Matthew Mario Di Pasquale · Opinions




Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

I think we should dissolve all governments and abolish all laws and not form any new governments or make any new laws.

Party affiliation

Maybe you're wondering whether I'm a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or a member of some other political party.

Well, I'm unaffiliated: I don't align myself with any political party.

If I had to choose one, though, I'd probably choose the Libertarian Party, since their political positions seem to best match mine.


I guess I'm an anarchist. But who cares. Call me whatever the fuck you want. Call me a communist. I don't give a fuck. Labels aren't perfect. Neither is language. I don't like to label myself as this or that, especially when it comes to politics. I mean, I don't really identify with any of the existing political parties or ideologies. Even if I did, I'd rather be a nonconformist, like Albert Einstein or Ralph Waldo Emerson. Actually, I strive so much to be a nonconformist, that I don't even want to be a nonconformist, because then I'd be conforming to nonconformity. :-)


Voter registration party affiliation

When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Democrat even though I didn't agree with some of the political positions of the Democratic Party.

Later, I changed my party affiliation to "unaffiliated". Ie, I became an independent voter.

Now, I'm not registered to vote where I live, and I don't think I'll ever register.


For US president, I voted for Donald Trump (the Republican Party's nominee) in 2016 (I think that was the first time I ever voted.) and Jo Jorgensen (the Libertarian Party's nominee) in 2020. I don't think I'll vote again.


I think I agree with Thoreau.

I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

Dissolve all governments.

Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

And abolish all laws.

Imagine we had only one law, a law that made it illegal to unfairly kill another person, ie, to murder, an action I think almost all, if not all, sane people would agree is wrong. But we already have that law, and people often break it anyway. You might say that's because we need to improve our law enforcement. But even if we had perfect law enforcement, wouldn't people still murder? And some would even still get away with it. Maybe it'd be safer and better to get rid of the law. Then, instead of depending on law enforcement, people might take more responsibility and be more inclined to protect themselves, and instead of being worried of breaking the law, the "well-disposed" might feel more inclined to kill others in self-defense. So the very law meant to stop murder and to punish murderers may instead be allowing murder and sparing murderers. The very law meant to make the world more safe may instead be making it more dangerous.

People already use this line of reasoning (that even if we make it illegal, people will do it anyway) to argue that we should abolish other laws, such as abortion bans. They say that even if we ban abortion, mothers will do it anyway but by using methods that are less safe. So an abortion ban, while meant to save lives, actually puts more lives in danger. I think you can use this line of reasoning to argue against any law. You could even argue, according to reactance theory, that making something illegal makes it even more likely people will do it. Just listen to The Fantasticks (1960) - Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt - Never Say No.

Also, laws may disincentivize people from learning to think for, behave, and protect themselves. People may depend on the law to tell them what's right and wrong or how to behave, instead of using their own intellects, judgments, and consciences. People may depend on the law to protect them instead of taking responsibility and protecting themselves.

Even if we could prove that having certain laws actually makes things safer and better overall, then I still don't think we should have those laws. When deciding if we should make a law, I think we should look not at whether the law will have good or bad consequences but whether the law is fair. We can only speculate (even if we're informed by sound research) about the consequences of a law, and often our speculation is completely opposite of the actual consequences, since often laws have counterintuitive effects: Laws often backfire, or do more harm than good. (Even scientists' hypotheses of controlled studies are often wrong. How can we expect legislators' hypotheses of chaotic societies to be any better?) However, we can reason (not speculate) about whether a law is fair, and I don't think any law is.

Forcing people to obey laws is imposing your beliefs on them, and it's not fair to impose your beliefs on others, whether religious or moral. Don't stop a cheetah from stalking its prey. Don't interfere with Mother Nature like that. Don't apply our laws to a tribe in Africa. Don't impose our way of living upon them. Similarly, don't apply our laws to, eg, a family in Connecticut.

Let people live freely. If a person or a group of people, such as a tribe, a family, or a company, isn't harming others, then let them live by their own laws, or none at all. If they're harming themselves or other members of their group, then let them work it out. If they're harming others outside of their group, then let those others protect themselves by using diplomacy, avoidance, or even force to stop the harm and, if possible, repair the damage.


Here are some of my opinions on some issues.

I don't know if I believe in right and wrong. I mean, I may think certain things are right or wrong, but who says my judgement is correct, or that there's always a correct answer?

We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behaviour. The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles.

—Hans Monderman

I may think certain things are wrong, but I still think there shouldn't be any laws, but that doesn't mean I think everything is right.

Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

I think whether I deem something right or wrong depends a lot on the situation, as it's unlikely, if not impossible, for two different situations to be exactly the same. That's a big reason that I think people should use their own consciences to determine what's right and wrong.


Dissolve all governments. Imagine that.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

John Lennon, "Imagine", 1971

How could the US government, for example, be dissolved? One way would be to have a shift in thinking. If enough people with enough political power were to change their thinking, I think they could dissolve the US government by a vote. There'd be a lot of things to work out, like what would happen to the US government's assets and liabilities, but I think it could be done.

We could still have borders and names for countries, states, towns, etc. They'd have no legal significance, but they'd still be useful for communicating your address or location.

As long as the US government exists, however, then let anyone run for president or for any other office.

Immigration and nationality

Abolish citizenship. Don't require a passport (or any form of identification) to travel, live, or work anywhere. Abolish customs and border protection. Stop building and tear down all border walls, including the Trump wall. (Those who think the Trump wall is "un-American" don't understand US law.) At least make it free and easy to renounce your citizenship.

Routine newborn posthectomy

I think it's wrong to routinely cut off a person's prepuce without their informed consent, but I still don't think there should be any laws.

Intellectual property

Abolish all copyright, patent, and trademark laws. Allow plagiarism. I don't think copying is stealing.

Common law

Abolish all common laws.

It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. . . . A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with the shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance", 1841


Abolish all taxes, including income, payroll (including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance), property, sales & use, excise, transfer, value-added, poll, wealth, estate, inheritance, gift, and expatriation taxes. Abolish all tariffs and duties. At least change all citizen-based taxation to resident-based taxation. User fees, such as tolls, aren't taxes.


Allow anyone to burn or print money. Then, people will likely only use as money things that're difficult to "print", such as commodities (like gold or silver) or cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin or Ethereum).


Abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Let anyone invest in whatever they want. Don't require them to be an "accredited investor". Allow insider trading.

Limited liability

Abolish limited liability. Allow people to buy insurance if they want it, but don't let them hide behind their companies. People should take responsibility for their mistakes and try to restore any harm they may cause. Investors generally shouldn't be liable for more than what they invested.


Abolish bankruptcy. All debts should be repaid.

Statutes of limitations

Abolish all statutes of limitations. All harms should be restored.

Licensure and registration

Abolish all licensure, including occupational, business, vehicle operator (eg, driver, pilot, and captain), and gun licensing. Don't require registration, including vehicle, vessel, or property registration.


Don't require any insurance, including professional liability and car insurance.


Abolish all labor laws, including child labor and minimum wage laws.

Age-based laws

Abolish all age-based laws.


Abolish all anti-discrimination laws, including employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and hate crime laws

Drug laws

Abolish all drug laws. Let anyone (of any age) buy, sell, or use any drugs, including alcohol and prescription drugs, without needing a prescription. Get rid of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as Milton Friedman suggests.

Traffic laws

Abolish all traffic laws, including seat belt, helmet, and drunk driving laws. Get rid of all road markings, traffic lights and signs, one-way streets, speed bumps, bike lanes, curbs, dividers, etc.


Abolish all sex and obscenity laws. Let anyone (of any age):

Gun control

Abolish all gun laws. Let anyone (of any age):


Abolish marriage. Then, people could get "married" if they wanted, but it wouldn't mean anything, unless they both agreed it would. They could even use a standard "marriage" contract.

Child support

Deem by default a biological father as a sperm donor, not a father, regardless of the method of insemination. Don't give him any parental rights or responsibilities, not even to pay for an abortion, unless he and the biological mother agree otherwise.


I think any mother should be allowed to kill her children anytime before they're born, and before she kills them (or agrees to let someone else kill them for her), I don't think she should need to have a reason or need to be given any information or counselling.

Transgender people in sports

I think the leagues should be allowed to make their own choices and rules. They could keep events open, letting anyone participate, or they could segregate or exclude people based on certain features, such as gender, sex, nationality, race, weight, height, strength, speed, skill, rating, ranking, handicap, etc.


See my post Lift all sanctions.


Abolish all militaries.

If we dissolve all governments, then I think wars would be fewer and, if any, smaller, and so I think we wouldn't need militaries.

If we have no laws, we'd have no law enforcement. People who care about self-defense would likely protect themselves well. Certain wealthy individuals or groups might even have their own nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc. This could be like a sort of distributed military. I think we'd join forces if we had to defend ourselves from, eg, an alien invasion. We could even have a military that people voluntarily donate to or work for, although I'd probably do neither. A military's purpose should only be self-defense, not to defend or invade others.

What's to prevent someone from taking over and forming an oppressive government? Sort of like how Bitcoin protects itself from attacks, we'd need a large amount (preferably the majority) of the world's military power in the hands of those who support freedom. (As an analogy, what's to stop slavery, for example, from being reinstated? If enough people were convinced, they could repeal the Thirteenth Amendment.) So basically, we'd need to maintain (and ideally continue) the shift in thinking that initially brought about the dissolution of all governments.

A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? . . . The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

I'm done standing and clapping for veterans. Perhaps some veterans have done good and are worthy of praise, but how should I know? For what exactly are we praising them? I'm not sure it makes sense to praise or criticize specific people but rather specific words or actions.

Patriotism & nationalism

The surest way to tame a prisoner is to let him believe he's free.

—Harmony Cobel, Severance, Season 1, Episode 5: The Grim Barbarity of Optics and Design, 43:30

I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually.

—Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849

I'm not loyal, patriotic, or nationalistic. Loving the US just because I was born and raised here is at least as stupid as believing in Christianity just because I was born to and raised by Catholic parents. I'm done standing and putting my hand over my heart for the national anthem.

"But America is the greatest country in the world," you might say. Even if that were true, which I highly doubt it is, don't compare the state of affairs here to, eg, North Korea. Comparison is not a measure of justice or excellence. Our standard of justice should be perfection. We can always improve, and right now, I'm disgraced with the status quo. If we had our shit together, we'd be setting a great example, and maybe we'd actually lead by example, instead of trying to force our "greatness" on others.

You could say America is a great country for many reasons, eg, it has some beautiful nature, nice towns, and talented people. But it also has corrupt governments, expensive taxes, and unfair laws. I'm not aware of any good country that has either good governments and fair laws or no government and no laws.

I'm not proud to be an American. How anyone could be proud to be an American is beyond me. I guess it depends on your perspective. Part of me feels lucky to be an American if I think about all the good things (and freedoms) America has to offer and about all my other favorable circumstances. I'm still able to find meaning here, just like Viktor Frankl found meaning as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, but essentially, we're all slaves to awful slave owners. It's sad because we've done it to ourselves.

Do better.

—Magnus Carlsen, When Magnus tells the reporter to "do better", 2021

We must do better.


Who the fuck cares if something is unconstitutional or un-American? I care if it's fair. Abolish all constitutions.


Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal". We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes". When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Joshua Fry Speed, 24 August 1855

I don't care if we have a democracy or an autocracy. I care that we have justice. Oppression is oppression. It doesn't really matter if the oppression is carried out by a democracy or an autocrat. I'd rather live under the rule of a benevolent dictator, or a philosopher king, like Marcus Aurelius, than a tyrannical democracy.

I guess the US is a representative democracy, or maybe it's a republic. Whatever it is, it doesn't work. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word democracy comes "from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos 'the people' + -kratia 'power, rule'". My vote, however, has no power. I'm a slave to the majority.

One idea is to have an atomocracy, in which you make your own laws, if any, which you could instantly change anytime. (See my rules.) In an autocracy, your master is the autocrat; in a democracy, your master is the majority; in an atomocracy, your master is yourself. Many agree that democracy is more fair than autocracy. But why stop there? I mean, to make a law, ie, a rule for everyone, why should you only have to convince the majority, and not everyone? I think atomocracy is even more fair than democracy. Atomocracy is like self-governance or anarchy.

Related: Democracy Is Dead. Long Life Atomocracy!


I think restorative justice seems better than retributive justice. I'm not a fan of punishment, such as corporal punishment, imprisonment, or capital punishment, aka the death penalty. To protect yourself or others, perhaps prefer preventative approaches, such as avoiding dangerous places, activities, or people; shielding yourself; dodging blows; or escaping. As a last resort, however, intentionally inflicting restraint, pain, harm, or death on someone in real time may be justified. Otherwise:

We ought not to impose such harm on anyone unless we have a very good reason for doing so.

Deirdre Golash, The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law, 2006

I think there are better ways (besides punishment) to achieve justice and restitution, rehabilitate offenders, deter and denounce wrongdoing, educate the public, encourage goodness, make the world safer, better protect ourselves, etc.


Abolish all environmental laws. I don't think there should be laws that try to protect the environment, such as laws that try to: prevent climate change (or global warming), protect animals, preserve nature, stop pollution or littering, etc.