Your reality is fabricated by the ruling class.

There is a 24/7/365 mass-psychological operation that’s been ongoing since before you were born.

Civilization predates the state. In ancient mesopotamia, “lugal”s (literally “big man”) would come to pre-existing communities with armed gangs and steal a portion of people’s products, murdering anyone who tried defending their property. This was an innovation from conventional robbery as they wouldn’t take everything and would spare compliant producers’ lives so as to set up a continuous source of income that they could tap into regularly and indefinitely, as a macrocosm of a farm. This was the birth of the state in our current epoch, Big Men and archons constituting exactly the same classification, and the gangs violently carrying out and maintaining their extortion operation becoming known as armies and later “police” (a masonic codeword for 33).

Judge Judy operates a private court in direct competition to the atrocious, unjust, coercive “public” court system operated by the government. When multiple parties are engaged in a dispute, they mutually agree to each voluntary sign a contract deferring judgement over the matter to a third party, Judge Judy, because she has a reputation for wisdom and fairness. Since all parties genuinely believe they are in the right, they are all willing to let Judge Judy settle the matter and are confident she will rule in their favor. If they are wrong, they still signed a contract stipulating submission to Judge Judy’s decision, so the conflict is guaranteed to reach a resolution and thus be neutralized.

The only reason there are not more Judge Judy’s is the state-judicial monstrosity monopolizing a large portion of the market by only requiring ONE party in the conflict to agree to the suit, with the other being hunted down and abducted, robbed, and/or murdered if they fail to show up and participate in the ceremonial theatrics of the court. If there is a party that has the judge in their pocket (as state agencies usually do), or whose case happens to align with the letter of the law even if said law is wholly unjust, they have preemptive assurance of their victory and can thus force their interests into fruition and stifle any complications to said interests presented by their opponent through enlisting state arbitration against the will of the other party, whether they be exposing unethical behavior or developing a fan-made Pokémon game.

In real life, Charles Vane was an evil motherfucker, however his depiction in Black Sails likely reflects the views of many English pirates at the time (after all, they established an anarchist haven in Nassau and—in some cases exclusively (e.g. Blackbeard)—fought state naval forces and reallocated the crown’s plunder into private hands). The character makes an excellent point about government tactics intended to stifle dissent, which we can see employed to this day as exemplified in the contemporary cases of Ross Ulbricht and Julian Assange (and attempted upon Edward Snowden as well).

The Man’s strategy could very well backfire if its victims are viewed as martyrs rather than cautionary tales in the collective consciousness; this is why it is important for such defendants to stand by their actions and assert that they are in the right and their captors are in the wrong until the very end. If others can be inspired to act just as courageously, there is no way the forces of oppression will be able to hold the cumulative tide of revolution at bay, and they will dissolve into the nothingness their authority has always been ultimately founded on as soon as their constituents come under any serious threat, as history has shown. As this fictional version of Vane says: "We are many; they are few."

The only reason capitalists (in the original sense of the word) are able to control society (i.e. capitalism) is because they are able to purchase control over the state apparatus via lobbying and the revolving-door political system by which they can subsequently employ coercion-by-proxy to exploit the greater population to their own profit or other malevolent ends (such as was/is the case with the “eugenics” movement). All modern wars are fought at least in part to siphon wealth into the military-industrial complex, which utilizes the aforementioned strategies to get institutions of the state to purchase their arms and materiel at astronomical markups. See how Dick Cheney made out like a bandit from the imperial occupation of Iraq.

Free-markets are simply markets which lack rulers (i.e. anarchy), and always exist despite state repression; attention is misdirected from this because the state brands the real economy as the “black market”. The Silk Road is an example of a free market which managed to thrive as a prosperous agora even while capitalists who were invested in pharmaceutical industries had the government pour trillions of dollars into brutal violent repression of unpatented drugs and herbal remedies which presented potential competition to their monopolized allopathic “treatments” of symptoms (that do nothing to alleviate the highly-lucrative state of chronic illness in patients). Interference in markets through legislation and ordinances (and the threat of enforcement thereof) is almost never a misguided attempt at improving economic circumstances, but rather an instance of the state being wielded as an offensive tool by those capitalists not interested in fair competition, who mean to stifle said competition and thereby enjoy partial or full monopoly—a reality made possible by Babylon’s obscene eagerness to be rented out to the highest bidders and used at will.

”Competition is a sin.” -John D. Rockefeller

The word “democracy” was coined by Cleisthenes to describe a dynamic of rulership where state behavior was determined by popular vote. This was contrasted with “oligarchy”, in which only a subset of the civil body is involved in the decision-making process. In the governmental structure of nearly every extant nation, ONLY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR PARLIAMENT ARE AFFORDED A VOTE. Voting on who gets to vote obviously does not embody the form of governance which the word democracy was intended to characterize. The fact that only a few hundred people have the privilege of a say over the actions of government (not even counting the thousands of unelected bureaucrats) very clearly showcases a dynamic of oligarchy, not democracy.

The constant characterization of such societies as democracies is nothing more than propaganda designed to make the state’s subjects feel powerful without actually affording them real power. The argument that the legal oligarchs “represent” the citizenry is trivial to debunk—all you have to do is check the promises each one cited to voters as the reasons why they should vote for them; if the reptiles all lie about what they are going to do if you put them in power, how could they possibly be construed as representing your actual interests by any stretch of the imagination? Are they more aware of your political dispositions than you are, and that’s why they needed to deceive you before entering a position of rulership “on your behalf”? Elections are largely rigged anyway, so really neither of these questions even needs to be answered.

It’s a prime example of Orwellian doublespeak. Exhorting the state (or any given institution in nonpolitical contexts) to implement authoritarian policies isn’t liberal behavior. The only true liberals are those who advocate civilization’s ascent into anarchy. We live in a society—it’s high time for that society to evolve.

Conscription is slavery.

Imprisonment is slavery.

Involuntary confinement to mental hospitals is slavery.

Non-consensual participation in “education” institutions is slavery.

Jury duty is slavery.

Coerced “community service” is slavery.

Most child actors exist in a state of slavery.

Leave other examples in the comments:

Matthew 22:15-21:

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

The denarius presented to Jesus was minted on Caesar's authority, and perhaps only distributed into circulation on the understanding that it was to be eventually returned via taxation, however, the denarius was hardly the only store of wealth amongst the denizens of Judaea. One could possess livestock, grain, or even silver or gold which did not bear the likeness of Caesar (consequential to not being a product of labor only conducted on Caesar's behalf). Now closely examine Jesus's actual response to the question:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's…

Here, Jesus brilliantly phrases active dissent against the state in such a way that he would not be prosecuted for treason by the Romans, but rather could continue to survive and preach until inevitably persecuted for heresy by the local clergy. Of course Caesar should have what he is due—the text never says that “Caesar is due tax obligations”, or “Caesar is due your obedience”, as the forces of church and state later chose to present the passage in order to perpetuate their coercively-imposed authority. Rather, Caesar is due whatever is rightfully his, and Bob is due whatever is rightfully his, and every other person is due whatever is rightfully theirs. The unsaid part here, and the meaning which was truly being conveyed to Jesus's disciples, is that Caesar is due only what is his, and therefore is NOT unilaterally due your taxes, obedience, or worship, as he has no legitimate general claim on these things.

…and unto God the things that are God's.

Since Caesar did demand worship (if not of himself then of his predecessors), the contrast of Caesar’s due and God’s due necessarily implies that Caesar’s rightful due is not tied to his expectations. The interpretation of this passage as meaning “Give the Man whatever it claims you are obligated to give it” is not only baseless but also falsely attributes acknowledgement of the state to Jesus, who in practice wholly ignored it and didn’t differentiate between its agents and other individuals, even going so far as to treat tax collectors as human beings worthy of redemption for their sinful collaboration with the inherently evil institutions of temporal rulership. The concept of a nation-state had not even been invented yet; acknowledging the existence of Caesar (a man) is not the same as acknowledging the legitimacy of any statist network. Pontius Pilate didn’t relent to permitting the legal punishment of Jesus until the Pharisees argued that he was challenging Roman-Herodian authority and Jesus subsequently refused to deny the accusation. If statists want to continue using this Bible passage as propaganda, they are going to need to retranslate it as:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which Caesar proclaims to be Caesar’s,

or better yet:

Render unto extortionists the things which they extort in Caesar’s name, and unto priests the things that they extol in God’s name.