Are Psychopaths Running the Show?

What difference is there between an insane radical suicide bomber who blows himself up in a busy market place and a prominent Western political leader ordering an invasion or bombing of a foreign country and/or imposing sanctions that kills infinitely more innocent people than a crazy suicide bomber?

Written by Michal Zoldy

According to a study carried out by British researchers back in the 1990s, the number of psychopaths in any given population is one percent. In the case of Britain that means that there are roughly 600 thousand psychopaths in that country alone. The problem is that such people tend to struggle hard for influence and power over other people, in order to be able to intimidate, bully and/or harass those who happen to find themselves in positions and situations in which they depend on those psychopaths, either as their subordinates, employees or family members.

That interesting British study was seeking to shed more light on the ever growing problem of workplace bullying and harassment. Upon reading those results and explanations during my postgraduate studies in Leeds (UK) I did a bit of reflecting and realized that I, too, knew two such psychopaths who had occupied high managerial positions and made the life of their subordinates a living hell. If it is possible, which it often times is, people have no other alternative but quit and seek a new job, just to escape and not have to come into daily contact with a thuggish psychopathic boss.

In other instances the solution is divorce, if a husband or a wife happens to be a psychopath.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy to recognize the scope, nature and implications of the problem at its early stages. Throughout history there appeared extremely dangerous charismatic psychopaths also among national political leaders, most prominent among whom had been Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, to name but a few. Letting people like that come to power, either through a democratic process or by seizing it by force, is a big mistake for it can even lead to global disasters with tragic consequences. It never ceases to amaze me why tens of millions of Germans, known to be intelligent and educated people, failed to notice and realize that Adolf Hitler was a textbook example of monstrous psychopath.

One explanation is that psychopaths are extremely skillful orators and manipulators. Be that as it may, it is highly advisable and useful to stay vigilant, just in case things might start getting out of control until it is too late. The price for failing to pay attention and doing nothing can be very high.

This brief glance into the past brings me to a question that offers itself almost automatically. Are there psychopaths, subclinical or downright pathological, also among today’s prominent politically active personalities or even political leaders? And what about the intellectual level of such prominent people? Just as a high school principal must not be an insane psychopath or a person with under-average IQ, so, too, anyone occupying or hoping to occupy a position of political leadership must not be mentally ill or an intellectually deficient individual.

In his recent article, entitled "Is our political class mentally ill?," Justin Raimondo poses the same all-important question and arrives at a grim conclusion. I agree with his observations also as a commentator from afar. At least in my part of the world politics used to be perceived as an intellectually demanding field of human activity where there is no place for immoral, insane and intellectually deficient individuals. But that is not what one increasingly sees even in many prominent political figures and "media personalities" of today. In other words, it seems that these days you can successfully climb the political ladder or become an editor of a national daily if you are a psychopath or an undereducated simpleminded moron.

Worse still, the more radical you are the greater the chances of your success. Rude and crude bullish radicalism tends to permeate and even dominate this upside-down world of politics, even, or especially, in English-speaking countries.

Let me give you an example. The prime minister of my country back in the 1990s had been ferociously criticized and vilified by American politicians for being an autocrat. The then-Secretary of State went so far as to call my country a black hole. But for all his deficiencies that man was an archangel Gabriel compared, say, to Bill Clinton who bombed a Serbian passenger train full of innocent passengers and even the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, George Bush who is personally responsible for the havoc, suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or, for that mater, Medal of Freedom laureate former State Secretary Albright who said that the 500 thousand Iraqi children dead from US-imposed sanctions was "worth it."

What difference is there between an insane radical suicide bomber who blows himself up in a busy market place or on a bus full of innocent passengers, and a prominent Western political leader ordering an invasion or bombing of a foreign country and/or imposing sanctions that kills infinitely more innocent people than a crazy suicide bomber?

Yes, Justin Raimondo is right. Today’s political class does show worrying symptoms of mental illness characterized by extremely radical, irresponsible, and dangerous mindsets, views, decisions and orders. As a result, there is ever more reason for grave concern. While you can quit a job where you suffer under a psychopathic boss and divorce a psychopathic spouse, you can’t leave your country equally easily and move elsewhere. Besides, where else could you possibly go?

Michael Zoldy was Director of the Slovak Information Agency.

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/april/20/are-psychopaths-running-the-show/

Markets vs Conventional Politics

What If They Made a State and No One Used It?

Private and public continue to exist side by side. But which is favored by the direction of history? Services that make life better last and those that do not lose energy and die, even when they are funded by government.

Government can prolong a useless function but not forever. Technology is an inexorable force. Government can slow it down but it can’t stop it. The private sector keeps getting ever more amazing while the government’s services — all over the world — keep getting worse.

In every area of life, the trend is obvious and it is intensified by the digital revolution, which opened up a new frontier for entrepreneurs to innovate outside government systems. The new innovations have become essential to our lives.

This is a much more effective path toward liberty than conventional politics. All over the world, people are suffering under the weight of central planning, regulation, high taxation, barriers to trade, and monopolies over education, banking, money, and so many other areas. People are clamoring for more room to breath, create, and serve. But how do we get from here to there? Innovation is the productive path that is making the difference.

They can build the state. But they can’t make people use it, especially not if better alternatives exist. There are thousands and millions of ways to leave leviathan today. They surround us, from Uber taxi to Bitcoin to homeschooling to private medical services to online pharmacies to private environmental preserves.

Name any seemingly essential service that government has offered in the 20th century and you can name a cheaper, more effective, more innovative, and more accessible private alternative. There is nothing that states can do that needs to be done that markets cannot do better. The current technology trajectory is proving the point, many times over.

The result is political instability. A paradigm shift. Obsolescence of the public sector. The growing irrelevance of power. Ever less dependent on, and hence loyalty to, the coercive power structure and ever more cultural, economic, and social reliance on the structures that society creates for itself. The tolerance for taxation, slavery, spying, regulation, and war begins to decline. Eventually it dies because it is unsustainable without public support. That’s the story of how human liberty prevails over tyranny. It could be the story of our near-term future.

This is a peaceful path to reform. It is not a certain path but looking around the world today, it is one that is most productive of human needs and also the one most threatening to the political elite. The ruling elite won’t go without a fight but increasingly they will be fighting people who are already discovering a better way of life than to live at others’ expense.

Read complete article by Jeffrey Tucker here: https://tucker.liberty.me/what-if-they-made-a-state-and-no-one-used-it/

Paternity Fraud is Legal in Pakistan, Supreme Court ruling

Muslim law does not vest husbands with right to deny paternity of child, Pakistan SC ruled.

Children born during the subsistence of marriage are presumed to be legitimate

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN: The Supreme Court ruled on March 19th, 2015 that the Muslim Personal Law did not vest husbands with the right to casually deny the paternity of a child bore to them by their wives.

“Children born during the subsistence of marriage are presumed to be legitimate,” said a judgment issued by a two-judge bench while overturning a Lahore High Court verdict.

The bench comprises Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.

“Except under extremely limited circumstances and within a very limited period after birth, this presumption cannot be rebutted by any evidence, including DNA test,” the verdict said.

But pay alimony / child-support anyways.

The eight-page judgment narrates the story behind the case.

In 1997, Ms Ghazala Tehseen Zohra, the appellant, became the first wife of a local landowner, Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan, and subsequently bore him two children.

When the husband took a second wife, the first wife went to the court claiming a secure monthly maintenance for herself and the two children. But the husband divorced her, refused to own the children and sought a declaration to this effect from a local court.

Seven years later, just before the paternity trial was about to conclude, the husband sought permission from the court to introduce DNA evidence. When the court turned down the request, he took the matter to the high court which granted his request.

The woman moved the Supreme Court which accepted her appeal eight years later.

“While the presumption of legitimacy attached to children born during marriage is a long-standing rule of Muslim Personal Law, some confusion seems to have been created in this regard by Article 128(1 a) of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order (QSO), 1984,” the SC judgment said.

The provision suggests that no such presumption remains in a case where “the husband had refused, or refuses, to own the child”.

The apex court clarified that Article 128(1 a) of the QSO must be read in line with letter and spirit of Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962. This statutory provision stipulates that in issues of “legitimacy or bastardy”, where the parties concerned are Muslim, the courts shall apply rules of Muslim Personal Law derived from the Shariah.

Under these rules, a father cannot deny the paternity of children bore to him by his wife, even through evidence, unless he expressly makes this denial within 40 days after the child’s birth.

Since the father had made no such timely denial in the case at hand, the court deemed the disputed children legitimate, even in the absence of DNA evidence.

Taking stern notice of the high court’s decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the well-known rules regarding presumption of children’s legitimacy must be strictly adhered to. It emphasised that jurists in the Islamic tradition who expounded these rules “were not unaware simpletons lacking in knowledge”.

“The conclusiveness of proof in respect of legitimacy of a child was properly thought out and quite deliberate… the law does not give a free licence to individuals and, particularly unscrupulous fathers, to make bald assertions and thus to stigmatise children as well as their mother,” the judgment said.

Published in Dawn, March 20th, 2015

How Pakistanis Became Happier Than Indians

Pakistanis are happier than Indians.

That's according to the recently published World Happiness Report, which ranks Pakistan in the 80th position, and India in the 122nd position.

That's music to the ears of investors in Pakistan's equity markets, as happy citizens usually help the economy grow and prosper -- taking equity markets to new highs.

The World Happiness Report ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, combining quantitative data --  such as per capita GDP growth -- and qualitative data, such as social support, freedom to make life choices, and perceptions of corruption.

Pakistan's big lead in the happiness ranking over India may come as a surprise to some. India has been beating Pakistan in a number of indicators that monitor the performance of the two countries, like world competitiveness, GDP growth, and unemployment rates - see table.

Besides, India is a democracy that has yet to be interrupted by military coups and terrorism.

So what have Pakistanis done better than Indians in the pursuit of happiness?

It’s hard to say. Most of the variables included in the calculations are quantitative, and therefore, prone to measurement errors. Still, the gap between the rankings of the two countries is too big to be ignored.

One of the places to look for an answer to the above question is Pakistan’s lead over India in the index of economic freedom ranking. That’s  according to 2017 Index of Economic Freedom ranking, which places Pakistan in 141st position and India at 143th.

Published by the Heritage Foundation, the Economic Freedom report measures such things as trade freedom, business freedom, investment freedom, and the degree of property rights protection in 186 countries.

Pakistan’s lead over India in this ranking may not be big deal to most observers, as it is too narrow to seem meaningful. Besides, both countries are ranked too close to the bottom.

Still, Pakistan’s ranking has consistently beaten India's in recent years.

In fact, a closer look at the ranking components of the two countries reveals that Pakistan has fared better than India in the areas of business development and government spending, which matter a great deal when it comes to the freedom of people to make economic choices.

Simply put, Pakistan has been getting ahead of India in working towards the right cocktail between market and government institutions--deploying each institution in areas of the economy where it excels.

And this strategy has begun to make a difference in the way Pakistanis create and spend wealth in the pursuit of happiness.

Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2017/03/23/how-pakistanis-became-happier-than-indians/#4a334bc74a63

Pakistan asked Facebook and Twitter to help identify blasphemers

Companies approached in effort to locate Pakistanis at home or abroad so they can be prosecuted or potentially extradited

Protesters in Islamabad call on authorities to take action against blasphemous content on social media

Pakistan has asked Facebook and Twitter to help identify Pakistanis suspected of blasphemy so it can prosecute them or pursue their extradition.

Under the country’s strict blasphemy laws, anyone found to have insulted Islam or the prophet Muhammad can be sentenced to death.

The interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, said an official in Pakistan’s Washington embassy had approached the two social media companies in an effort to identify Pakistanis, either within the country or abroad, who recently shared material deemed offensive to Islam.

He said Pakistani authorities had identified 11 people for questioning over alleged blasphemy and would seek the extradition of anyone living abroad.

Facebook said it reviews all government requests carefully, “with the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users”.

“We disclose information about accounts solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law. A mutual legal assistance treaty or other formal request may be required for international requests, and we include these in our government requests report,” which is publicised each year, it said in a statement.

Facebook has often struggled to deal with the varying cultural norms around censorship in the hundred-plus countries where it operates. In a sprawling manifesto released in February, the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, described one possible solution to the difficulty: “combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them”.

In that plan, Zuckerberg said, Facebook would ask users all over the world to vote on what sort of content they found acceptable to see on their social media feeds. Content which breached those personal and national standards would then be automatically flagged by an artificial intelligence, and removed without the need for human intervention.

Twitter declined to comment.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/17/pakistan-asks-facebook-twitter-help-identify-blasphemers?CMP=share_btn_fb

Pakistani lawyers' group behind spike in blasphemy cases

Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry, leader of the Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Lawyers' Forum, a conservative alliance of lawyers offering free legal advice for anyone filing a blasphemy case.

A little-known alliance of hundreds of lawyers in Pakistan is behind the rise in prosecutions for blasphemy, a crime punishable by death that goes to the heart of an ideological clash between reformers and religious conservatives.

The group, whose name translates as The Movement for the Finality of the Prophethood, offers free legal advice to complainants and has packed courtrooms with representatives, a tactic critics say is designed to help it gain convictions.

No one in Pakistan has been executed for blasphemy so far, but jails are filling up with those sentenced to death, and there have been sporadic assassinations of the accused and people involved in their defence.

At least 65 people, including lawyers, defendants and judges, have been murdered over blasphemy allegations since 1990, according to figures from a Center for Research and Security Studies report and local media.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/pakistan-blasphemy-lawyers-idUSKCN0W905G

Socialism Is Dead; Participatory Fascism Has Triumphed

By Robert Higgs

“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” = Chinese fascism
“American capitalism” = American fascism
“Post-Communism in Russia” = Russian fascism
“Scandinavian Third Way” = Scandinavian fascism
“Italian fascism” = Italian fascism
“German fascism” = German fascism
“Spanish fascism” = Spanish fascism
“European corporatism” = European fascism

Are you starting to see a pattern?

Many people continue to perceive the presence or impending advent of socialism here, there, and everywhere and to lament the prospect. But full-fledged socialism is almost extinct. Aside from North Korea, hardly any country now has socialism’s essential attributes: government ownership, management, and direct control of all the major means of production; central planning of resource allocation and income distribution; and an almost complete absence of private property rights except for very small properties and some personal items. Almost all countries on earth now permit major elements of private property, combined with extensive government intervention and regulation of private property use and extensive taxation, subsidization, and government provision of a variety of “public goods,” “welfare,” infrastructure, and many other types of goods and services.

Moreover, almost all countries have elections of public officials; hence the term I’ve used for more than 30 years (borrowed from my Ph.D. student and friend Charlotte Twight), “participatory fascism.” (Never mind that the elections are often rigged and fraudulent.) Moreover, many countries have established institutions for permitting aggrieved citizens a measure of due process in contesting the government’s treatment of their persons and property and allowing them a public voice in expressing their preferences for government action. (Never mind that this ostensible due process is largely spurious.)

This type of regime, amigos mios, is clearly the wave of the future. Unlike full-fledged socialism, which leads to totalitarian rule, mass poverty and economic decay, participatory fascism not only placates people’s wish to participate in the formal process of government decision-making, but also permits private entrepreneurs enough room for maneuver that they can in some cases get rich; also enough that they can keep national output at a tolerably high level and in some cases even generate positive economic growth. Hence this system, even if it contains the seeds of its own destruction, does not destroy itself nearly as quickly as full-fledged socialism does. And meanwhile the politicians and their cronies who dominate the system smile all the way to the bank.

Source: http://blog.independent.org/2017/07/24/socialism-is-dead-participatory-fascism-has-triumphed/

Is North Korea a Monarchy?

"...North Korea is not a monarchy of any kind. The fact that the country has been ruled by father, son and grandson in turn no more makes them a monarchy than the fact that the Pope is elected makes the Vatican a republic. There is actually no hereditary succession in North Korea. Most people do not realize this. Kim Il-Sung was the first President of North Korea. His son, Kim Jong-Il, never succeeded to that office, nor has his son. Confused yet? Well, you should be because this is how far into never-never land North Korea has fallen. Kim Jong-Un and Kim Jong-Il were never President of North Korea because Kim Il-Sung (who died in 1994) is STILL the President! There is no “The King is dead, long live the King” in North Korea. Nope, living or not, Kim Il-Sung is the “Eternal President” of North Korea and always will be. Kim Jong-Il was “Supreme Leader”, he gave the orders and he was in total control, but he was not the President. The President of North Korea, for the last 18 years, has been a dead man. Christopher Hitchens once described North Korea as a “necrocracy” for this reason.

A monarchy is something that grows up naturally, over time, in a certain place in accordance with the culture of that place. The communist regime in North Korea was something totally alien that was imposed on the country, suddenly and had to be hammered into place by brute force. Korea, of course, had been a monarchy. Immediately prior to the division of course it had been a colonial appendage of the Empire of Japan and prior had been a vassal kingdom of Imperial China. However, it had also, briefly, been an independent empire of its own but that had grown out of the much older and well established Kingdom of Korea that existed previously. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has nothing, whatever at all in common with that Korean Empire which had reigned during the last period of united independence on the peninsula. It was the most radical break imaginable to that old and glorious tradition. The prior Korean kingdom and empire had been a place of highly advanced Confucian learning, progress and prosperity to a degree that caused even their powerful Chinese and Japanese neighbors to look on them with a degree of envy. Today, Japan looks on North Korea with great concern or worry and China regards them as a rather ill-behaved and embarrassing child they are obliged to support. To put it succinctly, we know what a Korean monarchy looks like and the DPRK is certainly NOT that."

"Everyone who has ever visited North Korea has been shocked that such a place could possibly be real. Every journalist I have ever seen interviewed after visiting North Korea has said the same exact thing, that it was an Orwellian nightmare brought to life."

"Keeping that in mind, far from being understandable as a monarchy, North Korea does, in a way, represent the ultimate in “republicanism”. It is the example of what happens when a political-economic doctrine is taken to the ultimate extreme, of throwing out history, tradition, morals and values and making the political machine, the “State” the ultimate authority, the ultimate guardian and the ultimate religion. North Korea, in that way, is a shining example of what results from all those who would trust political ideologies to solve their problems and ever bigger governments and government programs to take care of everything for them."

Read more at: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/05/classifying-north-korea.html

Flaws of The Limited-Government Think-Tank Industry

Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"The goal of “limited” — or “constitutional” — government, which Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan and other Mont Pelerin Society grandees had tried to promote and that every “free-market” think-tank today proclaims as its goal, is an impossible goal, much as it is an impossible goal to try squaring the circle. You cannot first establish a territorial monopoly of law and order and then expect that this monopolist will not make use of this awesome privilege of legislating in its own favor. Likewise: You cannot establish a territorial monopoly of paper money production and expect the monopolist not to use its power of printing up ever more money.

Limiting the power of the state, once it has been granted a territorial monopoly of legislation, is impossible, a self-contradictory goal. To believe that it is possible to limit government power — other than by subjecting it to competition, i.e., by not allowing monopoly privileges of any kind to arise in the first place — is to assume that the nature of Man changes as the result of the establishment of government (very much like the miraculous transformation of Man that socialists believe to happen with the onset of socialism).

That is the whole thing: limited government, is an illusory goal. To believe it to be possible is to believe in miracles.

The strategy of Hayek and of the Mont Pelerin Society, then, had to fail. Instead of helping to reform — liberalize — the (Western) State, as they intended (or pretended?) to do, the Mont Pelerin Society and the international “limited-government” think-tank industry would become an integral part of a continuously expanding welfare-warfare state system.

Indicators for this verdict abound: The typical location of the think tanks is in or near the capital city, most prominently Washington, D.C., because their principal addressee is the central government. They react to measures and announcements of government, and they suggest and make proposals to government. Most contacts of think-tankers outside their own institution are with politicians, government bureaucrats, lobbyists, and assorted staffers and assistants. Along with connected journalists, these are also the regular attendees of their conferences, briefings, receptions and cocktail parties. There is a steady exchange of personnel between think tanks and governments. And the leaders of the limited government industry are frequently themselves prominent members of the power elite and the ruling class.

Most indicative of all: For decades, the limited government movement has been a growth industry. Its annual expenditures currently run in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars likely have been spent in total. All the while, government expenditures never and nowhere fell, not even once, but instead always and uninterruptedly increased to ever more dizzying heights.

And yet, this glaring failure of the industry to deliver the promised good of limited government is not punished but, perversely, rewarded with still more ample funds. The more the think tanks fail, the more money they get.

The State and the free-market think-tank industry thus live in perfect harmony with each other. They grow together, in tandem.

For limited government advocates such as Hayek and the entire free-market think-tank industry, this is an embarrassment. They must try to explain it away somehow, as accidental or coincidental. And they typically do so, simply enough, by arguing that without their continued funding and operations matters would be even worse.

Thus excused, then, the industry continues on as before, undisturbed by any fact or event past or future.

But the embarrassing facts are not accidental or coincidental and could have been systematically predicted — if only one had better understood the nature of the state, and did not believe in miracles.

As a territorial monopolist of legislation and the money-printing press, the State has a natural tendency to grow: to use its “fiat” laws and “fiat” money to gain increasing control of society and social institutions. With “fiat laws," the State has the unique power of threatening and punishing or incentivizing and rewarding whatever it pleases. And with its “fiat money," it can buy up support, bribe, and corrupt more easily than anyone else.

Certainly, an extraordinary institution such as this will have the means at its disposal, legal and financial, to deal with the challenge posed by a limited government industry. Historically, the State has successfully dealt with far more formidable opponents — like organized religion, for instance!

Unlike the Church or churches, however, the limited government industry is conveniently located and concentrated at or near the center of State power, and the industry’s entire raison d’tre is to talk and have access to the State. That is what its donor-financiers typically expect.

Yet so much the easier, then, was it for the State to target and effectively control this industry. The State only had to set up its own bureaucracy in charge of free-market-relations and lure the limited-government NGOs with conferences, invitations, sponsorships, grants, money and employment prospects. Without having to resort to threats, these measures alone were sufficient to ensure compliance on the part of the free-market think-tank industry and its associated intellectuals. The market demand for intellectual services is low and fickle and hence intellectuals can be bought up cheaply!

Moreover, through its cooperation with the free market industry, the State could enhance its own legitimacy and intellectual respectability as an “economically enlightened," institution — and thus open up still further room for State growth.

Essentially, as with all so-called NGOs [non-government organizations], the State managed to transform the limited government industry into just another vehicle for its own aggrandizement.

What I learned from my experience with the Mont Pelerin Society, then, was that an entirely different strategy had to be chosen if one wanted to limit the power of the state. For socialists or social-democrats, it is perfectly rational to talk and seek access to the State and to try “marching through its institutions," because the Left wants to increase the power of the State. That is, the Left wants what the State is disposed to do anyway, by virtue of its nature as a territorial monopolist of law and order.

But the same strategy is inefficient or even counterproductive if one wants to roll the power of the State back — regardless of whether one wants to roll it back completely and establish a stateless natural order or roll it back only “sharply” or “drastically” to some “glorious” or “golden” status quo ante.

In any case, this goal can only be reached if, instead of talking and seeking access to the State, the State is openly ignored, avoided and disavowed; and its agents and propagandists are explicitly excluded from one’s proceedings. To talk to the State and include its agents and propagandists is to lend legitimacy and strength to it. To ostentatiously ignore, avoid and disavow it and to exclude its agents and propagandists as undesirable is to withdraw consent from the State and to weaken its legitimacy.

In sharp contrast to the Mont Pelerin Society and its multiple offspring, which wanted to reform and liberalize the welfare-warfare state system from within — pursuing a “system-immanent” strategy of change, as Marxists would say — and which failed precisely for this reason and was instead co-opted by the State as part of the political establishment, my envisioned society, the Property and Freedom Society was to pursue a “system-transcending” strategy.

That is, it would try to reform, and ultimately revolutionize, the ever more invasive welfare-warfare State system from the outside, through the creation of an anti-statist counterculture that could attract a steadily growing number of defectors — of intellectuals, educated laymen and even the much-cited “man on the street” — away from the dominant State culture and institutions. The Property And Freedom Society was to be the international spearhead, the avant-garde, of this intellectual counterculture.

Central to this counterculture was this insight into the perversity of the institution of a State: A territorial monopolist of law and order that can make and change laws in its own favor does not and cannot, without assuming miracles, protect the life and property of its subjects (clients); but is and always will be a permanent danger to them — the sure road to serfdom and tyranny.

Based on this insight, then, the Property And Freedom Society was to have a twofold goal.

On the one hand, positively, it was to explain and elucidate the legal, economic, cognitive and cultural requirements and features of a free, state-less natural order.

On the other hand, negatively, it was to unmask the State and showcase it for what it really is: an institution run by gangs of murderers, plunderers and thieves, surrounded by willing executioners, propagandists, sycophants, crooks, liars, clowns, charlatans, dupes and useful idiots — an institution that dirties and taints everything it touches."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/my-life-on-the-right/