required reading that voiced [[opposition to government involvement in education]] and other services,<ref>Branden, Nathaniel (June 1963). [http://www.sudburyvalley.org/archives/dsm6/0071.html Common Fallacies About Capitalism].</ref> Larson began preparing to make spirited counter-arguments in class. He was ultimately persuaded by the empirical evidence suggesting that such services could be better provided by private vendors in a free market. Rustici described police, courts and defense as [[public goods]] characterized by [[non-rivalrous consumption]] and [[non-excludability]], yet he also taught the class that [[taxation is theft]] and [[taxation as slavery|constitutes slavery]]; a contradiction that likely reflected Rustici's continuing ambivalence about the role of government (if any) in a free society. Inspired by Rustici's last lecture of the semester exhorting his students to rise to the occasion and launch "the next American revolution" that would restore freedom to the country,<ref>{{citation|author=Rustici, Thomas Carl|title=Econ 309: Economic Problems and Public Policies|url=http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Etrustici/ECON309/Economics%20309.pdf|publisher=George Mason University}}</ref> Larson joined the [[Libertarian Party of the United States]]. He also continued to push for world government, believing that if police, courts, and defense are necessary at local, state and federal levels, there was no reason why they should not be needed at the global level.
 
In 2002, Larson was elected to the GMU [[Student Senate]] on a [[cannabis reform]] platform. Initially, he called for legalizing hemp so that it could be sold for its medicinal and industrial uses, with the taxes helping to solve GMU's funding shortfalls. In the autumn, he introduced a bill to memorialize the [[Virginia House of Delegates]] to decriminalize its possession for recreational purposes as well, arguing that it would improve safety on campus by re-directing police officers' efforts to stopping violent crime.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.lpva.com/Archives/News/2002/20021126larson.shtml |title = GMU Student Senator Raises Controversy over Marijuana Bill |date=2002-11-26|publisher=Libertarian Party of Virginia|accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url = http://broadsideonline.com/news/stories/2002-2003/050503/marijuana.shtml |publisher=Broadside|date=2003-05-05|title = Grievance filed over marijuana bill |accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref> The bill passed, but was eventually ruled by the Student Supreme Court to have been [[pocket veto]]ed. Larson later came to regret having compromised his principles by not calling for GMU's complete privatization.
 
Larson independently came up with several ideas which turned out to have been already developed and/or patented by others. For instance, he came up with an [[anonymous matching]] system circa 2004 but found that Gil Sudai has already obtained patent 5,950,200 for the same idea and sold it to [[MatchNet]] for stock valued at $1,820,000.<ref>[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=54&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=matchmaking&p=2&OS=matchmaking&RS=matchmaking United States Patent 5,950,200: Method and apparatus for detection of reciprocal interests or feelings and subsequent notification], United States Patent and Trademark Office, [[7 September]] [[1999]].</ref> (Moreover, Sudai himself had been pre-empted by [[eCRUSH]], a venture using the same business concept that was protected due to the fact that its February 1999 launch predated the patent.) Larson also developed an idea for state laws that would allocate [[electoral vote]]s to the winner of the nationwide popular vote winner for [[U.S. President]]. Circa 2005, he began pitching it to [[League of Women Voters]] chapters and politicians' staff members across the country, who were mostly lukewarm to the idea. Then he approached [[FairVote]] executive director [[Rob Richie]], who informed him that [[Akhil Reed Amar]] and [[Vikram Amar]] had already come up with a similar idea, which was to be implemented as the [[National Popular Vote Interstate Compact]]. Larson recommended that it be followed up with another [[interstate compact]] to implement [[instant-runoff voting]] for the presidential election, which would be done by counting votes from citizens in non-participating states as [[Bullet voting|bullet votes]].<ref>{{cite web|url = http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=962 |title = Fruits and Votes &raquo; Prof. Shugart's Blog &raquo; Ranked-choice systems for choosing presidents |accessdate = 2008-07-31 |date = 10 October 2006}}</ref> However, later he decided that the [[presidential system]] was fraught with problems anyway. Noting that most corporations and nonprofit organizations are structured so as to have the [[chief executive officer]] or [[executive director]] hired and fired at will by the board of directors, he suggested that the U.S. simply switch to a [[parliamentary system]].
 
==Progression from peaceful activism to advocacy of revolution==
In January 2008, following a long hiatus, Larson rejoined the Libertarian Party and in May announced his candidacy for [[United States House of Representatives|Member of Congress]] for the 1st District of Virginia. He scrambled to get on the ballot, successfully gathering 1,000 valid signatures<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Cidate_Information/Cidate_Lists/CidatesList-Results.asp?ED=11/4/2008&ET=General&LOC=061&OFF=Member%2BHouse%2Bof%2BRepresentatives&PTY= |title = Virginia State Board of Elections : CandidatesList-Results |accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref> in a frenetic, last-minute effort assisted by advice and encouragement from the [[Independent Greens of Virginia]]. He was subsequently nominated by the LPVA and endorsed by the Indy Greens. Initially, his plan was to focus on electoral reform, particularly the replacement of elected legislatures with "[[liquid democracy]]," which is essentially a fusion of [[proxy voting]] with [[direct democracy]]. He thought that the chances for reform would be increased by a system whose outcomes more closely reflect the will of the majority.
 
Influenced by the Indy Greens (and his own experience with four-hour-a-day [[Northern Virginia]] commutes) to focus on transportation as well, however, he began reading the [[Independent Institute]] tome, ''[[Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads]]'',<ref>{{cite book|title=Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads|author=Roth, Gabriel|isbn=1-4128-0518-x|publisher=Independent Institute}}</ref> in order to sharpen his arguments for [[free market roads]] and [[transit privatization]]. Impressed with the quality of its research, Larson began reading other Independent Institute books,<ref>{{cite book|title=Anarchy and the Law|author=Stringham, Edward P.|publisher=Independent Institute|isbn=1-4128-0579-1}}</ref> including [[Bruce L. Benson]]'s works on [[privatization of criminal justice]];<ref>{{cite book|title=To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice|year=1998|author=Benson, Bruce L.|publisher=Independent Institute|isbn=0-8147-1327-0}}</ref> and was soon taking an interest in [[anarcho-capitalism]] (despite his initial skepticism years earlier upon sitting in on a pro-anarchy lecture by [[Bryan Caplan]].) This led to reading books by [[Linda and Morris Tannehill]] and [[Murray Rothbard]]<ref>{{cite book|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp|title=For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto|author=Rothbard, Murray N.|year=1978|isbn=0-930073-02-9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market|author=Rothbard, Murray N.|year=2004|isbn=0-945466-30-7|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Ethics of Liberty|url=http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp|author=Rothbard, Murray N.|year=1998|isbn=0-8147-7506-3}}</ref> as well as [[Gustave de Molinari]]'s essays;<ref>{{citation|url=http://mises.org/web/2716|author=de Molinari, Gustave|title=The Production of Security|year=1849}}</ref> which in turn led him to the many books of the [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], including those by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]]<ref>{{cite book|title=The Myth of National Defense|url=http://mises.org/story/1356|author=Hoppe, Hans-Hermann|publisher=Ludwig von Mises Institute|isbn=0-945466-37-4}}</ref> and others advocating an end to government involvement in [[national defense]]. Ultimately, Larson began to view the state as unnecessary, and competitive markets as a far more effective safeguard against abuse than [[majority rule]]. In light of the [[public choice]] incentives that favor special interest [[pressure group]]s, he also began to suspect that the state was like a [[zeebetite]] from the original [[Metroid]], in that even if determined Libertarian efforts caused it to shrink, unless it were completely destroyed, it would just keep growing back and impeding necessary progress.<ref>{{citation|title=Metroid US Instruction Manual|year=1987|url=http://mdb.classicgaming.gamespy.com/m1/m1manual.txt|publisher=Nintendo}}</ref> He switched his campaign to an anarcho-capitalist theme, seeking to convince the electorate to support a peaceful transition to anarchy. He viewed it as desirable to get the majority of citizens to back this reform, rather than violently overthrowing the government, since a populace still desiring government might seek to re-establish it even if anarchy were temporarily achieved.
 
However, as time went on, Larson began viewing the prospects for successful persuasion as dim, particularly given the government's advantage in outreach resulting from its ability to indoctrinate millions of youth into [[statism]] through the taxpayer-funded educational system. Moreover, he began to regard as hypocritical the statists' arguments that if libertarians want to effect change, they should seek the voters' support. He viewed restrictive [[campaign finance]] rules, the routine practice of locking of Libertarians out of major debates, as well as [[gerrymandering]] and [[single member district plurality]] systems that kept Libertarians from gaining even token representation in Congress, as evidence that society was not sincere about wanting libertarians to participate in the political system. He had originally hoped that large numbers of libertarians running for office could help inform the voters about the merits of their ideas; but became convinced that an insufficient number of well-spoken persuaders would be willing to devote the necessary time and energy into such a self-immolating effort, particularly considering the social pressures and ridicule they were likely to encounter for doing something so seemingly pointless (i.e. running a campaign that would not result in election to public office).
 
He also began viewing the numerical majority's ability to forcibly impose government as overstated, since in the outbreak of war or revolution, a better measure of power is not sheer numbers but available resources (including money), the intensity of adherents' dedication to actively pursuing their cause, greater efficiency, effective strategy, etc. But in the event of [[asymmetrical warfare]], the latter factors might trump the former. Specifically, the flexibility of decentralized guerrilla units compared to rigid governmental hierarchies, and greater efficiency of competing [[private defense agencies]] compared to a government accustomed to operating as a monopolist could give anarchist forces an edge.
 
Larson believed that given the circumstances faced by the American people, he had not only the [[right of revolution|right]], but the [[duty of revolution|duty]] to wage revolutionary warfare. He viewed this as the logical result of a [[syllogism]]. His argument began with an appeal to the [[United States Declaration of Independence]], which states:
{{cquote|...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.}}
 
Noting that two synonyms for despotism are "[[absolutism]]" (dominance through threat of punishment and violence) and "[[dictatorship]]" (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator, not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.), Larson viewed it as self-evident that the U.S. Government fulfilled these definitions. In his view, the [[Anti-Federalists]] had already sufficiently pointed out that the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government a dangerous degree of power; and subsequent events ripped to shreds any doubt that might have remained as to the government's despotic nature. Through a series of Supreme Court decisions, government assumed absolute power not only to exercise those functions granted by the [[enumerated powers]], but also to tax (and by extension, regulate) every field of human endeavor. Larson viewed government as unrestricted by opposition because it has indoctrinated the populace (through [[compulsory education]] in state schools) to accept and support its doctrines; to the point where the remaining libertarians were too small a minority to use the democratic system to stop government aggression. The fact that U.S. Government is not controlled by a single individual did not dissuade him; he defined the "absolute ruler" in this case as a majority of voters infringing the lawful rights of a minority.
 
He interpreted the Declaration's statement that governments derive their just powers from the [[consent of the governed]] to require [[unanimous consent]], since a system in which expropriation and regulation were allowed by majority vote would provide no effective safeguard of life, liberty and property. However, he did not view such a requirement to necessarily be a practical hindrance to governments operating, as long as there were a way for dissidents to secede or at least emigrate to a country with more favorable laws. However, Larson opined that, with even [[anarchy in Somalia]] imperiled by statist efforts, the lack of anarcho-capitalist countries to which to emigrate made secession (by revolution, if necessary) the most reasonable course of action. Paraphrasing [[Benjamin Franklin]], he said:
{{cquote|Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Representative democracy is two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner. A constitutional republic is two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a Constitution that says they cannot eat sheep; the Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the above votes.}}
 
He also believed that the founders would not have intended that libertarians continue to pursue peaceful entreaties long after such efforts had proven hopeless. As support, he noted the Declaration's explicit statements that the Americans attempted to persuade their British brethren, to no effect. Just as the intransigence of the British made it necessary to revolt against them, the unresponsiveness of American citizens to libertarian complaints about government intrusion into personal affairs necessitated revolution in the present day.
 
Larson feared that further delay carried the risk that government would become ever more entrenched. He thought its continued expansion and takeover of more private sector functions might eventually make free enterprise in many fields such a distant memory that people would not even have a reference point to which to compare government-run systems. He noted that just as people did not remember what it was like to have privately-provided defense and police, it seemed increasingly likely that, unless something were done, there would also come a day when they would not remember what privately-provided health care and other vital services were like. Like the elderly [[Proles|prole]] in [[George Orwell]]'s ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', they would not be able to recall whether life was better or worse before the complete abolition of [[capitalism]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Nineteen Eighty-Four|author=Orwell, George|year=1949}}</ref> Larson cited the dramatic expansion of government budgets and power over the 20th century, and during the [[George W. Bush administration]], as evidence that it was the 11th hour for freedom in America and that the situation did not admit of any more delay before revolution. He believed that, left unchecked, government would continue ratcheting up the level of taxation and regulation until it converted the U.S. into a pure [[command economy]].
 
==Acme Private Defense Company==
Larson concluded that the best solution, given the impossibility of enacting a set of laws that would please everyone, would likely be for statists and libertarians to simply go their separate ways. Addressing Virginian Libertarians, members of [[LPRadicals]], and [[Bureaucrash]], he advocated that interested libertarians leverage their combined economic strength by forming, and buying stock in, land purchase corporations, which could then buy the contiguous parcels of land needed to establish [[voluntary communities]] &ndash; anarcho-capitalist areas that would resist government interference in their affairs. Within the community itself, different privately-owned neighborhoods offering packages of municipal services such as streets, police, etc. might compete with one another for residents. The initial distribution of land plots might be by auction, with the proceeds going back to the land purchase corporation's shareholders as dividends.
 
Such a community could be established as an [[enclave]], although for better security against interference in trade, Larson recommended locating the first such communities adjacent to an ocean or bordering two or more countries. Future voluntary communities could then be safely located inland, as long as they bordered another voluntary community with which they had an agreement permitting trade through their territory. In this way, territory controlled by these communities could gradually expand. Larson suggested that communities, neighborhoods and other entities form [[arbitration agreement]]s with one another to provide for enforcement of property rights and contracts; ostracism could be used to punish those that failed to fulfill their obligations. He speculated that these communities could attract manufacturing, agricultural, high-tech and other industries through an abundant supply of cheap labor and entrepreneurial spirit resulting from [[open border]]s.
 
Larson noted that the failure of other [[secessionist]] movements was often due to attempts to engage a stronger enemy in [[symmetric warfare]]. Accordingly, he recommended that the voluntary communities enter into contracts with globally-, nationally-, or regionally-operating private defense agencies, which would provide protection from outsiders by means of guerrilla warfare. In the event of attack, the agency would intervene by counterattacking the invader &ndash; probably not at the scene of the offense, where the intruders' display of force would likely be overwhelming; but in another location, launching surprise attacks on high-value targets belonging to the intruder. Such retaliatory action could be increased until the costs of aggression were raised a sufficient level to deter attack. If practicable, the defense agency might forcibly seize assets from the attacker, or extract money through ransoms and intimidation, to finance its own activities and to obtain restitution for the victimized community, much as [[privateer]]s in the 18th and 19th century seized ships belonging to the enemy under [[letters of marque and reprisal]]. The contract might specify that compensation would be paid to the agency only after the counterstrike were successfully executed and the aggression ended. The potential for retaliation would keep the communities safe.
 
To minimize [[fixed cost]]s, Larson planned for Acme to maintain only a [[skeleton crew]] under normal conditions. They could maintain contracts with [[assassin]]s and other contractors capable of carrying out targeted attacks. These contractors would be responsible for supporting themselves through other means (e.g. civilian employment) during peacetime, but would be on call at all times. In the event of a government attack on one of the company's client communities, the company would call on the contractors to carry out hits against the leaders responsible for the aggression. To help facilitate quick retaliation, some contractors could be stationed in capital cities (such as Washington, DC) or near other strategic targets in potentially aggressive countries. Some retaliatory work might even be subcontracted out, analogously to how gangs subcontracted out to [[Murder, Inc.]]
 
To avoid problems associated with infiltration by government informants, centralized lists would be avoided as much as possible; individual contractors would take care of operational details such as keeping track of individual assassins, and contact with these contractors would be maintained through intermediaries and forms of communication that could be readily authenticated but would be difficult to trace. Contractors that failed to respond to orders to attack the U.S. government would be terminated. Moreover, the defense companies could send their own spies to infiltrate government agencies and obtain information on the agents and methods involved in the state's counter-secessionary activities. The prospect of using deadly force did not bother Larson, as he viewed it as inevitable that all societies would seek a means of deterring attacks through their ability to cause harm to aggressors &ndash; a capacity which necessitates the employment of men trained to kill, whether the defense agency is run by government or private industry.
 
Thus, he departed from [[David D. Friedman]]<ref>{{cite book|title=The Machinery of Freedom|pages=149-150|year=1989|chapter=Revolution Is the Hell of It|author=Friedman, David D.|isbn=0-8126-9069-9}}</ref> and the Tannehills<ref>{{cite book|title=The Market for Liberty|year=1970|pages=161|author=Tannehill, Morris and Linda|isbn=0-930073-08-8|chapter=The Force Which Shapes the World}}</ref> on the merits of armed revolution as a tool for implementing libertarianism. He attributed their rejection of it to their misguided focus on defense rather than retaliation. Larson viewed defense against the U.S. government as a probably hopeless effort, as government simply had too much force at its disposal to prevent it from taking over and destroying newly independent libertarian tax havens. He believed the focus should be, instead, on building up a retaliatory deterrent that (1) would be almost impossible to incapacitate and that (2) would be capable of inflicting great harm on the U.S. Government, and in particular, high-ranking decision-makers in all three [[branches of government]]. He saw decentralization and redundancy, through arrangements made with third parties, as effective means of maintaining a deterrent even if a private defense company's central control structure were destroyed. That is, fiduciary agents would be assigned to pay contractors to retaliate in the event a government sneak attack knocked out the company's headquarters or officers. Meanwhile, the stockholders (which could include some heirs of former stockholders who were killed in the attack) could reorganize the company's leadership. As in most corporations, stockholders could designate proxies to vote on their behalf in the event imprisonment or other circumstances prevented them from personally participating in the company's governance.
 
Nonetheless, he viewed the potential for widespread carnage as actually less than in a general war; Larson predicted that private defense companies would seek to avoid mass destruction and the death of innocents, focusing instead of military and leadership targets, so as to reduce liability and public relations problems that would be bad for business. They would also have an incentive to avoid unnecessary aggression, since such operations would not only incur costs and put their own employees into harm's way (thus potentially harming their ability to attract and retain staff) but would likely alienate their own customers, who might be inclined to switch providers. Customers might see a danger that an aggressive company would turn its abuse on them someday as well in the event of a falling-out; or that the retaliation of the defense company's victims would be directed at them due to their continued association with and financial support of the company.
 
Larson opined that there was nothing preventing investors from taking steps to form such land purchase corporations and private defense companies immediately; however, the latter might wish to locate their corporate headquarters in a sympathetic country to minimize potential for legal interference, and communities might wish to take measures to ensure redundancy of their defense system (e.g. by specifying a backup defense agency to intervene in the event the first failed to react effectively). The use of outside insurers, who could direct the retaliation activities from a position of safety in the event of invasion, might obviate this concern somewhat.
 
In July 2008, Larson began drafting a [[business plan]] in preparation for incorporating Acme Private Defense Company in the [[Cayman Islands]]. Its July 19 [[press release]] was shrewdly disguised as [[political satire]] to increase the likelihood that it would be regarded a [[protected speech]]. The moniker "ACME" stands for Anarcho-Capitalist Military Enterprises. The company's logo is a [[blood red]]-hued [[anarchy symbol]] followed by "cme." Larson noted that his firm would likely be [[Diversification (marketing strategy)|diversifying]] to include such divisions as Acme [[dispute resolution organization|Dispute Resolution]], Acme [[Entertainment]], etc.; the latter being a video game development company specializing in simulations of counterstrikes against U.S. forces and leaders, which could be used for training and recruitment.
 
==Philosophy==
{{Anarchism}}
Larson spent much of his life socially isolated, having chosen intellectual activities such as programming computers, reading scientific books and experimenting with electronics over sports and other passtimes favored by his peers. Indeed, one of his personal heroes (in addition to radical suffragist-turned-birth-control-advocate [[Kitty Marion]] and [[Oklahoma City bombing|Oklahoma City bomber]] [[Timothy McVeigh]]) was [[John Diebold]], whom he greatly admired for his persistent espousal of visionary ideas. Although Larson spent much of his childhood and adolescence embarrassed, intimidated and hurt by those who teased and ridiculed him, in his adult life he later became enamored with the phrases "None of your business," "I don't care what you think," and "Fuck you," which, when used in conjunction with [[Finger (gesture)|the bird]], he regarded as possibly the only three rejoinders needed for sufficient response to any and all ill-intentioned inquiries and criticisms regarding his personal eccentricities.
 
Larson experienced several early failures with women and became embittered over their seeming tendency to favor "[[Jerk (person)|jerk]]s" over "[[nice guy]]s." After attending [[dating seminar]]s and reading books by [[seduction community]] authors such as [[Erik Von Markovik]], his resentment turned to amusement as he reflected on the evolutionary logic of [[attraction trigger]]s that lead women to subconsciously prioritize attributes such as confidence, authority, strength, [[social skill]]s, and perceived (albeit often inaccurately assessed) willingness to be a stable provider, over intelligence or kindness. Larson eventually came to view such preferences as being possibly less irrational, arbitrary, and counterproductive than men's focus on physical attractiveness over potentially more important (and lasting) qualities; but in any event, regarded it as futile to try to change such powerful aspects of human nature, especially given that they evidently had legitimate evolutionary purposes. He accepted it to be the right of everyone to make such choices based on whatever criteria they chose; and trusted the free market to find creative ways to solve any associated problems, as it did all other quandaries.
 
He also believed that, similarly to how ant colonies produce a certain number of individuals whose purpose involves work rather than reproduction (and, conversely, a certain number whose purpose is reproduction, rather than the necessary work of digging tunnels, finding food, etc.) it could be that there are some humans whose success in fulfilling their role in society could not be accurately evaluated by conventional measures such as having a lucrative job, a family, friends, etc. Indeed, it could be that there are some who are destined to sacrifice themselves for the good of the rest. Those individuals would know who they were by a strong drive for altruism manifesting itself as a dominant part of their personality. Larson trusted society to produce these individuals in optimal proportions, through a finely-tuned evolutionary process, just as the ants produce the "right" number of queens and workers. The important thing, he opined, was for these altruistic individuals to direct their altruism at the "right" causes, rather than wasting it on socialist activism and other misguided endeavors. Originally thinking he clashed with [[Ayn Rand]] on the meritoriousness of altruism, he later came to regard the difference as the result of a semantical misunderstanding.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://larson2008.com/wiki/index.php5?title=User:Nathan_Larson/In_Defense_of_Altruism |author=Larson, Nathan|year=2008|title = In Defense of Altruism|accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref>
 
Larson noted that even human biology exhibited seemingly altruistic behaviors that made sense for the long-term survival of their own genes. He cited, as an example, that a male has greater potential in the short term to distribute its genes by impregnating many females. Thus, a gene to produce a significantly higher proportion of males than females in the [[sex ratio]] might tend to propagate widely in the short-term. But in the long-term, such a gene would result in a surfeit of males, thus hindering reproductive capability as a society became saturated with carriers of the gene; and at that point, societies with a more evenly-balanced sex ratio would gain a relative advantage, with their genes tending to propagate more rapidly. So, humans tend to gravitate toward a sex ratio approximating 1:1, with half of all reproductions exhibiting the seemingly "altruistic" behavior of generating a female, which might more accurately be regarded as [[enlightened self-interest]].
 
Indeed, in trying to understand human behavior, Larson often looked to examples in nature. He viewed ecosystems as being analogous to economies, with different organisms competing, specializing, forming partnerships for the purpose of making mutually beneficial trades (e.g. aphids providing milk to [[dairying ants]] in exchange for protection from predators and other benefits), and organizing societies for mutual protection and sharing of services in ways that took advantage of economies of scale (e.g. ants in the same colony sharing tunnels, much as humans in the same homeowners association share streets). He noted that members of some species, such as bees, will sacrifice their own lives to sting an intruder who endangers the hive; a perfectly logical act in light of bees' nature, which does not permit an individual to survive and reproduce if the rest of their colony is destroyed. Larson compared this to how humans in the [[American Revolution]] had put life and limb at risk to counterattack against statist aggression, and claimed it would make just as much sense for citizens to do the same today. He opined that such a move would be a logical strategy to promote propagation of one's genes, given the interdependence of humans in society and their need for freedom to maximize their potential for survival and replication. Larson hypothesized that whenever any government became tyrannical enough, society would tend to produce people like him, whose radical anti-government activities would help restore that society to a healthy state.
 
Eventually, Larson came to regard himself as "[[judgment proof]]" since he found life as a government slave in an unfree society to be so unsatisfying and devoid of meaningful purpose (not to mention potentially immoral once one became aware of the harmful nature of government, since those who pay taxes provide financial support to statist aggression) that it might be worse than death; and thus even the state's ultimate penalty for rebellion could not deter him. The prospect of imprisonment likewise did not concern him, since there would always be the possibility of liberation in the coming anarcho-capitalist revolution. He noted that even if government were to institute torture and other extreme punishments, it would be counter-productive as it would merely increase the incentives to launch [[suicide attack]]s. He decided that New Hampshire had the right idea with its motto "[[live free or die]]" and that [[Patrick Henry]] likewise was on the right track when he said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?...I know not what course others may take; but as for me, [[give me liberty or give me death]]!" Concerned about the many lives lost or harmed due to such government actions as war; the placement of natural resources such as air, water and government land into [[the commons]] where there were no [[residual claimant]]s (i.e. property owners) with an incentive to protect them from pollution; and the delay in bringing lifesaving drugs to market because of [[Food and Drug Administration]] regulation &ndash; as well as the suffering caused by, for instance, people not being able to retire due to government expropriation of their income for the non-remunerative [[Social Security]] system; unskilled workers not being able to find jobs because of [[minimum wage]]-related unemployment; etc., Larson saw it as necessary to take radical action immediately to put an end to the losses as soon as possible. He noted, "[[Anarcho-capitalist revolution]] has to start somewhere."
 
Larson advocated applying [[game theory]] to revolutionary strategy, particularly in reference to the issue of [[self-sacrifice]]. He drew comparisons to [[chess]], pointing out that a long-term advantage can sometimes by gained by playing a [[gambit]], in which a [[pawn (chess)|pawn]] puts itself in a position to be captured so as to help its side gain the [[initiative (chess)|initiative]] or disrupt the enemy's configuration. Moreover, the game can be won by successive trades of less-powerful pieces for more-powerful pieces. In other words, the revolution can benefit from a lowly citizen sacrificing himself to bring down a powerful government oppressor. He opined that if rebels were to launch repeated attacks that could not be ignored, it would keep the state on the defensive while revolutionaries maneuvered into advantageous positions to initiate even more devastating assaults, culminating in the government being [[checkmated]] &ndash; that is, forced into an untenable situation in which its only viable choice would be surrender.
 
Larson reasoned that, economically, the ideal people to become these self-sacrificing anti-government pawns would be those who found themselves in situations in which they had nothing to lose &ndash; that is, people lacking family, friends, jobs, reputation, etc. who had given up hope of finding a way to live a happy life under statist oppression. Their low [[opportunity cost]]s would allow the revolution to be started at less expense. Noting that there are more than 30,000 [[suicide]]s in the United States every year,<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention.shtml |title = NIMH &#183; Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention |accessdate = 2008-07-31}}</ref> he saw the potential for many suicide attacks, if people would choose suicidal acts that help destroy the state, rather than just throwing away their lives uselessly. This could then pave the way for bringing about a freer society that would be so much better than contemporary America that the macroeconomic root causes of many situations that prompt despair would be eliminated. Thus, at least they could meet their demise with the satisfaction of knowing that they had accomplished something good for the world. He considered assaults resulting in death sentences or long terms of imprisonment to be qualitatively similar to suicide attacks, since either way it meant giving up whatever "normal" life one might have had the opportunity to live otherwise. Gesticulating wildly in a July 31, 2008 [[YouTube]] video, Larson urged anarcho-capitalist [[freedom fighter]]s to mentally prepare themselves for the missions they would need to carry out:
{{cquote|Vividly picture how anarcho-capitalism would allow all your problems to be solved and every dream you ever had to be fulfilled. Then imagine the wicked politicians blocking the way, smacking their lips as they feast on the ill-gotten gains of tyranny, and bellow-laughing at the thought of how you, like the rest of the ignorant slaves, are surely too timid, stupid and weak to try to stop their schemes for inflicting more pain on you, your family and everyone you ever loved or cared about. Then see yourself walking up behind them, with a pistol, or a bomb, or a syringe of deadly poison in your hand, the Defender of Liberty, come to rescue the people from oppression and misery! Take all of the sorrow, disappointment, frustration, and anger you have been bottling up, and pour it all out onto the State. Devise meticulous plans for the destruction of government oppressors, and execute them. Stain the streets red with the blood of the statist aggressors! Kill them! Kill them all!}}
 
Larson believed there were many disaffected individuals waiting in the wings for a revolution to start before taking action themselves. Thus, after the movement of pawns in the [[Chess opening|opening]], these stronger pieces could be brought into play. But in order for that could happen, somebody would need to make the first move.
 
==References==
{{reflist|2}}


[[Category:Current and Former Candidates]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalists]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalists]]

Revision as of 23:33, 30 August 2008

Nathan Larson is a candidate for the 1st District of Virginia Congressional race in 2008 and a member of the State Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.

External links

Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Larson&oldid=8620"