Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

03 October 2016

The First Annual Austen Erickson Intellectual Audit


Dear Friends,

I occasionally reflect that my blog resembles the noble tardigrade. A small creature, surprisingly adorable yet still slightly horrifying, and which has the ability to revive itself after many months (or even years) of apparent death.



Left: Adorable tummy-rubby floof; Right: NIGHTMARE SURPRISE

In honor of its current resurrection from cryptoblogosis, I'd like to try something which I've tossed around in my head for a few years: an intellectual audit of my belief system carried out with the assistance of you all - my brilliant friends with whom I frequently disagree about a variety of topics.

This is still an experimental process, and I hope to refine it considerably in future years, but the basic idea is to spend some dedicated time challenging my strongly held beliefs, and exploring deeper into areas in which I still have weak beliefs and/or sparse knowledge. This will necessarily be an incomplete audit (like most people I believe many things about many things), but I hope that it moves my beliefs closer to True (or rather, appropriately increases or decreases my confidence in them).

Below is a (somewhat haphazard) list of broad belief systems I approximately subscribe to, specific beliefs I hold, and some unanswered questions I haven't been able to find a sufficiently convincing answer to.

I'm looking for encompassing refutations or alternate belief systems I should consider, specific challenges or counter-examples, and any evidence one way or another that I may not be aware of. (NB: published evidence > expert opinion > personal opinion, consequentialist arguments preferable but not required - anything is welcome)

Importantly - I am NOT trying to start a debate! This is a (purely selfish) exercise in updating my own beliefs (though I will make every effort to give you my own thoughts if you run the same exercise).

I look forward to your thoughtful responses, safe in the knowledge that no one is ever unreasonable on the internet.
  1. Libertarianism: What are some cases where more government might be better than less (or some better than none)?
  2. Transhumanism: I want to learn more about this topic and would love any good primers (laudatory or critical) that people could recommend.
  3. Many-Worlds: I admit that my belief is mostly based on the LW Quantum Physics Sequence, so I'd be eager to see similarly intuitive explanations of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics.
  4. Intermittent Fasting: I incorporate occasional (up to 24-hour) fasts into my diet. At the very least this seems to reduce my total caloric intake - is it likely to have other health benefits/risks?
  5. Exchange-Traded Index Funds: Most of my long term saving goes into various low-fee ETFs. Can I realistically be doing better (given that I don't want to spend a lot of thought/energy on this)?
  6. Existential Risk vs. Efficient Charity: I would like some advice on how I should be splitting my charitable donations between efficient charities (i.e. Against Malaria Foundation) that have concrete effects now, and non-profits that focus on existential risk (e.g. MIRI)
  7. Nuclear Fission: Currently, its the safest, greenest, and most efficient form of electrical power generation that exists. Am I right?
  8. What supplements should I be taking? (Nootropics, and for physical health)
  9. What is the current state of cyronics in Australia? Is it worth signing up for with an international provider or best to wait until there is a local facility?
  10. If I wanted to start teaching myself more about architecture, what are the best introductory texts?

A FINAL NOTE: I encourage all of you to perform your own intellectual audit! Make sure you link back to this post to help feed my insatiable ego (and let me know so I can share some knowledge your way!)

13 February 2014

Liberty on the Rocks brings together freedom lovers around the world

Article originally published in the Indian Economist.

Interview with Co-founder and Executive Director Amanda Muell

Amanda Muell, a founder of Liberty on the Rocks, found herself disappointed with the limited options for socialization within the libertarian community. “The idea for the organization came about in 2008 when two colleagues and myself questioned ways to find younger libertarians in the Denver area. We all worked at the Independence Institute at the time, which is a free market think tank in Golden, Colorado. We were used to seeing people sixty and over at a majority of their events, which prompted us to consider organizing a happy hour rather than another lecture-based event.”

Starting with just fourteen people in a single bar in Denver, Colo., Liberty on the Rocks now boasts dozens of chapters across the world.

“The driving purpose is to connect and inform anyone interested or enthusiastic about libertarian principles,” says Muell. “We believe that a strong liberty movement requires passionate people, and to keep them involved you’ve got to make it fun. Relationships are also essential, as they can act as the glue that keeps someone coming to events and rethinking issues. We know that becoming a highly informed libertarian occurs over time, and usually after myriad books, videos and conversations. Liberty on the Rocks aims to keep people on that path of exploration until they feel fully comfortable talking to others about the philosophy of freedom.”
While most events are simple social gatherings, the scope of LOTR has grown with its success.

“Between 2012-2013, Liberty on the Rocks hosted nine educational workshops around the U.S. that focused on economics, philosophy and communications,” says Muell. “Local networks have also hosted speakers and guests like Larken Rose, Jeffrey Tucker, Robert Murphy, Radley Balko, and Stephen Kinsella, among others.”
Starting a local chapter of Liberty on the Rocks is a simple and rewarding process, Muell explains, “any libertarian-minded individual who wants to set up a [chapter] can start by going to www.libertyontherocks.org. From there they can get started creating their group online and organizing their first event. The national organization can help by providing an email address, and website along with a strategy call and/or email- based assistance where needed. From there it’s as simple as finding a local bar or restaurant, setting up a Facebook page, and marketing your events.”

The spread of Liberty on the Rocks has mirrored wider acceptance of ideas of liberty.

“There is no doubt the movement has grown over the last few years,” Muell explains. “It also seems to be younger generations that are the most enthusiastic about libertarian ideals, which is extremely positive. It used to be a small minority of mostly anti-social individuals, and was essentially devoid of women. Today those in the mainstream, both male and female of all walks of life, are flocking to this cause. And the beauty is that a majority of them just want to be left alone! This is refreshing to see, as political movements of the past tended to focus on imposing new rules and orders on the population.”

While Muell recognizes that government remains a major obstacle to the free market, she is enthusiastic about the Snowden leak, the increased popularity of Bitcoin and 3D printing, and the increasing push toward ending marijuana prohibition. “All of these present challenges to the government for different reasons,” says Muell. The first revealed to the American people just how much power the government has, and that it isn’t just used against discernible enemies. Secondly, technological innovations and services rivaling public monopolies, like 3D printing and Bitcoin, can make government a thing of the past by rendering their services obsolete. Finally, when it comes to marijuana legalization, the big win is the innocent people who won’t be going to jail for victimless crimes”

To capitalize on the expanding base of young libertarians, Muell emphasizes that “it’s important to stay connected to others who have similar values.”

“That doesn’t mean drop all your friends who aren’t libertarians, but please be sure to find some who are,” continues Muell. “It can be difficult to stay passionate about something you only hear others discuss on television or podcasts. To continue learning new ideas and discovering ways to live free, it helps to have friends who are doing the same. This also may be important one day when you decide to have children and want good role models in their life outside of you and your spouse. So go to events when you can and don’t be too shy to say hello to someone you haven’t met.”

There are countless opportunities for those interested in spreading the ideas of free markets and individual liberty. “As the movement grows, so do the ideas surrounding its advancement,” explains Muell. “Gone are the days when your only option was to join a campaign or run for office to be a liberty advocate. More people are finding there are other avenues they can take to be free. These can include educating the public on pertinent issues or inventing a new product or service to rival public monopolies. This is partly why more are joining the movement, because it’s not just about politics. Many libertarians are entrepreneurs, or everyday advocates who share ideas with friends and family, influencing those close to them. While short-term political victories can be positive and important for our freedom, so can technologies that may one day make governments obsolete. So if you love liberty, find what it is that you are most passionate about and go after it. We all have a purpose when it comes to advancing freedom.”

06 September 2013

Australian Federal Election 2013

WARNING: This post contains copious amounts of freedom and should not be consumed by the weak of heart of spirit! It should not be interpreted as how to vote material because I think that could get me into trouble? Authorized by Austen, Sydney (just in case)

Tomorrow is the 2013 Australian Federal Election, and the first time I will be voting in Australia! Here we do preferential voting, so you get to rank order the candidates from most to least appealing, and then one of the two major parties (the Liberal party and Labor party, which have spent the last few weeks trying to show the electorate how similar they can become without Tony Abbot merging with Kevin Rudd into some sort of chimerical Tovin Abbudd) gets elected anyway.

My first vote cast is for the lower house in the seat of Wentworth (a safe seat for the Liberal Party candidate Malcolm Turnbull) and my intended preferences are as follows:
  1. Sheil (Independent and all around fantastic candidate, not to mention preferencing an independent keeps electoral funding away from the major parties)
  2. Turnbull (Liberal Party - LP)
  3. Foxman (Palmer United Australia - PUP)
  4. Smith (Australian Labor Party - ALP)
  5. Robertson (The Greens - GP)
  6.  Beresford (Christian Democratic Party - CDP)
My second, and far more fun vote goes for the upper house and is a state wide election for six representatives (although my vote will only count toward one). It seems like the best above the line vote would be for the Republican Party of Australia, which will flow through some very pro-freedom parties before it hits the majors, and will not be likely to end up with any awful fringe group who have a shot at slipping through to a senate seat.

Of course, voting above the line is lamesauce, so I will be voting below the line - meaning I get to rank order all 110 candidates. My first attempt at preferences received a number of gushing accolades from some of the fine folk over at the Australian Libertarian Society's facebook group including:
"You did pretty shit."
"Awful list."
"
Not.that great really"

After some revisions, here is my latest list - if you seen anything strange or have any changes to recommend I'd love to hear them (but time is running out)!

  1. Layonhjelm (Liberal Democratic Party - LDP, Group A)
  2. Pettett (LDP, A)
  3. OBrien (Outdoor Recreation Party - ORP, V)
  4. De Lima (ORP, V)
  5. Beiger (Smokers Rights Party - SRP, W)
  6. Whelan (SRP, W)
  7. Hunt (Drug Law Reform - DLR, AD)
  8. Trimingham (DLR, AD) 
  9. Futter (Help End Marijuana Prohibtion - HEMP, G)  
  10. Olbourne (HEMP, G)
  11. Higson (Voluntary Euthanasia - VE, E)
  12. Mulhall (VE, E)
  13. Muirhead (Shooters and Fishers Party - SFP, AJ)
  14. Dunne (Australian Sex Party - ASP, P)
  15. Raye (ASP, P)
  16. Molloy (Pirate Party - PP, AO)
  17. Campbell (PP - AO)
  18. Koutalianos (No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics - NCT, B)
  19. McDowall (NCT, B)
  20. Jansson (Future Party - FP, K)
  21. Haggerty (FP, K)
  22. Tranter (Wikileaks Party - WP, I)
  23. Broinowski (WP, I)
  24. McNally (Republican Party of Australia - RPA, AL)
  25. Blake (RPA, AL)
  26. Myers (Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party - AMP, AQ)
  27. Kirkness (AMP, AQ)
  28. Lowe (Fishing & Lifestyle Party - FLP, Q)
  29. Dean (FLP, Q)
  30. Sinodinos (LP, Y)
  31. Carr (ALP, M)
  32. Stevens (Australian Voice Party - AVP, O)
  33. Francis (AVP, O)
  34. Black (AVP, O)
  35. Thompson (Non-Custodial Parents Party - NCP, AN)
  36. Thompson (NCP, AN)
  37. Ferguson (Senator Online - SO, D)
  38. Barry (SO, D)
  39. McKinnon (SO, D)
  40. Villaver (Australian Democrats - AD, AF)
  41. Wallace (AD, AF)
  42. Bryce (Secular Party - SP, AP)
  43. Owen (SP, AP)
  44. Cameron (LP, Y)
  45. Cameron (LP, Y)
  46. Williams (The Nationals - NP, Y)
  47. Hay (NP, Y)
  48. Rossiter (Family First - FF, AH)
  49. Hurley (FF, AH)
  50. Payne (LP, Y)
  51. Chhibber (ALP, M)
  52. Nelmes (ALP, M)
  53. Kolomeitz (ALP, M)
  54. Adamson (PUP, S)
  55. Wrighton (PUP, S)
  56. Mailler (Katter's Australian Party - KAP, N)
  57. Maka (KAP, N)
  58. Stephens (ALP, M)
  59. McCaffrey (Democratic Labour Party - DLP, C)
  60. Hanna (DLP, C)
  61. Bohm (Bullet Train for Australia - BTA, X)
  62. Glick (BTA, X)
  63. Whalan (F)
  64. Cooper (F)
  65. Wang (AG)
  66. O'Toole (AG)
  67. Brown (Building Australia Party - BAP, T)
  68. Symington (BAP, T)
  69. Carter (Carers Alliance - CA, H)
  70. Buckwalter (CA, H)
  71. Tanks (Australian Independents - AI, AC)
  72. Hirst (AI, AC)
  73. Bourke (Stable Population Party - SPP, AI)
  74. Spike (SPP, AI)
  75. Pearson (Animal Justice Party - AJP, AA)
  76. Vickers (AJP, AA)
  77. Cameron (ALP, M)
  78. Houseman (SFP, AJ)
  79. Clifford (Christian Democratic Party - CDP, L)
  80. Spies-Butcher (GP, R)
  81. Fraser (CDP, L)
  82. Findley(GP, R)
  83. Rahme (CDP, L)
  84. Ho(GP, R)
  85. Lions (CDP, L)
  86. Blatchford(GP, R)
  87. Peebles (CDP, L)
  88. Ryan(GP, R)
  89. Faehrmann (GP, R)
  90. Ash (Ungrouped)
  91. Nathan (Ungrouped)
  92. La Mela (Ungrouped)
  93. Poulsen (Ungrouped)
  94. Johns (Australian Protectionist Party - APP, Z)
  95. Grech (APP, Z)
  96. Dean (Stop CSG Party - SCP, AK)   
  97. Fraser (SCP, AK)Wallbridge
  98. Plumb (One Nation - ON, AR)
  99. McCulloch (ON, AR)
  100. Hanson (ON, AR)
  101. Watt (Uniting Australia Party - UAP, U) 
  102. Simonds (UAP, U)
  103. Somerfield (Rise Up Australia - RUA, J)
  104. Bishop (RUA, J)
  105. Dare (Socialist Alliance - SA, AM)
  106. McIlroy (SA, AM)
  107. Hambides (Socialist Equality Party - SEP, AE) 
  108. Beams (SEP, AE)
  109. Fraser (Australia First - AF, AB) 
  110. Wallbridge (AF, AB)
And there you have it! Ranging from the libertarians at the top to the national socialists at the bottom. Happy voting everyone!

28 April 2013

If policy X has outcome Y, should we support policy X?

 "If policy X has outcome Y, should you support X?" - I've personally been asked this question a number of times, and suspect it comes up commonly enough in political discussion that its worth evaluating in a more general sense.

Firstly, we have to recognize that the question is NOT "if policy X had ONLY outcome Y, would you support X?" That question boils down to "Is outcome Y desirable" (for example "If you could murder a carload of clowns and make our children healthy, except the clowns don't actually die and everything is rainbows, should we kill the clowns?") - to answer this question is to fall prey to a rhetorical trick, though most likely an innocent one on the part of the asker!

The question (fully formed) is "If policy X has desired outcome Y, and given that it will have other outcomes Z, should you support policy X?"

A possibly correct, but rhetorically futile and intellectually lazy answer is "No, non-aggression principle. Lets move on." If the person asking the question accepted NAP absolutely, they wouldn't bother asking. Whether or not you believe the NAP is absolute, you cannot persuade someone of that merely by restating it repeatedly.

A short and more diplomatic answer, but one that is similarly unpersuasive on its own, is "I don't know what Z would actually be, so I would rather side on the presumption of liberty until you can convince ME that the benefit Y is greater than the costs Z"

However, if you have some time to spare and would like to engage the question head-on, there is some deeper digging to be done before the full scope of the hypothetical can be made clear.

(1) Examine the antecedent/protasis: Is X a feasible recommendation?

(2) Examine the consequent/apodosis: Do we actually want Y?

(3) Examine the conditional: Could X actually conceivably cause Y?

(4) Evaluate the other outcomes: What comprises Z (including costs of executing Y)?

(5) Propose alternative solutions: Is X the most efficient way to accomplish Y?

Most well formed thought experiments of this nature will not fail on cases (1)-(3). Usually any discord here will come from a more fundamental disagreement.

It's important to remember that raising the cost or lowering the benefit of an activity will result in less of it, and the contrary will result in more of it. Most laws will achieve to some degree their specifically stated aims - it is the unintended consequences described in (4) that most often dismantle the justification for the policy.

However, even if Z evidently outweighs Y, there is a natural impulse of well-meaning people that "we must do something!" - which is where (5) comes in. Rather than just explaining why a policy will fail, suggest a way in which the voluntary cooperation of free individuals can succeed!

01 March 2013

Sequester-size Me


Four friends are sitting around a table at their favorite fast food joint, a vacant-eyed plastic clown overseeing the meeting. Two of them, Ron and Daniel, are arguing over how best help Gary get back to good health.

The fact is that Gary has a problem. Even though he spends a good chunk of his waking hours eating, he spends the rest of his time running, and its finally taking its toll. His once strong figure now looks borderline emaciated, even as he crams burger after burger into his mouth.

Ron and Daniel had kindly helped Gary write up his new years resolutions - there was some debate as to how best to help him. Ron wanted him to spend a little less time working out, while Daniel kept suggesting he eat more! In the end, they decided that since they couldn't agree, Gary would start eating a lot more right away, and they would eventually cut back on his exercise regime starting on March 1.

However, now that the day has arrived, Daniel is hysterical! "We can't afford to let him slack off now! He's already working below his potential - We've got to figure out a way to get more food into him, and add some more hours onto his training, and that's that"

Does this tale sound familiar? Right now in the United States the Democrats and the Republicans are up in arms about automatic spending cuts called 'Sequestration' and telling everyone how its going to gut the US military and devastate the middle class.

The fourth friend, Leonard, speaks up. "The fact is Gary, you've got to lighten up on the track. And not just a little, a lot! You are burning over 38000kj running each day!"

It was true, Gary ran for an incredible 19 hours each day to stick to Daniel's exercise plan. The proposed cut in his schedule would let him rest for only 35 minutes. Ron had been pretty proud about getting Daniel to agree to it.

This years 'devastating cuts' amount to just $109 billion, leaving a 2013 budget of over $3.6 trillion!

Leonard continues. "Not only that, you already eat too much. 29 hamburgers a day is just ridiculous - and eating more is NOT a solution."

The US governments expected revenue for this year is about $2.9 trillion - leaving a deficit of over $700 billion... AFTER sequestration. That means without significant spending cuts, you would need to seize an additional $2200 and change from every American citizen to bring the balance into the black - let alone make a dent in the current US debt.

Gary grunts his assent through a mouthful of burger. But Daniel and Ron have already reached an agreement.
"Start stretching Gary, we've got a rough evening ahead of us!" Daniel barks. As Ron heads up to the counter to buy some more burgers, he types a proud tweet about how well he had stood his ground.

While Australia has historically been a great deal more fiscally responsible than the United States, its national debt has more than quadrupled since 2007. It would be wise not to wait until we are in such dire straits as the US to address the problem. Now is the time to make cuts and bring the budget back to balance, before it is too late.

17 January 2013

How to Rule: A Statist's Guide

-->

NOTE: This post was re-blogged by the Australian Libertarian Society and Menzies House, published in The Gold Standard, and published in abridged form in Liberty 2015.

Congratulations on obtaining your new country! Whether you were elected by a majority of citizens who could be bothered to vote, appointed by the previous (and outgoing) party elite, or you have just staged a military coup, be assured that you have not only the power to rule – but the right to do so! The people – your people – have implicitly agreed to a social contract listing you as the ultimate authority, so be confident in your reign!

However, ruling a country is a difficult task; radical, anti-social, elements will always exist at the edge of society seeking to criticise or even undermine your administration. Its important not to pay any attention to what they have to say, since self-doubt is the most poisonous affliction for any sovereign. After all, if they know so much, why are you the one sitting in the driver's seat while they clamour for attention at the back of the bus?

This guide will teach you how best to quash these dangerous dissidents, so that you can more easily realise your utopian vision for the nation – your nation. The techniques here are presented in an order that our experts think will be the simplest for a first time ruler, but feel free to improvise! Jump around a bit as circumstance demands, or just to watch those fringe elements squirm. Even someone as dedicated to advancing the greater good as you deserves to enjoy themselves every now and then.

Remember, the most important thing while you build the great society – your society – is to have fun!

Step 1 – Disarm the Dissidents
An armed population is an unruly population! Just like a de-clawed animal makes the best pet, defenceless people are the easiest to domesticate. Obviously, you'll have to take away their guns – but don't be afraid to go further! Knives, axes, scissors and knitting needles – all can be used against you or your agents.

Start by outlawing dangerous weapons in public places, and when this proves an ineffective deterrent to criminals you can push for more regulation and registration. Ideally you will end up with a list of every legal gun-owner. Don't worry about the illegal owners, they will always be around and are such a small minority that they don't pose a threat to your regime.

Timing is everything when you are finally ready to start taking weapons away – statistical evidence and rational argument will not be on your side, so wait for a tragedy before you make your move! Declining crime rates are no match for a pile of bodies – so stand atop it with pride while you paint your opponents as heartless.

PROTIP: While you gradually reduce the power of people to defend themselves, take the opportunity to more heavily arm your own forces in the name of “public safety.” Every local police force should have assault weapons, and at least one tank, if possible! (Armed drones are also a great idea – see Step 5)

Step 2 – Seize the Schools
Children are the future – your future. A young mind is fertile soil for growing the followers of tomorrow, and as any good farmer will tell you – if you want a good crop come harvest, nationalise education!

Its no secret that all children have the same needs and capabilities, and that's why a national curriculum is so important to your success! Of course, funding schools can be difficult with all the other great projects you will be working on – so don't be afraid to cut programs that won't serve your goals. Art, economics, mathematics and science are all fat to be discarded if necessary; but never, ever get rid of history. The social studies classroom is your arena! Its a sad, outdated notion that history is an objective study of the past. Those of us in the know are aware that its actually a perfect medium for selling ideology to impressionable youth.

PROTIP: Remember to tack these three magical words onto every educational edict you issue “...for our children.” No one can argue with that – it would mean that they were anti-children. Its just logic.

Step 3 – Bolster the Bureaucracy
Depending on your predecessors – your rightfully unlimited power may be unfairly constrained by silly things like constitutional law or other branches of government. But modern science has given us a fantastic tool to overcome such hurdles – the bureaucrat!

A simple rule of thumb: if you can't legislate it, regulate it! Is an impasse among underlings getting you down? Create an entirely new agency to bypass the whole process! Between the Department of This and the Agency of That (not to mention the Board of the Other), there will be dozens, if not hundreds of different subordinates who you can instruct to pass any given order.

PROTIP: People love wars and they provide a great opportunity to expand the scope of state power! But sometimes a war on a neighbouring country is impractical – which is why its such a good idea to declare war on more nebulous, abstract foes: “War on Poverty,” “War on Drugs,” “War on Terror,” “War on Obesity,” “War on Badwrongness” – be creative!

Step 4 – Neuter the Newspapers
[CENSORED] (Ed. Note: Good job! You are catching on!)

PROTIP: A great way to get started on this is to establish an 'independent' agency to monitor the press – it can all be done in the name of “creating and maintaining a balanced and free media.” We couldn't have any private parties injecting their agenda into the news.

Step 5 – Surveil the Citizenry
Its no coincidence that The Police sang “Every Breath You Take,” because they'll most certainly be watching you (or rather, your subjects)! By now you might have upset some of the coarser plebeians, and the first step to removing a cancer on society is detecting it.

Thanks to the marvels of technology, its easier than ever to keep track of the average Jane or Joe Citizen. Who will complain about wanting “a chicken in every pot” when you give them “a camera on every street corner?” No one – at least not for long!

Don't forget to keep up with all the new-fangled gadgetry either – phone-tapping, internet data retention, microwave scanning, mandatory blood and saliva testing; the possibilities are just endless. The best part is, it can all be done in the name of “national security!”

PROTIP: Before you take the reigns, be as vocal as possible in your opposition to a surveillance state – then your supporters will take for granted that anything you do must be necessary, since you oppose it so strongly on principle!

Step 6 – Jilt the Judiciary
To paraphrase the great thinker and statesman, Benjamin Franklin “People... deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Truer words have never been spoken! You've accomplished a lot so far, and its OK to congratulate yourself for a job well done. In fact, why not declare a national day of celebration in your honour? We'll still be here when you come back, champ!

We bet that was fun! The hard work is almost done – if you haven't already all you need to do is to start enforcing your laws as arbitrarily as you create them. The notion that everyone has to follow the same rules is a ludicrous relic and has no place in an advanced society.

Besides, if you've completed Step 3 odds are everybody is guilty of something. You may as well pass sentence now and define a charge later. In fact, you can probably just drop the pretence of charging people with crimes altogether. You are the state and if you say someone's guilty, that's the way it is!

PROTIP: Setting and expanding precedent is key here! If you can get away with something once, you've proven that its always acceptable. Use a missile strike on foreigners yesterday to justify an assassination of one of your own citizens tomorrow. Dream big!

Step 7 – Profit!
Congratulations on completing the guide! You should now be in a great position to enforce your policy whims, whatever they might be! Soon your world-view will come to its full fruition. You may be interested in our companion work – How to Cope with Societal Collapse: A Statist's Guide. Until then – all hail the glorious leader!