Incentive Structure Hierarchy Government Balance of Power Order Wey Dey Form by Imsef Free Association How People Dey Help One Another Nonviolence Direct Action Di Window of Opportunity

Framework for Free World

Di First Foundation

Free world no fit start with one finished plan wey somebody don draw for everybody. If people design one system for everybody come use power force am from top, dem go bring back di same kind structure wey freedom suppose remove.

So di correct place to start no be one model of society wey dem don set down in advance. Na framework wey go help us look how people dey relate to one another, how institutions dey work, and different ways wey change fit happen.

Wetin dis framework wan help people build na autonomy: make you fit shape your own life without structures wey go give other people chance to oppress you.

Our aim na to make di structure clear:

Wetin really be the source of the problems for this world?

Incentive Structure

To answer am, we first need understand incentive structure.

Incentive na any condition wey give person or group reason to act.

Di first incentive wey fit enter your mind na money, but money na only one kind. Safety, di feeling say you belong, respect from others, give-and-take, self-respect, creativity, and compassion dey also move people.

Incentive structure na the whole machinery of rewards, punishments, risks, opportunities, and limits wey dey push behaviour: e dey make some actions pay and make others cost person. E show wetin system really dey encourage for real life, no matter wetin di rules or di people wey control am claim say dem value.

Reward System

Structures wey gather power for one centre dey reward people wey chase power, money, and control. Dem dey reward people wey most willing to chase power because central control give dem stronger hold over everybody else. ༆

People dey call dis one “corruption,” but di result no separate from the system. Di system dey reward those wey use central power exploit others, while di institutions wey dem control dey protect dem from accountability.

Incentive structure na di deeper foundation; e come first. Hierarchy dey form where di system dey reward power wey gather for few hands and to refuse dey cost person. After that, hierarchy go preserve di same structure wey produce am.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy na arrangement wey be like pyramid, where one person or group dey under another. E get different ranks, and each rank carry different level of authority (that is, di right to command those wey dey under you, and di duty to obey those wey dey above you).

For politics, hierarchy na social structure where some people dey command and others must obey. Incentive structures from before create di hierarchies wey we get today; later, hierarchy come reshape those incentives so e fit continue to produce imsef.

Organisation no turn to hierarchy just because people get different roles or because those roles last. Hierarchy begin when those roles harden into authority, together with duty to obey.

Hierarchy fit grow when control over food, land, security, work, law, information, or violence give one side leverage over another.

Hierarchy go turn that advantage to authority wey everybody recognise, ranks wey dey last, command, and duty to obey. Exploitation fit start when that advantage turn to standing claim say another person must obey.

But once hierarchy don settle, e no remain only result of incentives. E become machinery wey dey produce incentives too. E reward people wey gather authority and those wey obey as part of dia strategy. E punish refusal, favour people wey dey comfortable to command others, and recreate di conditions wey e dey use defend im continued existence.

When we understand incentive structures and hierarchy, we go see di power structures wey dey dominate our world and di oppression wey dem produce.

Authority

Authority na claim wey society don accept as legitimate, wey give one person or institution right to command, demand obedience, and support those commands with force.

Authority no be di same thing as power. Power na ability to act, persuade, resist, help, or harm. Authority turn power into right wey people recognise say person get.

Person wey get special knowledge fit advise people, and leader fit suggest direction, but neither one give anybody right to rule. Authority begin when guidance turn to right to make decisions wey others must obey and refusal turn to disobedience.

Authority no need use force all di time because di threat don already dey inside di institution. People wey refuse fit lose income, house, status, access, freedom, or later face violence.

Na so authority fit look peaceful. Command turn normal thing, people expect obedience, and punishment come look like legitimate enforcement of order.

Authority give hierarchy im social legitimacy and allow domination continue without showing di violence behind am every time. ༆

Government

Government na one particular institutional type of hierarchy: one central organisation wey claim authority over everybody for one territory, claim say na only im get di legitimate right to use violence, make laws wey everybody must obey, collect tax, and enforce compliance through court, police, prison, and military force.

Di argument say human beings too violent and no trustworthy to live without rulers cut both ways. Rulers na di same imperfect humans; di difference be say dem control armies, prisons, surveillance, tax, and law. Power wey dem gather for few hands no restrain di worst things wey human beings fit do. E make those things reach more people and shield di people wey do dem from accountability.

If humans fit be dangerous, di answer no be to hand power, authority, and control over millions to small number of people. That distrust na reason to decentralise and distribute power, so that no person or institution fit force im will on huge number of people.

To choose who go exercise authority no be di same as to choose whether you go still dey under that authority.

Checks on rulers fit restrain dem, but di power of those checks come from the ability to challenge power, no be from the ruler's entitlement to obedience. Right to command wey continue whether people agree or not add danger: those wey people challenge fit punish refusal and control di resources wey people need to oppose dem.

Free world no promise say harm, conflict, and human failure go end. If power dey distributed, groups fit scatter and cooperation fit fail. Institution wey get authority still fit coordinate people or restrain another power; but those abilities different from di authority wey im claim.

Authority no balance those risks; e make di consequences of human failure bigger by spreading those consequences further, making everybody under am bear dem, and shielding di decisions wey cause dem from feedback wey fit correct dem.

Even protection wey people really need fit make dem depend on di provider, and di provider fit use that dependence to defend im claim say e get right to keep commanding people.

We no solve domination by giving one power final say just because e fit restrain another power. We restrain domination when we make sure no power fit get final say. Any power wey fit restrain others must imsef remain open to resistance; if not, di counterweight go become di next domination. Follow dis principle reach di end and na di balance imsef go be di safeguard. Claim to command wey remain in place no create counterweight; e create imbalance wey dat balance must always keep in check.

To reject authority mean say we still keep coordination and restraint, but we no give anybody standing claim over di people wey go suffer if im decision fail.

People dey often dismiss di idea of free world as utopia. But di current system imsef depend on di truly utopian belief say imperfect human beings fit remain sufficiently controlled even when dem hold power, authority, and control over whole populations.

Di problem no be only say di wrong person dey sit for throne now. Di problem na say throne dey in di first place.

Tax

Coercion na when person use force, punish somebody, or deny am something—or threaten say e go do any of these—to make that person act against im will or stop am from acting freely.

Tax na when dem force people to surrender dia resources under threat of punishment.

Government dey demand resources from people whether dem agree to give am or not. If person refuse, e no end di relationship. Instead, government go punish am, and im enforcement agents go make sure say di punishment happen.

Na dis difference dey between tax and voluntary exchange. For voluntary exchange, person need get real chance to refuse. Tax no give that chance.

Tax also separate decision from cost. Government fit spend resources without di people wey make di decision carrying all di cost, because government fit share that cost among people wey no get real freedom to withdraw dia support.

War show dis machinery clearly. Those wey authorise war no personally pay di full cost. Government extract resources from millions of people, even those wey oppose di war, so small number of decision-makers fit command resources for violence without di consent of di people wey dem force to provide am.

Government no dey produce those resources on im own, separate from di people wey e rule. Tax give am continuous access to di products of people's work without needing people to keep giving dia consent. ༆

So di issue deep pass di amount wey government dey tax. Tax establish di principle say institution fit claim part of another person's labour without that person's consent.

Balance of Power

Balance of power na condition where power dey spread well enough so that no person or institution fit force im will on others without facing serious resistance, other options, or meaningful cost.

Balance no mean say everybody must get di same strength, resources, knowledge, or influence. Those differences no need disappear. Wetin matter na whether those differences fit become so big that refusal no get meaning again, and dem turn to authority.

Balance of power reverse dis incentive. When people still fit resist, withdraw, organise themselves again, and meet dia needs through alternatives, e go harder to establish domination and cost more to maintain am.

So free world no depend on everybody being naturally good or trustworthy. E depend on creating conditions where nobody fit gather enough power to rule everybody else. Incentive to exploit fit still dey, but other people's power to resist fit restrain di ability to exploit. ༆

Dis one require decentralising and distributing power back to individuals and groups wey freely join together. Autonomy and self-sufficiency matter because dependence give another person leverage. If one institution control wetin people need to survive, dia freedom to refuse am go remain freedom for name only.

Di same test apply outside politics too, including private control. Economic relationships fit turn to hierarchy when somebody control land, housing, work, or other necessities enough to make refusal cost person and turn dependence to duty to obey.

Self-sufficiency no mean say you must isolate yourself. People fit depend strongly on one another while still keeping many different sources of food, energy, knowledge, communication, support, and cooperation. Di more alternatives wey dey, di harder e go be for any institution to make imsef so indispensable that e fit command everybody else.

So balance of power dey work for two directions together. E break down existing hierarchy by reducing the dependencies and gathered power wey dey hold am up, and e resist hierarchy wey wan come back by keeping power distributed, alternatives available, and refusal possible.

Nobody fit guarantee say power no go ever gather again for new hands. To give dat kind guarantee, another authority go need enough power to enforce am. Instead, our objective na to stop gathered power from becoming permanent and impossible to escape.

Power fit shift, gather, and scatter. Wetin matter na say people must still fit challenge am.

Even service wey people cannot do without no need ruler wey nobody fit replace. Even when people no fit duplicate di service imsef, dem fit still replace whoever control am, if equipment, knowledge, supplies, and support to run am remain available outside one provider. Dis way, control fit change without interrupting wetin people need.

Dependable protection need lasting ability to defend, no be permanent right to command. That ability fit remain distributed among independent associations so that no protector control di support wey people need to resist am.

Right to command wey remain in place change di relationship: refusal imsef fit become reason to punish person, and di protector fit use force enforce im own demands against resistance. E harder to challenge di protection when di same protector also control di means people need to challenge am.

Healthy balance of power depend on, and also strengthen, forces wey dey push power away from one centre. Where alternatives, competition, resistance, and new associations still fit survive, dem go push against further gathering of power.

Lasting balance of power dey stronger through education wey spread knowledge and ability, opportunity wey keep alternatives open, and deterrence wey raise the cost of domination. When conflict happen, arbitration, rehabilitation, restoration, and disassociation fit help people deal with harm and disagreement without turning one dispute to excuse for permanent authority.

Our aim no be only to restrain domination, but to release human potential and di stubborn ability wey people get to refuse make anybody reduce dem to people wey only dey obey.

Free world fit exist only where balance of power protect autonomy and prevent any person or institution from forcing im will on others at di level of di whole system.

Order Wey Dey Form by Imsef

Spontaneous order na important force wey help people coordinate, as negotiations, exchanges, and entrepreneurship wey dey happen for different places join to produce large-scale coordination without one deliberate plan or one agreed complete blueprint for society or economic development—or even beyond wetin any such plan fit achieve.

Plenty of di order around us already grow dis way. Nobody design language as one complete system. E emerge from countless people wey dey communicate, change words, form conventions, and respond to one another across generations. Di internet grow through deliberate projects and shared protocols, but no single planner design di entire system wey e later become.

For spontaneous order, equilibrium dey for di centre. Equilibrium no mean say everything freeze or stop to move. Na balance wey dey change continuously as different pressures dey affect one another and di system dey adjust.

These pressures dey shape natural, social, and socioeconomic systems. Change for one part produce consequences for another place, and those consequences make di system respond again. Scarcity, plenty, incentives, cooperation, conflict, demand, and available alternatives dey push behaviour in different directions. Incentive structure dey shape di direction wey dis adjustment go take, by determining which behaviours dem reward, discourage, or make costly. Order emerge when all these forces interact, no be because one force control everything.

Dis process dey happen through feedback. People act, experience consequences, watch one another, and adjust. Each response create new information wey affect wetin go happen next. As these adjustments dey happen again and again, local interactions fit come together form patterns wey connect together, even though nobody plan or completely understand dem.

Some failures too dangerous to just wait, experiment, and correct later, because di damage fit become irreversible before feedback come. Those risks require preparation and coordination before di failure, not just adjustment after am.

When people fit hide damage or shift di damage onto others, feedback fit reward exploitation instead of cooperation. Spontaneous order no by im nature produce good results; na incentive structure shape wetin emerge.

Centralised control dey disturb dis process when e try replace distributed feedback with result wey e don prescribe. Knowledge spread among di people wey dey interact directly with changing conditions; plenty of that knowledge na local, practical, and temporary. As di size and complexity of di system grow, central hierarchy must process more information from longer distances. E go harder for small number of decision-makers to respond to di whole system as effectively as di people wey dey respond directly inside am.

Spontaneous order allow people handle complexity through many interacting points of knowledge and adjustment. Coordination emerge from di accumulated responses of di system imsef. Because adjustment no depend entirely on one central coordinator, people fit absorb disturbances locally, develop alternatives, and allow di wider structure reorganise around failure.

Di result na emergent order: coordination for big scale wey dey come from how smaller parts dey interact all di time. Order no be something wey somebody put on top of di system. Na something di system imsef produce as im parts respond to one another and move towards equilibrium wey dey change.

You no fit just prescribe order by law. Order na emergent outcome of people wey choose to cooperate. If incentive dey push people to conflict, law alone no fit make dem cooperate. To build free world na to create incentives wey make cooperation and order possible.

Networks

Network na structure of connected people or groups wey fit communicate, coordinate, and act directly without passing every interaction through central authority.

Hierarchy gather information and decision-making inside small number of central points. Networks distribute dem. Coordination fit grow from grassroots as people respond directly to changing conditions, exchange information, and organise around practical needs.

One mechanism behind dis one na stigmergy: people's actions leave signs wey guide di next actions. ༆ People respond to wetin others don already do, so complex coordination fit emerge and spread without central planner wey direct every step.

Di rhizome na very powerful structure because of dis. Unlike tree wey get one central trunk, rhizome spread sideways through many roots and shoots wey connect. E branch, reconnect, reproduce, and continue to grow even when damage affect some parts. No single point control or contain everything.

Network no become decentralised just because e no get formal hierarchy; if one node become indispensable, dependence fit recreate di leverage wey hierarchy need. Dis dependence fit also come when many nodes depend on di same suppliers, resources, information, or gatekeepers, or when coordination imsef make am hard to leave di existing network.

So even without formal hierarchy, growing big fit create dependence again. Di important question na whether people fit still challenge, transfer, reroute, or replace critical functions.

Na why real change dey begin for grassroots. Change wey somebody impose from top go still depend on di central authority wey impose am. Change wey grow from bottom fit spread through countless independent points, grow stronger through dia connections, and become harder to capture, suppress, or reverse.

Distributed networks dey become resilient through backup capacity, alternative paths, and di ability to reorganise when something fail. Hierarchy gather both control and failure for di same central points. Networks fit reorganise through different connections, test alternatives at di same time, and find routes around disruption.

Spontaneous order dey scale through networks: coordination grow from many interacting parts, while di absence of one indispensable centre of control make di whole structure more adaptable, resilient, and hard to capture.

Free Association

Free association mean say nobody fit force you join, force you participate, or claim authority to stop you from leaving peacefully. No group get claim to keep one person as member beyond that person's continuing consent. People remain free to leave, change direction, join again in different ways, and form alternatives as dia needs and interests change.

Free association start with di individual. To join relationship, organisation, or community no mean say you don surrender your autonomy to am. Consent must continue as long as participation continue; agreement wey you make yesterday no fit turn to permanent claim over you tomorrow.

If to leave mean say you go lose everything wey you need to live, di freedom to leave no get real meaning. Free association depend on alternatives wey strong enough to make refusal practical, no be just formality.

Those alternatives must also dey reachable when people need dem: somewhere to stay, way to reach there, and care wey continue through di change. Shared reserves and arrangements to receive people fit make dis possible before crisis come. Person no suppose rebuild every means of survival alone just to refuse one provider.

People naturally join together around shared interests, needs, relationships, and goals. Di things wey draw dem together create groups based on wetin dem truly get in common instead of membership wey dem impose. Person fit belong to many different associations together, each reflecting another part of im life, without any one of dem claiming di whole person.

Everybody no need agree on every matter. People fit negotiate, compromise, and settle conflict peacefully case by case. When dia goals move too far apart, dem fit separate. One association fit divide to several, preserve di relationships wey still work, leave those wey no work, and come together again in completely new forms.

Dis one produce countless possible arrangements. Groups fit form, split, overlap, reconnect, and change direction as circumstances change. Instead of forcing people wey no agree under one decision, free association allow different answers to exist at the same time. ༆ Multiplicity emerge from di unlimited differences among people and dia ability to build different forms of association. Pluralism become structural consequence of freedom, no be gift from above.

Dis one also change wetin community mean. Just because hundreds of thousands or millions of strangers share one territory no mean say dem be one meaningful social body. Community dey grow from relationships, familiarity, shared purpose, closeness, and care for one another. Strong local associations fit remain connected to wider networks without one authority swallowing dem.

Big scale no by im nature require hierarchy. Small associations fit connect through horizontal networks wey overlap. Dem fit cooperate where interests meet and remain independent for other areas. Information, resources, knowledge, and coordination fit move across these connections without passing through central command.

No be every function need stay organised at di scale wey e get today. More local capacity fit reduce how much people depend on coordination across far distances. Where wider coordination still dey necessary, networks fit extend cooperation across regions without turning that coordination to standing authority over di people involved.

Even if all members get say inside one coordinating body, that body begin claim authority once e claim general right to decide which activities independent people and associations must submit to am.

These networks stay open because people fit propose, experiment, copy wetin work, change am, or create alternative without waiting for approval from above. Successful forms spread because people voluntarily adopt dem. Forms wey fail fit disappear without becoming compulsory failure for everybody else.

Freedom to exit help stop these relationships from hardening into rule. To leave fit mean say person go leave completely, reduce participation, change partners, start parallel association, or just refuse arrangement wey no dey work again. Where leaving mean losing something wey no easy to replace, or where di same exclusion follow person across different associations, freedom also depend on di power to challenge or change those conditions, not only to leave dem. Where dem block peaceful separation and make participation compulsory, association no free again.

People fit leave association without escaping responsibility for harm wey dem cause or commitments wey dem freely make and others reasonably depend on. Responsibility for commitment no just automatically justify forcing person to fulfil am. Arbitration, restoration, disassociation, and other responses fit address broken commitments while staying tied to di particular dispute. Responsibility remain tied to di particular harm or commitment; e no fit become ownership of di person or general duty to obey.

To refuse cooperation no by imsef prove coercion. But if person use control of necessities to force obedience, or block willing alternatives, that one na coercion.

People no fit escape some kinds of harm just because dem separate, especially when dia effects spread or people shift dem onto those wey no fit just leave, weakening di feedback wey suppose restrain harmful behaviour. Decentralisation no mean say every response must remain local; when harm affect people across associations or regions, those wey e affect fit coordinate across boundaries, agree on common standards, or track di effects.

If separation no fit prevent harm or stop continuing harm, di affected people fit defend themselves, seek mediation, or act with others to stop am. Stopping danger wey people share fit require temporary limits on conduct wey put others at risk, even when di affected people disagree and individual responsibility no clear. Those limits and who go bear dia costs require separate justification.

Somebody claim say harm dey no mean say dispute don settle. Protection must remain tied to stopping that particular harm; e no fit become excuse for wider or open-ended control. Those wey intervene must still answer challenges; to question why dem intervene, how dem take do am, or whether dem suppose continue no fit depend on di interveners alone. Independent challenge must include real power to change restrictions wey no get justification or stop an intervention when di justification fail.

Some problems go remain unresolved instead of make we create permanent authority wey fit guarantee solution only because e get power to force everybody wey dey involved.

Free association no prescribe one final way to organise society. Im strength dey precisely for leaving that question open. E allow people wey get complete freedom and autonomy to keep building dia own relationships, creating a social order of countless overlapping associations instead of one structure with authority to contain dem all.

How People Dey Help One Another

Mutual aid na cooperation through give-and-take: people dey help one another because our interests no need conflict. We all get different needs, abilities, knowledge, resources, and opportunities. When we share dem, both people fit end up better than before.

Free world dey move away from zero-sum relationships. People dey create wealth when dem produce new value. Cooperation fit leave both people with more than wetin each person fit produce alone. But relationship no truly benefit both people if e depend on shifting costs to outsiders. E easier to form these relationships wey benefit both sides when people remove barriers to entry and artificial scarcity, opening more ways for people to provide for themselves and others.

Give-and-take dey stronger through repeated relationships. Strong neighbourhoods and communities dey grow from friendship: people wey know each other, care wetin happen to one another, and share food, tools, skills, knowledge, shelter, time, and support. When people around you no be strangers again, somebody wey fall into poverty or no get place to stay no remain invisible problem wey everybody leave for far-away institution. Di people wey know am go see im needs and get reasons to care.

These relationships fit connect into wider mutual aid networks, so support fit reach people wey no even know one another and increase wetin any person or neighbourhood fit provide alone. One person get food, another get spare room, another fit repair something, another fit teach, farm, build, transport, or care for others. The more these relationships overlap, the more paths people fit use to find help, and the less anybody need depend on one institution to get wetin e need.

Give-and-take no mean say everybody wey receive care must pay back. For person wey no fit leave or arrange support alone, freedom depend on care wey no dey under di control of one person or one relationship.

When different caregivers dey involved and people still get independent relationships, e go easier to challenge abuse and continue care when things change. Where person no fit give informed consent, care should follow di preferences wey e don express wherever possible and remain limited to im needs. Dependence no give anybody ownership of another person.

Dependable mutual aid need maintenance too. People get reasons to sustain services wey dem use, care about, or might need later. To continue providing those services, people need regular contributions of work and resources, shared reserves, and relief for caregivers or maintainers wey don tire.

Care no always cost everybody equally at di same time. But wider networks fit share unequal burdens among more people, resources, and relationships instead of leaving everything for one person alone. When shortage happen, if people make needs and available supplies visible, dem fit negotiate priorities and seek help outside dia local network. Need no fit create resources wey no dey, but scarcity no fit create right to demand obedience either.

Mutual aid no be self-sacrifice. We dey flourish when di people around us fit flourish. People wey dey safer, healthier, freer, and more capable make our own lives safer, richer, and freer too. Individual wellbeing and shared wellbeing strengthen one another; dem no stand for opposite sides of an equation.

Domination and revenge dey reproduce di conditions of conflict instead of peace. Mutual aid dey answer suffering with care, love, and hope, while building material conditions wey make that suffering less likely to repeat.

We create di peaceful world wey we wan live inside by taking di first step to build am: helping one another now, strengthening relationships around us, and making dem strong enough so nobody need face di world alone.

Friendship

Strong community begin with friendship, no be di abstract idea of community. Friendship na personal, deliberate, voluntary relationship wey di people inside am dey shape directly. No bigger body get right over that relationship just because two people belong to di same place, group, or cause.

Friends no need outside authority to prescribe dia relationship or force dem to agree. Dem decide for themselves how to relate, where dia boundaries dey, and when relationship need change or end. Freedom to associate no mean much without freedom to disassociate.

Friendship get natural limit too. E no fit grow into one relationship wey include everybody, and that na part of im strength. Friendships fit remain small while dem overlap and connect outward, allowing cooperation to spread without binding everybody into one social body. Wider networks allow people wey no be friends to coordinate without turning those networks into one social body.

Di aim na to make friends rather than build communities. ༆ Make stronger communities emerge from di relationships wey people actually choose.

Nonviolence

Nonviolence na di strategy wey better suit di work to build free world. Di methods wey we use build new world dey shape di habits, incentives, organisations, and distribution of power wey come out of dem. Political violence change di incentive structure of resistance imsef: e reward secrecy, command, coercion, and organisations wey fit gather force.

Political violence fit strengthen di structures wey e wan challenge. When people see violence, fear go catch dem. Fear push people towards institutions wey promise protection: police, military, and government. So violence fit strengthen di enforcement arms of di same hierarchy wey people dey challenge, give government more justification for policing, surveillance, repression, and force, and turn di wider population against those wey dey challenge am.

Government already get overwhelming advantage for organised violence. E control police, military, prisons, intelligence systems, weapons, and logistics networks wey dem build to enforce authority. Violence allow government set di terms of di confrontation and use im greatest strength.

Nonviolence attack hierarchy from another direction. Direct action, civil disobedience, strikes, refusal, mutual aid, self-sufficiency, community building, constructive alternatives, and withdrawal of participation dey attack di dependencies wey keep central institutions running. Government no operate by force alone; e need people's continued cooperation.

Hope na political power too. Di aim no be to terrorise people into struggle, but to inspire dem with di possibility of peaceful and free world where people fit live good lives, chase dia dreams, develop dia potential, and help one another. ༆

Hope dey become real when people experience am. Friendship, mutual aid, autonomy, self-sufficiency, gardens, cooperation, direct action, and alternatives wey dey work give people small pieces of another way to live now. Prefiguration dey spread capacity even before central authority disappear. As people dey get more ability to meet dia needs through free association, mutual aid, independent knowledge, and alternatives, dia dependence on central institutions dey reduce.

Violent revolution fit move for di opposite direction. To destroy existing government no necessarily destroy di structure of concentrated power. Armed organisations gather weapons, secrecy, command, intelligence, logistics, and operational capacity. If government collapse before power and capacity don spread, di organisation wey most capable of violence also dey in position to fill di power vacuum. Ruler change while di same structure still available for somebody to seize.

Nonviolence no mean pacifism or refusal to defend yourself. Defensive force fit be necessary when immediate harm no fit stop any other way. Di purpose na to stop domination, not to make force di organising principle of liberation. Violence remain last resort.

Ability to defend yourself fit endure, while di use of that ability remain defensive and temporary. Balance of power keep defensive capacity distributed and open to challenge; free association prevent temporary force from becoming permanent structure of authority.

Long-lasting threats require preparation, dependable supplies, shared information, and coordination across associations. People fit entrust particular defensive tasks to people wey get experience, while keeping those roles limited to dia function and open to challenge. Di danger especially serious for defence, because defensive capacity fit itself turn into another place where power gather. That distinction remain real only while weapons, supplies, and outside support stay outside the exclusive control of any one group.

Distributed defence carry another danger: when one association dey prepare to defend itself, another association fit feel threatened; im response go then look like confirmation of di first group's fears. Where possible, direct contact, independent checks on alarming claims, and limits on mobilisation wey both sides agree fit give dem way to step back without surrendering di ability to defend themselves.

Emergency coordination must stay within di particular work wey e suppose do, and people must fit challenge am. Distributed defence still fit fail; central command no guarantee say people go survive either.

Freedom no suppose arrive only after di struggle. People suppose recognise am in di way dem dey live di struggle.

The 3.5% Rule

To change whole system, di entire population no need rise at di same time.

Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan find say big nonviolent campaigns wey aim to change government regime, win independence, or end occupation between 1900 and 2006 succeed at more than twice di rate of violent campaigns.

Di 3.5% rule later come from dis research: for di original dataset, no nonviolent campaign fail after e actively mobilise at least 3.5% of di population when participation reach im highest point.

Government no operate through police and military force alone. E depend on people for different parts of society wey continue to work, obey, enforce commands, move resources, maintain infrastructure, and accept im authority. Government depend on cooperation from far more people than those wey actually govern.

Active participants na only one part of that pressure. As participation and refusal spread, cooperation become less reliable. Workers stop cooperating. Orders no dey enforced. People wey dey support dem change side. People wey dey inside stop to enforce instructions. Institutions begin fail. Balance of power shift because di structure lose di human cooperation wey e need to sustain imsef.

Nonviolent movements fit draw participants from much wider range because resistance no require everybody to become soldier. People fit strike, boycott, refuse, withdraw support, provide resources, give others shelter, or simply stop cooperating.

Later research find say nonviolent campaigns become less successful after 2010. Chenoweth point to governments wey don adjust dia counter-strategies, and to movements wey rely too much on quick mobilisation without di organisation, strategy, and staying power wey dem need to sustain pressure. Mobilisation fit open window, but without durable organisation and practical capacity behind am, di window fit close before people build di conditions for lasting change.

Di 3.5% rule no be law or guaranteed threshold. Most successful nonviolent movements never reach 3.5%, and later research identify one apparent exception. Na historical pattern, no be formula for success.

Di lesson of di 3.5% rule no be say exactly 3.5% of di population fit force any government to surrender.

Na say transformation no require everybody to wake up.

Direct Action

Direct action mean say we act directly on a problem instead of asking authority to solve am for us. When we seek reform through authority, we hand change to those wey dey above. Direct action leave di power to act with di people wey di problem affect.

Wetin we dey see no be just corruption. Di system dey follow di incentives and centres of power wey dem build inside am. To replace representatives fit change some decisions, but di machinery of authority still dey. Representative politics bury cause and effect under many layers of bureaucracy: people act, then wait for institutions to decide wetin go happen. Direct action create change for di here and now. People see di result, test am, and build on am.

Direct action no require permission. People no need approval from above to cooperate, solve problems, withdraw support, or create alternatives. Change fit start anywhere wey people already get ability to act, and spread from grassroots as others adopt wetin work.

Grassroots hold power because hierarchy no fit run imsef. Strike show that dependence immediately. General strike fit stop big parts of di machinery together. Strike wey workers start without union authorisation show say workers fit use dia collective power without waiting for permission from di institutions wey represent dem.

Direct action turn that dependence to leverage. Di distinction dey between opposing a structure and removing something wey the structure need to function. Refusal and withdrawal change di relationship imsef.

Direct action build alternatives wey make hierarchy less necessary. Mutual aid, self-sufficiency, independent exchange, cooperatives, and parallel institutions give people power to meet dia needs more directly.

Di two sides dey strengthen each other. Stop the machinery while you build alternatives. Resistance dey reduce wetin hierarchy fit do. Construction dey reduce how much people depend on hierarchy.

People fit withdraw obedience while still keeping necessary work going through direct cooperation with those wey depend on am. Temporary disruption fit create leverage, but di question still remain who go bear di cost. If the leverage depend on denying people wey get little control over the challenged structure the things wey dem need, resistance go put the cost of that pressure on top those people. Sustained withdrawal from indispensable functions require replacement routes or continued access. Resistance wey deny im own alternatives wetin dem need go make di demand to bring command back stronger.

To build alternatives fit bring pressure of im own. Once people depend on something wey don build, di people wey maintain am get more to lose from disruption and fit become more careful about confrontation. Resistance too fit endanger di alternatives wey people dey try preserve. Di tension reduce when alternatives fit survive disruption through backups and other routes, and when resistance remove wetin hierarchy need without destroying di capacities wey people rely on.

Direct action become prefiguration because people build free world through di relationships and institutions dem create now, instead of postponing freedom until one future victory.

No single action need transform di whole system. ༆ Each successful act fit solve something now, increase autonomy, and make more action possible. When these capacities connect and multiply from grassroots, dem shift balance of power.

The Garden

Free world no need begin everywhere at the same time. E begin anywhere wey people regain ability to provide for themselves and one another. Grow food. Learn useful skills. Share tools. Work with people wey you trust. Support local producers and cooperatives. Start with something useful wey fit endure and spread.

Garden na real place wey people dey grow food, and e show how di wider structure fit work too. Garden turn land, knowledge, labour, and cooperation into something people fit use directly. Shared workshop give people place to make and repair wetin dem need. Farmers' markets bring growers and buyers into direct exchange. Each one reduce di distance between one need and di people wey fit meet am.

Di point no be any one particular economic model.

Self-sufficiency grow stronger through cooperation, no be isolation. One person no fit do everything, and e no suppose need to. People develop different skills, divide labour, exchange wetin dem produce, and help where dia ability dey strongest. As gardens connect with kitchens, workshops, cooperatives, local producers, and neighbourhood services, projects wey start separately begin form wider network of practical independence. Di more knowledge, tools, and productive ability wey people hold for themselves, di more choices dem get about di relationships wey dia lives depend on.

Build locally. Know your neighbours. Make friends by doing useful things together. People fit see wetin dey missing, wetin dey fail again and again, and wetin others really need. Problems easier to solve when those wey dey experience dem fit talk directly with those wey fit help.

These relationships fit grow outward without growing upward. Different groups fit specialise while dem remain autonomous, connecting directly wherever cooperation help dem. No single organisation need provide everything or control di whole. Dense field of overlapping associations become stronger through dia differences: many skills, many relationships, many sources, and many paths around failure.

Di important thing no be whether something call imsef alternative. Alternatives get dia own incentive structures, so we must ask di same question: wetin dem encourage for real life? Cooperative wey recreate command don change very little. Di test na practical one: people fit change how dem dey do the work, refuse the terms, or leave without losing dia only way to meet basic needs?

Garden wey depend on only one water source, or workshop wey depend on only one person's knowledge, still dey vulnerable because of that one point. Skills wey people fit teach, methods wey people fit reproduce, shared tools, and supplies from more than one source keep useful work going without making anybody indispensable.

We no need cut ourselves off completely from di world wey we dey live in now. Start with anything wey you fit move nearer to direct relationships: one source of food, one skill, one tool, one service, one cooperative project, one stronger friendship. Each transfer small, but e leave something behind wey di next one fit build on. Over time separate projects become networks, networks become resilient, and dependence begin spread across different sources.

Garden no need permission to become forest. E grow where space dey, branch where conditions allow, connect with things wey already dey alive, and produce seeds for further growth. Build free world di same way: locally, directly, peacefully, and from di grassroots outward.

Di Window of Opportunity

People dey build free world before revolutionary moment come, no be after am.

To remove di people wey control central institutions no mean say those capacities wey di institutions control before don spread among people. Food still need move. People still need clean water, medicine, shelter, communication, transport, protection, and ways to settle conflict. If those capacities still gather for few hands, anybody wey restore dem fastest go inherit enormous power.

So na before di turning point wey people fit see, di work wey go decide di result dey happen.

Free society dey develop gradually through relationships, skills, institutions, and infrastructure wey already work outside central command. Mutual aid networks, local food systems, cooperatives, independent communication, distributed energy, repair capacity, open knowledge, care networks, conflict resolution, and decentralised self-defence dey transfer practical capacity away from central institutions into di hands of di people wey depend on am.

Na dis be di strategic meaning of prefiguration: to build the new world inside the shell of the old one. The visible break fit happen suddenly. The capacity to survive am dey develop slowly.

Di transition no require one clean break. Old institutions fit remain dominant while new relationships grow beside dem. Some functions fit decentralise quickly while others remain central for much longer. People fit still use openings inside existing structures if that one increase dia practical autonomy or dia ability to organise outside those structures. Dem fit use such openings without turning di old structure to di instrument of transformation. Di new world wey dey emerge go first be partial, full of compromise, and entangled with di world wey e dey replace.

If alternative depend on di same central institutions wey e suppose replace, those institutions fit absorb am without changing balance of power.

Alternative fit provide wetin people need but still depend on land, supplies, infrastructure, or other resources wey di old structure control. That arrangement allow di old structure leave some of di burden to di alternative while still keeping plenty of di leverage wey dependence create. To take over one function no be di same as to replace one dependency; di balance only shift when people gain more capacity to continue without di old structure controlling wetin dem need.

Alternatives fit face suppression once dem become capable of replacing central functions. As alternatives reduce dependence on central institutions, those institutions fit get stronger incentives to contain dem. If repression still fit cut every source of supply, simply spreading out no be enough protection. Shared knowledge and support across independent networks help di work continue even if one site or organisation no dey again, leaving no single structure wey if dem remove am, di entire alternative go finish.

Prefiguration build di safety net wey stop institutional collapse from turning to social collapse.

Di goal no be to create one pure enclave outside society. Na to multiply spaces where people fit solve problems through different relationships, connect those spaces sideways, and gradually transfer more of daily life into dem. Every dependency wey voluntary alternative replace weaken di leverage of di old system. ༆ Every relationship of mutual support increase people's power to refuse.

Di transition fit be gradual as people build am, yet rapid for di consequences.

Di window of opportunity open when central institutions lose enough capacity or legitimacy that arrangements wey people think say permanent before become open to negotiation. Dis no require total collapse of civilisation. Supply chain break. Government lose legitimacy. Corporation abandon town. Electric grid fail. Currency become unreliable. Strike stop normal services. Monopoly no fit provide wetin people depend on again. Central systems fail unevenly, depending on place, sector, and function.

Each failure open space where alternatives fit take over part of wetin di old structure no fit provide again.

These openings fit happen again and again. Parallel institutions grow while things still relatively stable. Central system weaken. Existing alternatives absorb some of im functions. Those alternatives stabilise, learn, connect, and enter di next crisis with more capacity than before. Di old hierarchy fit survive, but every cycle fit leave people less dependent on am.

Dis one no be strategy of waiting for collapse. Na preparation for conditions wey nobody fit predict reliably.

When central institutions weaken, freedom no just automatically emerge. Crisis bring fear, scarcity, uncertainty, and demand for dependable order. Those conditions fit strengthen mutual aid, but dem fit also strengthen fascism, militarism, organised crime, religious authoritarianism, or new government wey promise to restore stability.

Power vacuum na demand for functions wey people no dey receive reliably again. Wetin go fill am depend on who fit meet those needs.

Whoever fit provide food, medicine, communication, transport, protection, and working infrastructure gain enormous influence. If only authoritarian organisations get those capacities, people wey fear fit accept commands because hierarchy go look like di only structure wey still dey work.

Na why prefiguration also be preparation against another authoritarian takeover. Parallel institutions wey people develop before crisis give people another place to turn. Distributed skills, existing relationships, working networks, and experience of cooperating without command reduce di vacuum wey central collapse fit otherwise create.

Without those alternatives, collapse no abolish dependence. E make am worse.

Alternatives must work too. If participation require spare time, money, or security, e go hardest for people wey already dey under greatest pressure. Most people no go first adopt one complete philosophy before joining. Dem fit join because food affordable, childcare dependable, neighbourhood safer, repair workshop save money, or di people involved treat dem with dignity. Free association, mutual aid, and spontaneous order become stronger arguments when people fit experience dem directly.

Di measure na practical one: e dey meet real needs while e increase autonomy and spread practical ability among more people?

Project wey no fit function under pressure no go carry people through crisis. Project wey function by gathering control fit simply become di next hierarchy. Alternative work only if im methods preserve autonomy and free association.

Test the replacement before depending on am: people go still fit provide wetin dem need if funding stop, supplier fail, or key people leave? Ordinary breakdowns and real transfers show wetin still depend on central institutions. Di system fit collapse suddenly before dem don prepare enough. Then keeping supplies available, maintenance work going, and care continuing get priority over declaring independence; temporary dependence no create permanent right to command.

These processes dey happen together: build capacities wey meet needs now, while using those capacities to reduce dependence on domination. Without construction, resistance fit leave vacuum. Without resistance, di old system fit contain di alternatives within im own limits.

Di objective na to make central institutions gradually less necessary.

Functions fit migrate one by one. Knowledge fit escape central control. Temporary mutual aid fit turn into permanent social infrastructure. Supply routes wey people arrange among themselves fit become networks wey dey last. Communities fit preserve arrangements wey work during emergencies. Even failed projects fit leave behind skills, relationships, tools, and knowledge wey make di next attempt stronger.

Wetin people don build so far no define di limits of wetin dem fit build. When human ingenuity get freedom, innovation go follow and things wey look impossible before fit come within reach.

Success fit no come as government wey fall or flag wey dem raise on top of im buildings. E fit show as long decline in di importance of central institutions while dia useful functions move elsewhere.

Di decisive victory no be to seize di machinery.

Na to make that machinery unnecessary.

Nobody know reliably when di next big opening go come. Systems fit survive instability, absorb opposition, change leaders, shift costs, reform, or repress. Strategy wey depend on predicting collapse dey fragile.

Prefiguration no require prediction. If di existing system continue, independent relationships and capacities improve life now. If e decay gradually, alternatives fit absorb di functions wey e abandon. If crises come again and again, every opening fit leave di parallel society stronger. If bigger break happen, networks wey already get supplies, skills, and working relationships give people alternatives wey fit prevent another central authority from filling di vacuum.

So window of opportunity no be something to just wait for.

Na something wey we build towards.

Free world dey grow while hierarchy still look permanent. Every garden, friendship, cooperative, skill, network, act of mutual aid, and independent source of practical capacity create another place where people fit act without waiting for permission. As these alternatives connect, people depend on more different sources and balance of power begin take shape.

When di next window open, freedom no need start from nothing.

Free world go dey there, dey wait.

Vox Libera

Di First Foundation

“Nothing dey dangerous pass way of seeing di world wey person don lock inside dogma—nothing dey hold person back like am, blind person from new ideas like am, or spoil open mind toward new things like am.” — Stephen Jay Gould

“E important make we remove dogma wey people no even realise say dem carry for mind, wey dey make dem think say na only dia own way of seeing reality make sense. My aim na to help people reach general agnosticism—no be only about God, but about everything. If person fit only see things through im own belief system, e go almost become deaf, dumb and blind. Na only when we fit see di world di way other people dey see am we fit really understand those people. Na wetin guerrilla ontology mean be that: break di idea say na only one model fit explain di world, and give people different models to take look am.” — Robert Anton Wilson, “Searching for Cosmic Intelligence” interview with Jeffrey Elliot (1980)

“Some words and ideas na wetin we fit call ‘anti-concepts’. Instead of helping us understand things, dem dey hide things from us and make other real concepts harder to understand. One important kind na wetin dem call ‘package deal’: one word wey im meaning quietly assume say some things must go together, even when di truth be say dem no really belong together.” — Roderick T. Long

“In other words, no be one pattern dey. Di only thing wey dey consistent na change itself, and di understanding wey follow am say society fit take different forms.” — David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything

Incentive Structure

“Human being, like every living thing, dey adjust and get used to di conditions wey e dey live inside, and e pass di habits wey e don learn give di generation wey follow am. So person wey dem born into slavery and wey don live as slave, wey come from plenty generations of slaves, when e begin think, e believe say slavery na necessary part of life; and freedom look like something wey no fit happen.” — Errico Malatesta

“E hard to make person understand something when im salary depend on make e no understand am!” — Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)

“Till now, we don dey look incentives through public choice theory, wey assume say people wey dey politics no really different from people wey no dey politics. But dis assumption fit even too hopeful about politics. Di reason be say di way political institutions dey select people go finally favour those wey power positions dey attract. Decent people wey get humanity no go want work as overseer for slave plantation. For di same reason, those wey spend dia working life as prison guards, police officers, prosecutors, border patrol agents, generals and presidents go tend to be people wey no mind using power however dem choose and violent authority over others. Even if people wey get principles occupy these positions for some time, ambitious people wey ready bend dia morals to get and hold power fit soon replace dem. Na so power systems dey build institutional filters and selection effects with one simple and terrible result: di worst people dey climb reach di top.” — Nathan Goodman, Abolition: An Economist’s Perspective ๖

“Today, plenty regulations, taxes, intellectual-property laws, and subsidies wey government dey give businesses dey put workers for disadvantage. When you add everything together, dem dey block people wey fit become alternative employers and people wey wan start dia own work.” — Sheldon Richman

“For reality, wetin define di capitalist system na di way monopolies wey government approve don become part of im structure.” — Eric Fleischmann

“Another thing be say, when government get monopoly over di medium wey people dey use for exchange, e fit use debt instead of real ability to pay as di way to give credit for exchange. And because of that monopoly, government fit stop exchanges until dem don first collect wetin di privileged people demand.” — Dyer D. Lum

“Today, nobody dey see—or want see—say for our own time, di slavery wey hold most people come from tax wey people must pay with money, wey government dey collect from di people e rule, whether na tax on land or other things.” — Leo Tolstoy, What Shall We Do?, Chapter XX (excerpt wey dem don update im language small)

“As inflation dey continue, governments fit secretly take important part of dia citizens' wealth without anybody noticing. And no be just say dem take am: dem take am as dem like; while di process dey make plenty people poorer, e dey actually make some people richer.” — John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace

“Capitalism na di same thing everywhere. To survive and grow, e need some scarcity wey go dey all di time: e need am to maintain im prices and create plenty hungry people wey go work under any condition.” — Errico Malatesta

“Somehow, di weight and all di folds inside Einstein brain no interest me reach di almost certain fact say people wey get talent equal to im own don live and die for cotton farms and sweatshops.” — Stephen Jay Gould

“Because people wey dem dey call criminals nowadays no be criminals at all. Na starvation, no be sin, dey give birth to modern crime.” — Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

“Slavery, trade protection, and monopoly get people wey dey defend dem—not only di people wey dey gain from dem, but even di people wey dey suffer because of dem.” — Frédéric Bastiat

“Di class wey get power to rob people on large scale also get power to control government and make dia robbery legal.” — Eugene Debs

“When robbery don turn to normal way of life for one group of people inside society, as time dey go, dem go create legal system wey permit am and moral code wey glorify am.” — Frédéric Bastiat

“Now, people fit do robbery wey law approve in ways wey no get end. So we get endless plans for how to arrange am: tariffs, trade protection, benefits, government support, encouragement, taxes wey dey rise with income, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profit, minimum wage, right to relief, right to tools for work, free credit, and so on and so forth.” — Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Hierarchy

“Most authority dey start as di raw power of gangster, then e dey grow turn di kind ‘legitimate’ authority wey people just quietly accept. Na certainly wetin happen for di history of nation-state. Fried talk say legitimacy na di way ideology take join with power. Di work of legitimacy na ‘to explain and defend why social power gather for di hand of one part of di community, and to give di same kind support to particular social orders—that is, particular ways of sharing and directing how social power dey move.’” — Harold Barclay, People without Government ๖

“To remove authority or government no mean say make we destroy di power wey individuals and groups dey use for society, or di influence wey people get over one another. If we do that, e go be like say we turn humanity to separate atoms wey no fit do anything together—something wey no fit happen; and if e fit happen, na di end of every society and terrible blow to human beings. To remove authority mean to remove monopoly over force and influence. E mean to stop di condition wey di social power of everybody—di combined strength of all people for society—come become instrument for di thoughts, will and interests of small group of individuals. Dem dey use that collective strength suppress everybody else freedom, so dia own ideas go gain. In other words, e mean to destroy one way of organising society wey make di people wey win one revolution fit exploit di future until another revolution come, all for dia own benefit.” — Errico Malatesta

“Where authority dey, freedom no dey.” — Pyotr Kropotkin

“When Warren and Proudhon dey look for how workers go get justice, dem come meet di problem of monopoly wey one class dey control. Dem see say na Authority dey hold those monopolies together. So dem decide say di answer no be to give that Authority more power, wey go make monopoly spread everywhere. Na to uproot Authority completely and allow di opposite principle—Freedom—to work well-well.” — Benjamin R. Tucker

“Dem design organizations wey get hierarchy to make people behavior follow di same pattern, mainly through di hierarchy control structure. For di kind hierarchy wey dem describe as ideal, any influence or communication between two ‘workers’ must pass through one manager wey dem share. As group behavior dey become more complicated, di different independent influences dey increase, and one manager no go fit process or pass all of dem. To add more managers and reduce how many people each manager dey supervise fit help. But dis method go still fail when di way di group dey behave don become more complicated than wetin one human being fit handle. Networks wey allow people to connect directly from side to side no get dis same limit. When group behavior don pass di complexity wey one person fit manage, hierarchy control no go work well again. Systems wey hierarchy dey control must give way to systems wey dey operate as networks. Once di complexity of di group reach di complexity of one person, any further increase go meet di limits of hierarchy structures. Those structures no fit handle higher complexity; dem must give way to structures wey direct connections between people dey control. Even before, direct connections wey fit replace di control function don dey inside hierarchy structures. But dem become necessary when hierarchy control fail because group behavior don become too complicated.” — Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization, a Complexity Profile

“Civilization wey dem build on authority and submission na civilization wey no get way to correct im own mistakes. Communication wey dey work dey move only one direction: from di group wey be masters go meet di group wey dey obey. Anybody wey sabi cybernetics know say dis kind one-way communication no get feedback, and e no fit behave with sense.” — Robert Anton Wilson, “Thirteen Choruses for the Divine Marquis,” as Kevin Carson quote am for The Desktop Regulatory State

“When one person obey, that single act na di foundation of both di strength of authoritarian society and im weakness.” — Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy

“Di oppressor for no get dis kind power if e no get people among those wey dem dey oppress wey dey help am.” — Simone de Beauvoir

“[...] di main enemy, di strategic opponent, na fascism [...] And no be only di fascism wey history know, di one of Hitler and Mussolini—wey sabi how to gather di people and use wetin di crowd want—but also di fascism wey dey inside all of us, inside our heads and our everyday behavior; di fascism wey make us love power and desire di same thing wey dey dominate and exploit us.” — Michel Foucault, preface to Anti-Oedipus

“If people use dia freedom take surrender that same freedom, e mean say dem no be slaves again? If people use plebiscite vote put one man as dictator over dem, dem still free just because na dem themselves make that dictatorship? E mean say di orders wey that man dey force on dem don become legitimate because na dia own votes lead reach there? Na just like person wey argue say East African man wey break spear for another man front so that e go become that man slave still get im freedom, because na im choose im master by imsef.” — Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State

“Person no become less of a slave just because dem allow am choose new master once every few years.” — Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority

“To freely elect masters no mean say masters or slaves don disappear. To get freedom to choose from plenty different goods and services no be freedom if those goods and services dey support di way society dey control people wey dey live under hard work and fear—that is, if dem still dey keep people estranged from dia own lives. And when person by imsef dey produce again di needs wey dem impose on am, that one no prove say e get autonomy; e only show how well di control dey work.” — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man

“Anybody wey try control another person na ruler, aggressor and invader; and di nature of that invasion no change whether na one person do am to another person, like ordinary criminal, or na one person do am to everybody else, like absolute king, or na everybody else do am to one person, like modern democracy.” — Benjamin R. Tucker, 1890

“Nobody dey seize power with plan to give am up. Power no be means to another end; na di end imsef. People no dey set up dictatorship so that dem go protect revolution; dem dey make revolution so that dem go set up dictatorship.” — O’Brien for George Orwell novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Government

“E pain say plenty people never understand am well: just as State no get im own money, na so e no get im own power. All di power wey e get na wetin society give am, plus di one wey e dey seize from time to time with one excuse or another; State power no get any oda source. So anytime State power increase, whether people give am or e seize am, society power go reduce by dat same amount. State power never fit increase, and e no fit ever increase, without society power reducing by almost di same amount.” — Albert J. Nock ๖

“Wetin define State na authority, di right to rule. Person first duty na autonomy: to refuse make anybody rule am.” — Robert Paul Wolff

“If you look government well, you go see say na just group of people wey fit make mistake, but dem get political force wey let dem behave like say dem no fit make mistake at all.” — Robert LeFevre

“Na dat be di difference, and e important well-well. We agree say human nature get fault, but we no give rulers special exemption. Dem dey give demself dat exemption, sometimes without knowing; and because we no give dem dat special treatment, dem dey call us dreamers, ‘people wey no dey practical.’” — Pyotr Kropotkin

“If human beings natural character bad reach where e no safe to allow people free, how come di people wey wan organize everybody always get good character? Lawmakers and di officials wey dem appoint no be human beings too? Or dem believe say na better clay dem take make dem pass everybody else?” — Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

“Di danger no be say one particular class no fit rule. Every class no fit rule.” — Lord Acton, letter to Mary Gladstone (1881)

“But wetin be di reason why government suppose dey at all? Why person go give up im own freedom and im own initiative put for oda people hand? Why we go give dem power make dem be our oga, whether each person agree or no agree, come use everybody strength anyhow wey dem like? Di people wey dey rule get special talent reach where e make sense say dem fit represent everybody and act for everybody interest pass wetin all di people fit do for demselves? Dem no dey make mistake and nothing fit corrupt dem, reach where e go make sense to trust everybody future to dia knowledge and goodness? Even if people wey get goodness and knowledge wey no get end dey, even if we imagine wetin never happen for history and wetin we believe say e no go ever happen—say government enter di hand of di people wey sabi pass and wey good pass—government power go add anything to dia good influence? E no go instead weaken or destroy am? Because people wey dey rule must put hand for matters wey dem no understand, and, pass every oda thing, dem go spend most of dia energy to hold on to power, satisfy dia friends, hold down people wey no happy, and control people wey dey rebel.” — Errico Malatesta

“Which work authority or government do to help human beings improve dia lives, invent things and discover new things? Nothing at all, or at least nothing wey help. Na individual people always achieve every big breakthrough for dat area, most times even as human and religious authorities dey forbid, persecute and interfere with dem.” — Emma Goldman, The Individual, Society and the State

“Government na di big make-believe wey everybody dey take try live at everybody else expense.” — Frédéric Bastiat, “Government”

“People wey believe say democracy and monarchy different from each oda completely go find am hard to understand how political institution fit change shape many times but still remain di same thing. But small look suppose show us say throughout all di changes wey English monarchy pass through, with all im expansion and revolutions, even when e cross sea go one colony wey later become independent country and den powerful State, di same State functions and di same way e dey behave remain almost exactly as before.” — Randolph Bourne, The State

“Di State no be anything pass all di freedoms wey society don deny individual person when you put dem together.” — Mikhail Bakunin

“Individual person no fit bargain with di State. State no recognize any currency apart from power; and na di State itself dey issue di coins.” — Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974)

“Out of all di different kind of wicked rule, di one wey dem dey do for di people wey dey suffer am, say na for dia own good, fit be di one wey go oppress dem pass. E fit even better to live under oga wey dey rob people than under people wey believe say na dem sabi wetin morally correct and wey get power wey nobody fit check. Di wickedness of di robber oga fit rest sometimes, and e fit reach where im greed go satisfy; but people wey dey torment us for our own good go continue forever, because dia own conscience dey tell dem say wetin dem dey do correct.” — C. S. Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

“Law, with all im grand equality, no allow rich or poor person sleep under bridge, beg for street, or thief bread.” — Anatole France

“Di principle wey talk say majority get right to rule minority dey turn every government, for real life, into fight between two groups of people: which group go be oga and which group go be slave; no matter how much blood dem shed for dat fight, by im nature e no fit end completely as long as people still refuse to be slave.” — Lysander Spooner, No Treason

“Every kind of government don fail. Rule by one wicked ruler no fair to anybody, even di ruler imself, wey maybe suppose do better things with im life. Rule by small group no fair to di many, and rule by mob no fair to di few. Before, people put big hope for democracy; but democracy simply mean say na people dey use stick beat people, by people and for people. People don find dat one out. I must talk say dem suppose don find am out since, because every kind of authority dey bring people down. E dey disgrace di people wey dey use am and di people wey dem dey use am rule.” — Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

“...make you think about di tens of thousands of people wey dem don burn, hang, boil and kill for oda ways because dem say dem do witchcraft; di millions wey dem kill because dem call dem heretics; di thousands of innocent people wey suffer because dem accuse dem of treason; people wey fire, torture, gallows, torture rack and prison don destroy, for every kind crime wey person fit imagine since time begin...

Make e think about di oceans of blood and rivers of tears wey di force and wickedness of rulers for dis world don cause; di cruelty, torture and suffering wey dem put on people wey no fit defend demselves, di weak and di unlucky; den make e ask imself whether e really believe say punishment na good thing. Even if violence fit ever stop crime, di brutality, suffering, blood and crime of rulers don grow far pass wetin di weak and unknown victims wey dem claim say dem dey avenge ever do. And dis cruelty no dey reduce.

Na pure madness to doubt whether di old judgments correct, but still believe say today own na righteous judgment. No sentence wey condemn person dey just, and no judgment dey righteous. All violence and force na cruelty, injustice and barbaric behavior, and people judgment no fit make dem right.” — Clarence Darrow, Resist Not Evil

“Government no go want make society scatter, because if e scatter, government and di people wey hold power go lose wetin dem dey use take exploit people. But government no fit leave society make e manage imsef without official interference too, because people go soon see say government dey only protect property owners wey dey keep dem for hunger. Den people go quick want remove both di government and di property owners.” — Errico Malatesta

“Why people dey hungry? Because rulers dey chop di money for taxes. Na why people dey hungry. Why people dey rebel? Because rulers dey interfere too much. Na why people dey rebel. Why people no dey fear death much? Because rulers dey demand too much from dia life. Na why people dey take death lightly. When person get only small thing to survive on, e know say e no suppose hold life too tight.” — Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, ch. 75, trans. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

“Na why anybody wey want freedom suppose understand dis important truths: 1. Any person wey put money for hand of wetin dem dey call ‘government’ don give government sword wey e go use against am, to collect more money from am and keep am under government anyhow-anyhow power. 2. People wey first collect im money without im agreement go use dat same money take rob am more and keep am as slave if e try resist dia demands later.” — Lysander Spooner, No Treason

“We fit conclude without fear say di answer for revolution no be Direct Lawmaking, no be Direct Government, and no be Government Wey Dem Simplify; na No Government. No be monarchy, no be aristocracy, and no be even democracy imsef, as long as e still mean any kind of government, even when e dey act for people name and call itself di people. No authority, no government, not even government wey dem say na people own: na dat be Revolution. Direct lawmaking, direct government, and simple government na old lies wey dem dey try bring back for nothing. Whether government direct or indirect, simple or complicated, to rule people na always to deceive dem. Na always one person dey give orders to another person; na lie wey dey finish freedom; na raw force wey dey cut matter short instead of justice, wey na only am fit answer di matter; na stubborn ambition wey dey use people dedication and trust climb go up...” — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)

“Even if no government truly mean anarchy for di bad sense of disorder—which no be true at all—even then, no anarchy disorder fit worse pass di condition wey government don carry humanity enter.” — Leo Tolstoy, Patriotism and Government

“Wetin be dis thing wey we dey call government? No be organised violence e be? Law dey order you to obey, and if you no obey, e go use force make you obey—all government, all law and authority, for di end, stand on force and violence, on punishment or fear of punishment.” — Alexander Berkman

“State dey call im own violence law, but e dey call violence wey one individual do crime.” — Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Own

“Before, crime dey alone like cry of protest; now e don spread everywhere like science. Yesterday dem dey carry crime go court; today na crime dey decide wetin law go be.” — Albert Camus, The Rebel

“You no dey question government right to kill, seize people property and put people for prison. If ordinary person do di same things wey government dey do all di time, you go call am murderer, thief and wicked person. But as long as di violence dey ‘legal’, you go support am and obey. So no be violence itself you oppose; na people using violence ‘illegally’ you dey oppose.” — Alexander Berkman

“To kill person na forbidden; so dem dey punish all murderers, except when dem kill plenty people with trumpet dey blow.” — Voltaire

“To dey UNDER GOVERNMENT na make dem dey watch you, inspect you, spy on you, direct you, use law control you, give you number, put rule for your head, register you, put doctrine for your mind, preach give you, control you, check you, calculate your worth, judge your value, blame you and command you—people wey no get di right, wisdom or good character to do all dis. To dey UNDER GOVERNMENT mean say every work and every transaction wey you do, dem go note am, register am, count am, tax am, stamp am, measure am, give am number, assess am, make you collect licence and permission, warn you, block you, forbid you, try reform you, correct you and punish you. E mean say, under excuse say na for public good and everybody interest, dem go force you contribute, drill you, squeeze your money, exploit you, put monopoly over you, extort you, press you, deceive you and rob you; den if you just resist small or talk one word of complaint, dem go suppress you, fine you, spoil your name, harass you, hunt you down, abuse you, beat you with baton, collect your weapon, tie you, choke you, jail you, judge you, condemn you, shoot you, deport you, sacrifice you, sell you and betray you; and to crown everything, dem go mock you, laugh at you, look down on you, insult you and disgrace you. Na dis be government; na dis be im justice; na dis be im morality.” — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

“Government na di most dangerous institution wey human being don know. For history, e don violate people right pass wetin any one person or group fit do: e don kill people, make dem slaves, send dem go forced labour and concentration camps, and e dey regularly rob and loot di fruit of dia hard work. Unlike one person wey be criminal, government get power to arrest and judge person; unlike one person wey be criminal, e fit surround one person completely and control every part of im life, so that di only escape wey remain na to leave di country (and for totalitarian countries dem even forbid dat one).” — John Hospers

Balance of Power

“Na only when every human being, man and woman, get equal freedom, na then I truly dey free. Other people freedom no dey cancel or reduce my own freedom; instead, na di thing wey my freedom need first and wey show say e real.” — Mikhail Bakunin ๖

“To argue for freedom no mean say you dey against organisation—organisation na one of di strongest tools wey human sense fit use. E mean say you dey against any organisation wey lock others out, wey get special privilege or monopoly, and against force wey dem use stop other people from doing better.” — Friedrich August von Hayek

“When power scatter, e mean say people get autonomy—di power to act freely on top dia own initiative. Autonomy fit work for any level: one person, one neighbourhood, one movement, or one whole region. To dey free, you need control over your immediate environment and di everyday details of your life; di more you fit provide for yourself, di safer your autonomy go be. Dis no mean say you must provide everything wey you need by yourself; e fit also mean di kind of interdependence wey give you bargaining power with people wey you dey depend on. No single institution suppose control all di ways people fit get resources or social relationships. Society wey support autonomy need wetin engineer go call ‘redundancy’: plenty different choices and possibilities for every part of life.” — CrimethInc., From Democracy to Freedom

“As one administrative organisation dey grow and im power dey increase, di rest of society dey lose di power to resist di organisation as e continue to grow and control dem.” — Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State

“Di extra power wey people dey get when dem share knowledge through network na— for di two meanings of di word—property of di network itself. E don seriously change di balance of power between networks and hierarchy, and e don give ordinary people and small groups power against big organisations wey person hardly fit imagine before. For hierarchy, every message between members or local points suppose pass through small number of central points. Na only messages wey meet di sharing rules of people wey control those central points dem go allow to move from one member or local point to another. Na few points inside hierarchy get power to send messages; na why dem dey call that kind arrangement ‘one-to-many’. But for network wey power scatter, every point fit send message, and any two points fit talk directly without passing through central point or asking permission from whoever dey control am. Instead make members only choose who go control central points, ‘one person go make proposal, and everybody wey wan join fit join. How far di action go reach go depend on how many people accept di proposal.’ Democracy wey majority dey decide everything na ‘system of scarcity’ because people dey compete for decision-making power: ‘di whole group must choose either dis one or that one, one filter instead of another, one representative instead of another.’ But for network wey power scatter, one person decision-making power no reduce another person own. Each person decision affect only that person, and e no stop others from doing di same thing. ‘Even if majority no only reject one proposal but dem even work against am, dem still no go fit stop di people wey support am from carrying am out.’” — Kevin Carson, The Desktop Regulatory State

“Di two of dem get opposite relationship: when one strong, di other weak. If we wan make society strong, we must reduce di state power. Every kind of people wey wan total control understand dis; na why dem dey always try destroy social institutions wey dem no fit control.” — Colin Ward, The State and Society

“Some important differences dey give people wey oppose di state big advantage. Yes, states get strong tools to watch people, but na from centre and through hierarchy dem dey control those tools, and na only small group of operators wey people fit identify to some extent fit use dem. Dem dey try find and watch things wey resemble straw-colour needles inside haystack of seven billion human beings. Na di resistance movements wey connect through networks around di world be those needles. E much easier for needle to see and identify di person wey carry pitchfork than for that person to see and identify needle. Needles plenty pass people wey carry pitchfork. And those needles get dia own tools—tools wey cheap, easy to use, and almost anybody fit get (even those same surveillance operators wey we mention!) if dem decide, any time and for any reason, say dem wan become needle.” — Thomas Knapp, quoted by Kevin Carson

“As first step to achieve wetin dem want, people wey support decentralisation dey encourage production make e spread for different places. So dem dey support homes wey fit produce things, where family fit make all or very large part of dia basic needs with modern small tools and machines.” — Mildred Loomis

“Di truth be say Earth no fit bear dis attack again. We no fit allow dis thing continue when e dey pollute air, pollute water, and pollute our food. [...] Na Earth dey give us life, no be American government. Na Earth dey give us life, no be government wey multinational corporations control. Earth dey give us life; we need Earth. We must have am; without am our life go finish. So we must resist wetin dem dey do.” — John Trudell, “Take Back the Earth,” Thanksgiving Day address (1980)

“If you carry di revolutionary wey get di strongest zeal give am power wey no get limit, within one year e go worse pass di Tsar himself.” — Mikhail Bakunin

“Na so di “State” surely dey take start for dis earth. I believe say that story wey talk say State start from one “contract” don already scatter. Person wey fit command, wey be “master” by nature, wey violence dey show for everything e do and di way e move—wetin person like that wan use contract do! We no fit negotiate with people like that.” — Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals

“[…] State criminality no be new thing, and nobody suppose surprise about am. E start when di first group of people wey dey take other people property by force gather together form di State. E go continue as long as State still dey for dis world, because State na institution wey stand against society from di beginning, and criminality dey inside di foundation. Di idea say State start to serve any kind social purpose no agree with history at all. E start with conquest and taking people property by force—that one mean crime. E start to keep society divided between class wey own property and exploit others, and class wey no get property and must depend on others—that one too na criminal purpose.” — Albert Jay Nock, “The Criminality of the State” (1939)

“Di early State, as we go see, many times no fit hold di people wey dey under am; disease, environmental wahala and politics dey make am very weak, and e dey easy for am to collapse or scatter. But when State scatter, no be because e no use all di force wey e fit gather take control people. Plenty strong evidence show say dem use work wey people no free to refuse on a very wide scale—people wey dem capture for war, people wey contract tie down to serve, slaves for temple, slave markets, people wey dem force move go labour colonies, prisoners wey dem force work, and whole groups wey dem keep as slaves (like di helots for Sparta).” — James C. Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States (2017)

“As di power of political bureaucracy wey no get human feeling dey grow and grow, and e dey supervise and claim say e dey protect person life from birth reach death, e dey put more and more obstacles for people wey wan cooperate with one another. Any system wey every time dey sacrifice di wellbeing of plenty people, even whole nations, because small groups dey pursue power and economic gain for dia own selfish interest, go surely break di ties wey hold society together and bring continuous fight of everybody against everybody. Na dis system clear road for di big intellectual and social reaction wey we dey see today for modern Fascism and di idea of totalitarian State. E pass di way absolute kings of old times dey hunger for power by far, and e wan put every part of human activity under State control. ‘Everything for di State; everything through di State; nothing without di State!’ come turn di main repeated message of one new political religion. Just as for different kinds of church theology God na everything and human being na nothing, for dis modern political belief State na everything and citizen na nothing. And just as people once use ‘di will of God’ take justify wetin privileged classes want, today na only di selfish interests of people wey claim say dem get right to interpret ‘di will of di State’ dia own way and force am on everybody dey hide behind those words.” — Rudolf Rocker

Order Wey Dey Form by Imsef

“Freedom no be order pikin; na freedom be order mama.” — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

“If you wan be great leader, you go learn how to follow di Tao. Stop to dey try control everything. Leave fixed plans and ideas, make di world arrange itself. As laws and restrictions dey plenty, people go dey poorer. As weapons dey plenty, you go dey less safe. As subsidies dey plenty, people go depend less on wetin dem fit do for themselves. As rules and regulations dey plenty, thieves and robbers go plenty too. Na why di Master talk say: I leave law, people come dey honest. I leave economy alone, people come dey prosper. I leave religion, people come dey at peace. I even leave all my desire for di common good, and good come plenty like grass.” — Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, ch. 57

“Di main principle be say, as we dey arrange our affairs, make we use di forces wey society produce by itself as much as we fit, and use coercion as little as we fit. We fit apply dis principle for countless ways.” — Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

“If we agree say society economic problem na mainly how to adjust fast when particular conditions change for different times and places, e mean say final decisions suppose dey with di people wey know those conditions well. Na dem dey see di changes directly and know di resources wey dey available at once to respond.” — Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

“As we don see, di simplified ideas wey big bureaucratic institutions must use no fit fully show how complex nature and society really be. Di categories wey dem dey use too broad, too fixed, and too simplified for paper to do justice to di world wey dem claim say dem dey describe.” — James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State

“Di more you try control how people think, act, or relate with one another—whether na by direct force or indirect ways like threat, fear, or “small push” through another kind of incentive manipulation—di less di system go fit adjust when things change.” — Andrew Kemle

“Di usual argument for order wey grow by imself instead of plan from one center be say, when knowledge scatter among people, na only process wey no gather all decisions for one place and wey fit change with time go help people discover di knowledge wey matter. In other words, dat kind order fit “[…] use knowledge wey nobody get complete by imself.”” — F. A. Hayek, (Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order)

“Person wey believe say order fit come only when somebody arrange everything by hand fit think say e no make sense to spread decisions around for complex situations, and still get better order and fit adjust to wetin nobody know yet; or say sharing authority to decide fit even make overall order more possible. But when decisions spread, more information dey enter di matter.” — Friedrich Hayek

“Plenty research wey dem do with real evidence show di different situations where people dey solve problems about resources wey everybody dey use by demselves, when those solutions fit last long, and how bigger institutions fit help or spoil di ability of people for smaller levels to solve problems well and make di solutions last.” — Elinor Ostrom, “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems”

“Order wey grow by imself dey come from networks of independent people wey be equals. Wetin dem do dey create positive and negative feedback wey dey guide di next people as dem follow plans wey dem think out by demselves, so di feedback dey continue. Each person be one point for di network, connected to others through feedback, but still free to act on im own. Di feedback wey dem create dey reduce how much anybody need to know about di whole system to succeed inside am.” — Gus diZerega, quoted by Kevin Carson in The Desktop Regulatory State

“For sociology, stigmergy mostly mean di kind network organization wey you go see for wikis, group blogs, and “leaderless” groups wey dia small cells dey connect with one another. When computer and digital networks help dis kind cooperation, di ability to process information dey increase well-well. Stigmergy let people wey dey act on dia own cooperate for any scale.

Stigmergy no be “collectivist” for di old meaning of dat word, from di time when any big joint work need one large organization to represent everybody and use hierarchy coordinate wetin each person dey do. But e bring collectivism reach im fullest form because e remove di cost of arranging many people to act together. E still carry individualism reach im fullest form, because every action na free action by one person, and di “collective” na just all dia actions put together. Anybody fit bring any new idea wey e see fit without asking di group for permission, and everybody fit choose whether to follow am. Stigmergy remove di need for anybody to follow wetin di group want; e make each individual di unit of governance and fully realise di ideal of consent.

Stigmergic organization dey bring structures wey dem build from smaller parts wey fit join in different ways. Dis kind structure dey everywhere because smaller parts wey fit connect dey help system learn, develop, and adjust. You fit arrange and rearrange small number of building blocks to make plenty complex systems. If you start with plenty individuals wey each fit relate with small number of other people and affect dem through just few simple rules, under di right conditions all these people fit shift fast into another kind of organization.” — Kevin Carson, The Desktop Regulatory State ๖

“To understand how society fit live without government, make we just look small at wetin dey happen for society now. We go see say even today, people dey carry out di most important things without government hand inside. Government only enter to exploit ordinary people, protect privileged people, or put unnecessary official stamp for wetin people don already do without im help—plenty times even when government bin dey oppose am. People dey work, trade, study, travel, and choose to follow normal ways of good behavior and cleanliness; dem dey benefit from science and art, and dem get plenty things wey concern all of dem, without feeling say dem need anybody to direct how dem go behave for these matters. In fact, na di things wey government no put hand inside dey often do best and cause di least quarrel, because dem dey adjust by demselves to wetin people want in di ways wey serve dem well and feel right to dem.” — Errico Malatesta

“When we remove dis negative force wey be government, society go become wetin e fit become with di strength and skill wey e get for dat time. If educated people dey wey want spread learning, dem go arrange schools, and dem go need show people di benefit and joy wey learning fit bring. If no such people dey, or na only few dey, government no fit create dem. Wetin government fit do—and wetin e dey do today—na to pull those few people commot from useful hands-on teaching work and put dem for top to direct wetin dem go force everybody to accept with police help. So intelligent teachers wey care about dia work turn to politicians wey no dey useful again, busy only with forcing dia own ideas on others and keeping dia own power.” — Errico Malatesta

“Under government machine, for di shadow of political institutions, away from di eyes of politicians and priests, society dey quietly and slowly build im own body and create new order wey show im life and ability to run im own affairs... We fit conclude without fear say revolution no mean direct lawmaking, direct government, or government wey dem simplify; e mean NO GOVERNMENT.” — P.J. Proudhon, 1851

“When di hated power of state no dey force individuals, associations, communes, regions, and areas to live together, dem go connect more closely and form one unity wey get more life, more real, and stronger than di one wey state dey force dem to form today under im oppressive and tiring yoke.” — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

“When people dey make decisions for scattered ways without any fixed order, e help us see say society fit work by imself as network wey no get one center. E allow disagreement as healthy part of life, encourage plenty places where decisions fit happen for every part of daily life—far beyond di formal spaces wey men dominate, like congress meetings or orders from above—and allow different, even opposite decisions for different parts of di human network. At di same time, e encourage common awareness so everybody wey dey decide fit use dia full sense and work well with others. Evolution don test dis ability wey human beings get to make decisions like dis even for large scale; people wey deny am na those wey want treat dia own people like children forever so dem fit control dem by keeping all decisions inside one structure.” — Peter Gelderloos, Worshiping Power

“Either di State go stay forever, crush di life of individuals and local places, take over every part of human activity, bring wars and fight for power inside im own house, and palace coups wey only replace one tyrant with another, until at di end of dis road na... death! Or states go end, and new life go start again for thousands of places through di living initiative of people and groups and dia free agreement.” — Pyotr Kropotkin

Free Association

“You must agree say when people get freedom, different societies go choose different ways to arrange dia life: some go follow communist arrangements, others go follow di complete opposite. Competition go come between dem, and di result go show which one work better. Otherwise you must crush competition, force communism on people, deny freedom, and stand against progress. My friend, wetin di world need no be new ways to force arrangements into place, but to remove di barriers wey block people from getting opportunity.” — Voltairine de Cleyre, The Individualist and the Communist ๖

“When society accept say all im members get equal right to di wealth wey people don build from di past, e no longer recognise di division between people wey dem exploit and exploiters, people wey dem rule and rulers, or people wey dem dominate and those wey dominate dem. E go try make people live well together—not by forcing everybody under one authority wey only pretend to represent society, and not by forcing everybody to be di same, but by encouraging everybody to take initiative on dia own, act freely, and join with others freely. E want each person to develop fully while voluntary associations develop as much as possible, for every possible purpose, in every form and to every possible degree. Those associations go keep changing and adjusting, carry within dem wetin make dem last, and take new forms wey answer people different hopes.” — Peter Kropotkin

“So, people dey often use di word State for one kind society: people wey gather together for one particular land [...] Dem still dey use am as another word for society. Because of these meanings, people wey oppose anarchists believe—or rather, pretend say dem believe—say anarchists want end every social tie and all joint work, and force everybody to live alone [...] Because of dis, we think say e better make we use words like abolish di State as little as possible and say di clearer, more exact thing: abolish government.” — Errico Malatesta

“Freedom no be box wey dem go force people enter. Freedom na space where people fit live. E no tell dem how to live; e just dey tell us, always, say we fit.” — Karl Hess

“Na di individual be di real thing for life, one whole world by imself. E no dey live for di State, or for di abstract thing wey dem call “society” or “nation,” wey na only collection of individuals.” — Emma Goldman, “The Place of the Individual in Society” (1940)

“Na myself I belong to, or to another person or another thing? My duty to others, na to di plenty informal groups wey dey overlap, wey I join by my own choice and fit leave if I want, or na to one body wey I never join...” — Colin Ward, The State and Society

“Di freedom wey we want for ourselves and for others no be some absolute, metaphysical, abstract freedom wey for real life go surely turn to oppression of weak people. Na real freedom wey fit happen: people know say dia interests connect, and dem support one another by choice.” — Errico Malatesta

“So, for society wey truly free, to move freely and easily from one kind communism to another, then to any kind individualism, and so on, go be di simplest thing. If any group try stop am and make one system dominate, people go fight dem as strongly as revolutionaries dey fight di system wey dey now.” — Max Nettlau

“Mutualism dey say di best way to help society as a whole na di same ways wey help each person most: freedom from restriction, so long as di person no invade others; remove everything wey artificially block people opportunities; and let people freely form associations whenever dem need join hands to do wetin one person no fit do alone. In short, people voluntarily make and exchange goods with one another without special privileges or monopolies wey di state dey protect.” — Clarence Lee Swartz, What Is Mutualism?

“You no fit impose libertarianism from di top. In fact, when you no fit impose libertarianism, dat na one measure of libertarianism success.” — Samuel E. Konkin III

“After people don try every kind government and try solve di problem wey no fit be solved—government “wey fit force each person to obey but wey no fit escape di duty to obey di whole community imself”—people now dey try free demselves from every government and meet dia need to organize through understanding wey dem freely reach with people wey share di same aims.” — Pyotr Kropotkin

How People Dey Help One Another

“Friendship no fit grow reach where e swallow di whole world. E go always stay small, personal, close, intentional, voluntary, and without one center. Na good thing be dat, no be problem. Friendship let you join with people or leave dem when you choose, while you keep who you be, di private space inside your head, and clear sense of wetin you need. When you make friends instead of trying to build communities, di orders of unknown wider society and di so-called common good no need confuse your mind.” — Against Community Building, Towards Friendship ๖

“Everything we know about nature show say e no make sense for human beings to be di only exception to dis broad rule. For early humans wey no fit defend demselves well, e no make sense say dem found protection and progress through reckless competition for personal gain, without care for dia own kind, instead of through helping one another like other animals. Anybody wey see how nature connect go find dis idea impossible to defend. Yet even though e no likely and e no get philosophical sense, e always get supporters. Some writers always look at humans with pessimism. Dem know people only small-small from dia own limited experience; for history, dem mostly know wetin storytellers wey focus on wars, cruelty, and oppression tell dem. So dem conclude say human beings na just loose crowd always ready to fight, and only authority fit stop dem.” — Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

“Sorry, but I no want be emperor. Dat no be my work. I no want rule or conquer anybody. I want help everybody if I fit—Jewish people, non-Jewish people, Black people, White people. All of us want help one another. Na so human beings be. We want live from one another happiness, no be from one another suffering.” — Charlie Chaplin, final speech in The Great Dictator (1940)

“In some ways, solidarity na opposite of charity. Charity na way to help wey make di hierarchy between groups stronger. When rich people donate money, poor people become even more dependent on rich people. But when poor people arrange to share resources as equals, na solidarity dem dey practice.” — Life Without Law

“So solidarity na di way wey we fit get and protect our own freedom. We agree to work together so we no go need work for another person. When we agree to share, our choices dey increase so we fit enjoy more, no be less. Mutual aid dey good for me too: I see say e dey help me to agree with others on mutual respect and equality; because if I dominate somebody, dat mean conditions dey wey allow domination, and most likely somebody go dominate me too one day.” — An Anarchist FAQ

“Before our white brothers come civilize us, we no get prison. So we no get criminals. We no get locks or keys, so we no get thieves. If person poor so much say e no get horse, tipi, or blanket, somebody go give am. We bin dey too uncivilized to put big value on personal property. We only want get things so we fit give dem away. We no get money, so nobody fit use money measure person value.” — John Fire Lame Deer, Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions

“See di wonderful things wey each person unique strength fit do when cooperation with others make am stronger... Cooperation, instead of people fighting among demselves, don help our kind survive and develop... Only mutual aid and voluntary cooperation fit build di foundation for free life of individuals and groups.” — Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 118

“Worker ownership and consumer co-ops dey inside di market; mutual aid associations and free clinics dey inside di market too; same with voluntary workers unions, communes wey people join by consent, and plenty other alternatives to di capitalist way things be now.” — Charles Johnson, Markets Not Capitalism

“When people practice mutual aid and direct action, dem create solidarity wey fit give new life to societies wey state structures don scatter.” — Joseph Parampathu, Creative Destruction: Rethinking Failure after the State (2021)

“Vertical agorism fit include when people join or create community networks to exchange things, farm for city, plant food for backyard, support farmers markets, support alternatives to police, and support technologies wey let people connect directly without one center. These steps fit use di state money, so dem no be completely counter-economic, but dem still matter because dem challenge how people depend on state and big companies. Some other steps no involve money exchange at all but still reduce dependence—like moral support and spreading technologies wey change di present system and build stronger ties among community members.” — Derrick Broze, Vertical and Horizontal Agorism

“For dis way, “independent communities for different areas, and large federations of workers unions for different social functions” go develop; di two go connect and support each other to meet society needs. Add “groups wey come together because people feel close to each other—plenty groups, all kinds, some lasting and some brief, coming out as people need dem for any purpose.” These “three kinds of groups” go meet “all social needs: consumption, production and exchange, communication, health arrangements, education, protecting one another from attack, mutual aid, defending dia area, and finally scientific, artistic, literary, and entertainment needs.”” — Pyotr Kropotkin

“When police dey harass poor people and city laws turn poverty into crime, e dey make am harder to help people wey lose dia homes and poor people wey dey struggle every day to stand again. To make our society more equal, we go continue to share food for our communities and build solidarity with people wey no get home and other groups wey dey work for better future.” — Food Not Bombs

Nonviolence

“Our work na to give hope to di plenty people wey dem oppress and fear to di few people wey dey oppress dem. If we give hope to di plenty, di few go fear dia hope. Apart from dat, we no want frighten dem; wetin we want for poor people na happiness, no be revenge. How revenge fit pay for thousands of years wey poor people don suffer?” — William Morris ๖

“Nonviolent action as method dey fit goal of society without violence. When you use methods wey already show di goal, dem call am prefiguration: di methods dey show di goal ahead of time. E give people training and experience for wetin dem dey seek. E create part of di goal even if di campaign fail, and e help keep di work for di right road. If di goal na society without organized violence, nonviolent action get all these benefits. E let people experience life without using violence, reduce violence right now even when campaigns fail, and make sure di efforts dey move in nonviolent direction.” — How Nonviolence is Misrepresented

“Violence—physical force wey people use hurt another person—na di most brutal kind fight between people, and e dey spoil people badly. By im nature, e dey choke di best feelings for human beings and grow every behavior wey dey harm society: cruelty, hatred, revenge, desire to dominate and oppress, contempt for weaker people, and di habit of bowing down to people wey strong pass dem. Dis bad tendency still dey even when somebody use violence for good purpose […] Anarchists wey rebel against every kind oppression and fight for everybody complete freedom, and wey suppose naturally avoid any violence wey pass simple defense against oppression and turn into oppression by imself, dem too fit fall inside di pit of brutal force […]” — Errico Malatesta, Violence as a Social Factor (1895)

“To accept cruel feelings wey dey against human beings and turn dem into principle as tactic for movement... na evil, and e dey against revolution too.” — Errico Malatesta

“One University of South Carolina study say violence for America increase 42 percent during Vietnam War. E no surprise. Our leaders dey break law, so why we no go do am? If government dey threaten other countries with bomb, why we no go threaten one another with gun? If our leaders dey rape di planet, why we no go do same to our neighbors? Our leaders dey create fear and violence. Why dem come dey look surprised when Americans kill, rob, and injure one another?” — Philip Berrigan, Fighting the Lamb’s War: Skirmishes with the American Empire (1996)

“State dey hold together with police power against citizens. State wey start with violence and dey survive by violence no go ever get true peace.” — Philip Berrigan, Fighting the Lamb’s War: Skirmishes with the American Empire (1996)

“For history, di worst things—war, genocide, and slavery—no come from people wey disobey; dem come from obedience.” — Howard Zinn, Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology

“Di biggest crimes for di world no be people wey break rules dey do dem; na people wey follow rules. People wey obey orders dey drop bombs and massacre people for entire villages.” — Banksy, Wall and Piece

“Decide say you no go serve again, and you free immediately. I no dey ask you to put hand on di tyrant to push am down; just stop supporting am. Then you go see am fall by im own weight and scatter, like big statue wey dem remove im base.” — Étienne de La Boétie, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude

“Government fit use violence plenty pass rebels. In fact, violent rebellion often make oppressive governments stronger, because dem fit make am sound believable say rebel violence make repression necessary. Government get advantage for violence. People own advantage na to stop cooperating; without dia cooperation, e near impossible for government to continue. Think how tax strikes, boycotts, general strikes, and plenty people refusing to obey law fit hurt government. These methods no use violence, but if everybody use dem and no give up, any government go fear. Nonviolence get other benefits too: because e look less dangerous and less extreme than violence, e fit win wide public support easier. E cost less to participate, so more people fit join, including children, women, and old people wey no dey fight war. E fit convince opponents and create disagreement among rulers. E normally cause far fewer deaths and less damage to property. And because e spread decisions more than violence, if e succeed e less likely to bring even more oppressive state.” — Bryan Caplan, “The Literature of Nonviolent Resistance and Civilian-Based Defense”

“Government dey assure people say dem dey in danger from invasion by another country or from enemies among dem, and say di only way to escape na to obey government like slaves. You see am clear-clear during revolution and dictatorship, but e dey all di time, for everywhere wey government power dey. Every government use di argument say without am things go worse to justify im existence and violence. After e assure people say danger dey, e bring dem under control and force dem to attack another country. Then people see another country as danger and think say government warning bin correct.” — Leo Tolstoy, Christianity and Patriotism (1895)

“When matter reach where you need use violence, you dey play di system game. Di establishment go provoke you—pull your beard, flick your face—so you go fight. Once dem make you violent, dem know how to handle you. Wetin dem no know how to handle na nonviolence and humor.” — John Lennon

“We no fit and we no want use violence except to defend ourselves and others against oppression.” — Errico Malatesta

“So we build networks to defend our communities, no be armies. We build trust, no be power. We join joyful play with bold revolt. We show our love through solidarity, and we betray our collective identities and loyalty to particular places through blasphemous acts of bold curiosity, striving, and friendship. We build living networks, no be small closed circles. Even when we feel alone, we dey part of one big patchwork cloth of radicalism. Through wetin we do and think, and resistance big and small, we dey build something special. Di pain and struggles wey you face real and fit cost life, but our bonds real too. No matter how dem try, dem no fit kill anarchism. So we fit take courage even when hope dey cost more and more. You no dey alone.” — Stigmergic Parity and Revolt

Direct Action

“People dey ask, wetin our small effort fit do? Dem no see say we must lay one brick each time, take one step each time. Small stone wey you throw inside pond go make waves spread everywhere. Every thought, word, and action wey we do be like dat. Nobody get right to sit down and give up. Work plenty to do.” — Dorothy Day ๖

“No ever doubt say small group of thoughtful citizens wey truly commit fit change di world; na only dis kind group don ever change am.” — Margaret Mead

“Na your example dey change di world, no be your opinion.” — Paulo Coelho

“Unjust laws dey. We go just obey dem, or try change dem while we still dey obey until we succeed, or break dem straight away? Under government like dis, people often think say dem must wait till dem convince di majority to change di law. Dem think say if dem resist, di solution go cause worse harm pass di original problem. But na government imself fault say di remedy worse pass di original problem. Na government dey make am worse. Why e no prepare for reform? Why e no value im wise minority? Why e dey cry and fight before anybody hurt am? Why e no encourage citizens to point out im mistakes and do better pass wetin e tell dem?” — Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“Anybody wey read history know say disobedience na di original virtue of human beings. Na through disobedience progress don happen—through disobedience and rebellion.” — Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

“Dem must learn say dia power no dey for how many votes dem get; e dey for dia ability to stop production.” — Voltairine de Cleyre, Direct Action

“For di new order, di main work of union bureaucracy na to stop workers from taking action on dia own without permission, stop direct action for workplace, and keep workers action only to officially announced strikes under National Labor Relations Board rules.” — Kevin Carson

“Agorism believe say people fit gradually stop supporting state through wetin Konkin call “Profitable Civil Disobedience.” To starve state of money and reason to exist by moving these duties to decentralized institutions na di most possible way to reach free markets, according to agorism.” — “Agorism,” Encyclopedia, describing Konkin’s strategy

“I dey write dis first statement about why I no dey pay tax ahead of time, because your office recently tell me say dem go put me for prison because I continue to refuse tax. When dem arrest me, I go give una di correct account of my earnings so far for 1948. For six years I don explain to your department, when I refuse every tax, and for Catholic Worker articles, why I believe government wicked: e dey exist mainly to fight war.” — Ammon Hennacy

“If one thousand people no pay tax dis year, dat one no be violent or bloody action. To pay tax and give State di means to use violence and spill innocent blood na di violent action. In fact, dat na wetin peaceful revolution mean, if e possible. If tax collector or another official ask me, like one don ask, “But wetin I go do?” I go answer, “If you truly want do something, resign your work.” When people refuse loyalty and official resign, revolution don happen. But even if blood flow, another kind blood no dey flow when conscience wound? From dat wound, person true humanity and immortality dey drain away, and e dey die a death wey no end. I dey see dis blood flow now.” — Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“If poor people no fit reach am, e no be radical and e no be revolutionary.” — Anonymous

“You fit imagine slaves for plantation sitting down to vote for masters and spending dia energy on campaigns and candidates when dem fit escape through di “underground railway”? Surely dem go choose di counter-economic alternative. Surely Dr. Rothbard go urge dem to choose am and no let anybody lure dem into staying for plantation until “Abolitionist Slave Masters Party” win election.” — SEK III

“No ever fool yourself say rich people go allow you take dia wealth from dem through your vote.” — Lucy Parsons

“No big idea fit be inside di law from di beginning. How e go fit? Law no dey move; e fixed. E be like wheel wey tie everybody down no matter di place, time, or conditions.” — Emma Goldman, 1917

“Di biggest change wey we need na to move from consuming to producing, even if na small for our own gardens. If only ten percent of us do am, e go reach everybody. Dat show why revolutionaries wey no get gardens, wey depend on di same system wey dem dey attack, and wey produce only words and bullets instead of food and shelter, no dey make sense.” — Bill Mollison

Di Window of Opportunity

“You no dey change things by fighting wetin already dey. To change something, build new way wey go make di old one useless.” — Buckminster Fuller ๖

“State no be something wey revolution fit destroy. E be one condition, one kind relationship between people and way dem dey behave. We end am by building other relationships and behaving differently.” — Gustav Landauer, quoted by Colin Ward in The State and Society

“We dey live for capitalism, and im power look like say nobody fit escape am; but once, people think di same thing about kings wey claim say God give dem right to rule.” — Ursula K. Le Guin, National Book Awards acceptance speech (2014)

“Make di political or government system dissolve inside di economic system till e disappear: reduce, simplify, move control away from one center, and remove one after another all di wheels of dis big machine wey dem call Government or State.” — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

“Humanity go need big shift to production wey people do together, with decisions spread and methods wey fit adjust, so human beings fit continue living for dis planet.” — Eric Fleischmann

““Dual power” mean say we must create di embryo of new world while we dey fight di present one: “build di new inside di shell of di old.” E mean encouraging workers groups wey manage dia own affairs, where we fit use our freedom and limit di power of boss and government until we fit face and end both. Dis kind strategy dey challenge powerful institutions directly and at di same time show for real life some of di new institutions we want. So e no just oppose state; e also prepare us for di hard fights and questions wey go come during revolution.” — Beyond Resistance

Writers like James Livingston and Michel Bauwens don use earlier changes as examples for how society fit move from top-down hierarchy to networks. Even though our political culture, both Right and Left, dey imagine move beyond capitalism through French and Russian revolutions—sudden uprising wey mainly mean taking over state—nothing say e must happen like that. E fit just as well be gradual process wey take decades, like how Western Roman Empire and feudalism decline.

[…]

Capitalist system wey don last about five hundred years, like systems before am, no be one solid thing. E be different social formations wey dey affect each other—some dey rise, some dey fall. So to replace capitalism no necessarily need one dramatic break by one united progressive force. As Eugene Holland argue:

You need dis kind total, radical break only if you see society or way of producing as one total system from di start. […] If you understand parts as dominant, leftover, and emerging, di chances of building better society increase well-well, because positive emerging parts dey wey we fit support, while we criticize and reject di negative ones (most likely all di dominant ones). […]

At di end, matter go settle when forces of di old order try to stop di change and fail.

[…] Our present situation get good chance […] because di power of plenty people to build society don grow reach where, through dia communication and cooperation networks and by making things wey all share, dem dey begin fit sustain another democratic society by themselves. Na here di question of time become essential. When di moment of break go come? […]

Revolutionary politics must catch, through di movement of many people and growing shared and cooperative decisions, di moment of break […] wey fit create new world.

But no matter how sudden and dramatic di final break look, e only be di culmination of long process wey don dey already: “building di structure of new society inside di shell of old one.”

[…]

John Holloway also argue say di move beyond capitalism go be “process wey grow for di spaces between,” like di move from feudalism to capitalism.

[…]

Production wey people do together based on resources wey dem hold together, as alternative to both capitalist company and State, make dis possible:

direct social production of things people fit use, through new ways of living wey mostly dey outside control of capital, with means of production wey people don bring under shared control to very large extent. These new processes don move beyond capitalism because dem no longer need any special role for capital before dem fit keep going.

— Kevin Carson, The Desktop Regulatory State, “The Transition from Hierarchies to Networks”

“If e turn out say law no fit force di ruling power change how e govern us, and if for different reasons people wey reject am no fit or no want overthrow am with force, then to create independent, alternative, or parallel [society] na di only solution wey get dignity.” — Ivan Jirous, Parallel Polis: An Inquiry, as quoted by Academy of Ideas

“Economic institutions wey people build as alternative, sadly, still dey inside bigger corporate capitalist economy. Dem dey compete for markets where di big firms get top-down, hierarchical culture, and dem dey risk to copy that culture themselves. Na why some non-profit and cooperative organizations get management wey be exactly like capitalist companies: big salaries just for prestige, too many middle managers, senseless bureaucracy, and blind obedience to latest motivation and management theory. Capitalist finance make di problem worse, because e reward firms with credit when dem follow di usual organizational model, even when organizing from bottom up work far better.” — Kevin Carson, Building the Structure of the New Society Within the Shell of the Old

“Horizontal network communication technologies allow public awareness to change in a whole new way with speed wey people never see before. Doug McAdam call “Cognitive Liberation” di “process where people suddenly and together decide say dem no dey afraid again, say dia recent fear or lack of concern come from lies, and say dem no go back to old ways of thinking.” Once enough people decide say change must happen, e go happen. With network communication, that critical number fit gather suddenly when nobody expect am.” — Kevin Carson, The Desktop Regulatory State: The Question of Repression

“E be sad irony say desire to create society wey radically different and better na wetin motivate di deadliest mass killings for human history. People don use attempt to design perfect society to justify some of di worst crimes for di world.” — Benjamin A. Valentino

“Even di most radical revolutionary go turn conservative di day after revolution.” — Hannah Arendt

“All modern revolutions don end by making State more powerful. 1789 bring Napoleon; 1848 bring Napoleon III; 1917 bring Stalin; Italian troubles of di 1920s bring Mussolini; Weimar Republic bring Hitler. These revolutions, especially after First World War finish di remnants of kings’ supposed divine right, still propose with more boldness say dem go build city of humanity and real freedom. Each time, di growing power of State support that ambition. E go wrong to say e must always happen. But we fit examine how e happen and maybe learn. Apart from some explanations wey dis essay no cover, di strange and frightening growth of modern State fit be seen as di logical end of too much technical and philosophical ambition—ambitions wey no belong to true spirit of rebellion, but still give birth to revolutionary spirit of our time. Marx im prophetic dream and di over-inspired predictions of Hegel or Nietzsche, after dem tear down city of God, end by calling up a State wey fit be rational or irrational, but in both cases e dey built on terror.” — Albert Camus, The Rebel

“…e no possible to achieve dis kind revolution through dictatorship and state power. Without widespread rebuilding from bottom up—wey workers and farmers themselves put into practice—social revolution must fail… We must hope say people go make serious effort to develop people for future revolution among working class—farmers, workers, and thinkers—wey no go obey orders from above, but go fit work out free forms of all di new economic life for themselves.” — Pyotr Kropotkin

“Di Earth full of ruins of empires wey believe say dem go last forever.” — Camille Paglia