This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Martin Armstrong Rages "Government Is Corrupt & Rotten To The Core"
Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,
QUESTION: What is the best form of government? Will anything ever work?
ANSWER: There is no single form of government that will ever be perfect. Whatever its form, government will self-corrupt and both sides will fight eternally between the people and government perhaps eternally. The best form of government for brief periods of time are benevolent dictators, monarchs, or emperors, such as Julian II, who even decreed that whatever laws he passed must also apply to himself. Such individuals are rare indeed and once they are gone, the system will revert back to its corrupt state.
Another system that actually worked very well was Genoa. There the “Doge” (head of state) was selected each year from the head of a prominent family. The rich families ruled on a rotating basis annually. What made it work well was the short-term period. No family would ever pass something Draconian because it would apply to themselves the next year. The system was not one of rich v poor, but Genoa v Venice and Florence. The interests were furthered collectively rather than this philosophy of party politics. Therefore, each class benefited. It also lasted longer without corruption than Florence or Venice.
The best we can hope for is a hybrid between Democracy and a Republic that is restrained by a Positive Constitution rather than a Negative one as we have in the United States. In other words, if we have an everyday bureaucracy to run things that is subject to review by the people who rotate annually, there is some hope that it might last longer before it collapses. Much of the bureaucracy should be privatized where management will be proper and employee pensions will actually have to be there. When government is in charge, those in power just exempt themselves from the laws that apply to others – the first step in the corruption process.
With technology, each and every measure must be voted on by the people. There should be no Clean Water Act that has hidden some study on traffic flow in a city nobody ever heard of to line the pockets of someone’s family member. Voting can be done via your laptop and if each and every bill must be presented individually, that will stop the nonsense.
Judges CANNOT be appointed by anyone in government. They must be as Ben Franklin argued, nominated by the guild of lawyers. That way the best will rise to the top – not the most corrupt. Prosecution must also be independent and the people MUST actually indict meaning that they hear both sides in a grand jury. Plea bargaining must end and CONSPIRACY must end. Only those who are involved in a crime may be charged – no one else. No one charged with a crime may testify against another. Self-interest in prosecution must end.
While legal scholars tend to look at Article III of the US Constitution as based upon the English legal system modeled on Blackstone’s famous Commentaries on the Laws of England, Franklin argued for the Scottish System that was far superior. Indeed, the Scottish judicial system provided an important, but overlooked, model for the framing of Article III. Unlike the English system of overlapping original jurisdiction, the Scottish judiciary featured a hierarchical, appellate-style judiciary, with one supreme court sitting at the top and an array of inferior courts of original jurisdiction down below. What’s more, the Scottish judiciary operated within a constitutional framework — the so-called Acts of Union that combined England and Scotland into Great Britain in 1707 retained the independent legal structure of Scotland and prohibited the English courts from interfering with those of Scotland. The influence of the Scottish judiciary on the language and structure of the US Article III legal framework is clear where there is a Supreme Court with multiple inferior courts that are subordinate to, and subject to the supervisory oversight of, the sole supreme court. The Scottish model thus provides important historical support for the supremacy of the Supreme Court, however, the blending of this with the English system rendered the inferiority in Article III to operate as textual and structural limits on Congress’s jurisdiction-stripping authority from the courts. But the most dangerous flaw appears to be intentional – Congress appoints judges not lawyers. This allowed the English legal system to be politically manipulated whereas the Scottish System was really independent. This MUST be corrected to restore the rule of law.
Career politicians get bored and pass laws just to have something to do like in Utah you cannot drink before ordering dinner or in Europe regulating cow farting. This is why a representative form of government with career representatives is doomed to always fail. They can be bribed to enact particular laws to benefit some party. The only check and balance would be to rotate, as in Genoa, and to allow the people to vote online.
A raw unrestrained Democracy would devolve into mob rule. That we cannot tolerate either. There should be something that rotates as a Constitutional court as in France where each law passed MUST firs be ruled on as being Constitutional by a body of lawyers that rotates and MUST be trained in constitutional law which is significantly different from following statutory law. The former is structural design while the latter is following the letter of the law. This is a Positive Constitution that restrains government and is a real Bill of Rights. We have the negative form where government gets to do whatever it likes and we must prove we have any rights – very bad.
Prison should be outlawed for non-violent crimes. The ONLY reason a government has the right to restrain the liberty of an individual is to protect others from bodily harm – that is it. Every law passed by Congress states – “fine or imprisonment or both”. That must stop. Debtor’s Prison must end. The USA imprisons more people than the rest of the civilized world combined. Why are we so imprison happy when only about 4% of the people in prison are there for a violent crime? A woman was arrested and taken to jail for violating some statute that did not allow for imprisonment. A woman with children was taken to jail for not wearing a seat belt and the Supreme Court, being pro-government appointed by politicians, voted 5-4 that the police can imprison you for anything even if the crime does not call for jail time. We have a virtual 99% conviction rate because there is no way to win against pro-government judges.
Learning from the Past
There seems to be the potential to at least learn from the various political types of governments, how they functioned, how long did they last, and what was the impact upon the people. The advantages of Genoa was that the short terms restrained the Doge compared to Venice where the Doge was for life. Venice froze the estate upon the Doge’s death and only THEN reviewed all his actions to see if anything was gained illegally. Then the state would reclaim the “illegal” gains. That was closing the barn door after the horse ran away.
Government is corrupt and rotten to the core – it is honorable only for brief shinning moments when the dark clouds leave a crack. One Pope Formosus (c. 816 – 4 April 896) ruled against a Lord so the Lord rigged the game to become Pope and then put Formosus’ dead corpse on trial, had a friend answer for the dead Pope. Naturally, Formosus incriminated himself, who wouldn’t in such circumstances, and he was promptly found guilty, nullified all his decrees, and then claimed his property back. They will do anything – absolutely anything.
Julius Caesar (100-44BC) had to assume the role of high priest to create a calendar because the politicians were bribing the high priests to add days into the calendar to avoid elections. There is absolutely NOTHING those in power will not do to society for their own self-interest. Finding someone ethical who really cares is one in a billion.
The key is to review each form of government and take what worked and avoid what did not. We have to understand that no system will ever last forever. So the best we can do is design a system that has the best features and some internal mechanism of checks and balances. Nevertheless, whatever we can think of, will merely create the challenge for others to figure ways around. If we eliminate taxation and restrain government expenditure to what is required for natural expansion of the money supply to facilitate economic growth, then the majority of the lobbying will cease and therein lies the deepest cracks for corruption.
»
- 14306 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The best form of government is local to none at all. The Founders were right with Inalienable rights but they wanted to be responsible for the rights. The next step is inalienable responsibilities to your rights.
We are inbetween heaven and hell, that all it is.
Inalienable responsibilities to your rights: No more voting because it centralizes power. Keep your rights close to your responsibility! Lobbyists would need to visit every signle American to get what they want.
I'll be drinking again tonight.
"I'll be drinking again tonight."
More "only" the Monarchy or the Rich can save us.....
...from the Monarchy and the Rich.....
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....Jeeezzz...
Break out a case....these errand boy idiots are hopeless...
..but judging by the comments....it works....good doggies...
Panem et circenses
Loadem et stackem
Sanctus Moaretumnus 45-70-405 (et -300) Loadema 1874 Billyoreea Dixonustas
Amen!
Be Advised:
This outcome (the present state of what earthlings call Governance) was intended by the Architects of this Nation.
The "Federal Government" is a Crew without a Boat (AKA Mercenary Crew) that was "hired" to run our ship of state.
These Stateless Mercenaries make their nut off of the States and the People of the States.
They view the States as a necessary evil, but child like in intellect and capability and as an obstacle to overcome in the name of the Nation.
The State have played along nicely and actually ARE low-function versions of their former selves.
All this was easily predictable to the "Wise Men" of the past.
It wasn't a battle of Good and Evil.
It was a battle for POWER.
Now axe yourself... What kinda people will go down to the dirt in a power struggle death-match?
If you answer: Someone who realllllly loves power.... You can have 1 lick off of my neighbors blue raspberry lollipop that she left here, if you can make it by 8.
For a guy who is so shrewd at politics he sure puts a lot of faith and credit in BAR attorneys. We absolutely should not have attorneys choose judges and in fact there should be no judges but the people. We should still have black-robed priests but they would be merely magistrates--referees. A judge has power to enter orders into a court. Only the people should have that authority.
Martin is either very unlearned at law or he's being intentionally obtuse.
I am Chumbawamba.
I found that disturbing as well Chumba. Did Armstrong not grow up in the Land of the Litigious and Home of the Esquire - like the rest of us?
"I'll be drinking again tonight."
More "only" the Monarchy or the Rich can save us.....
...from the Monarchy and the Rich.....
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....Jeeezzz...
Break out a case....these errand boy idiots are hopeless...
..but judging by the comments....it works....good doggies...
Majestic12
Are you trying to tell us that the 'Left' is the lesser evil than the 'Right'?
Or,
Ignorance is more dangerous than indoctrination?
Or perhaps that,
We’re incapable, intellectually and emotionally, to accept facts?
what does "escrava isaura" mean?
loosely translated: lizard who writes.
Someone owns this place (where this is wherever you are at presently). Someone planted the seed. Someone bought the land, tamed it, built roads, built infrastructure, and a town sprouted. Someone made that happen, and they still own it to this day. It's a business. And you run a town like any other business. If you don't like it, you can move outside the protection of the "city walls" into unincorporated parts of the county and fend for yourself. Maybe start your own town or city on land you own. Then you can call the shots.
I am Chumbawamba.
Your Chinese ?
I have indeed felt a strong sense of being stuck in purgatory for the last six years.
We are in Mundi
What Armstong is calling for is common sense and good governance. The problem is that betwwen the current, pervasive corruption and good governance are entrenched interests. Good governance would get in the way of powerful and profitable entrenched rackets. Quite a pickle.
I have a simple solution from Thomas Jefferson. Get rid of laws every 20 years and strip the fucking bureaucracy down to the bare bones of the Constitution, amend as necessary and start over.
Good governance...
Is a malicious fairy tale. Men ruling over men is inherently immoral and degenerative.
you say that "The best form of government is local to none at all. "
I AGREE, however, then you said this: "The Founders were right ..."
The problem is the "Founders" discarded the articles of confederation, wherein the states were pretty much in control, and replaced it with the constitution, wherein the federal govt was in control.
Hmm..do ya see the problem with what you just wrote?
You obviously have never read the writings of james madison, aka father of the constitution. Because if you had (and had you understood what you read), you would never say anything good about the founders. Why? Because madison and the founders were evil plutocrats.
True liberty was usurped by the constitution. They took states rights and trampled them and consolidated power in the federal government. They tried to make nice with the bill of rights and everything but yeah...
They had it right the first time with The Articles of Confederation.
"The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law
and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently.
…
For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or
anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written:
"There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of
justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice."
…
And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes preconquest
Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex
society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and
most civilized in all of Western Europe."
-For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard, p. 235 - 236
The only form of government that is coherent is SELF-government. Everything else is but coercion via a madman with a gun.
I'm glad someone told me so. I was going to think that my voting counts.
Sure when gubbermints are the arm of the elites. They play their own game and by their rules. We have to play a different way. I say fuck you.
The locals are handing out fines for MIP's up to 5 grand. the gestopo state is upon us.
The Founders wrote the Constitution based on Unalienable rights which is a right granted to you by your creator and means it cannot be given away knowingly or unknowingly or willingly or unwillingly. Inalienable rights are those granted by government and can be given away knowingly or unknowingly. I have seen the snakes of government use the term Inalienable where Unalienable is stated and not very many people seem to catch on or know the difference.
It's unalienable. Un-a-lien-able, not lienable.
Why don't we try a stateless / government free society? Why is government of any type necessary?
"Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, I conjecture that the outcome in a society under a state will be worse, indeed much worse, because, first, the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state and, second, by virtue of this control over the state’s powerful engines of death and destruction, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state. It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers… Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the horrors with which they menace mankind invariably come to pass..." Robert Higgs
We did have the West.
Perhaps the biggest mistake in the Constitution was the provision for allowing new States into the Union. If this had not been done more than likely there would have been no new States west of the Mississippi and the debt ponzi would have stopped there.
As it is you could argue a "United States of Europe" is in fact a "United States IN Europe" thus allowing for the debt ponzi, and the Bucky...to keep on keeping on.
"Russia" is still quite alluring because in theory it has the "look" of the old West in the USA. Of course as long as Putin and Co are running the show not a good place to be an Outlaw though.
Siberia is really cold too.
If you have time on your hands, here is a great Higgs talk on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/381-the-state-is-too-dangerous-to-tolerate/
Put know faith in man, esp now.
tell me something new.
I say that because election day that is what the majority will do.
Not to worry, it will all implode into itself soon enough.
UNincorporate FEDGOV, State gov and local gov...then we'd have a chance. Until that happens nothing will change.
Certain forms of government COULD work, in theory, if those who seek power to so with virtue and the sole purpose of RETURNING to their private lives after they have served the public. Something that will never happen, so just forget everything I just typed.
Another Martin Armstrong copy & pasty? ~ Sheesh!
the zh management deeply regrets using their orbital mind control lasers to have forced you to click on the link and read the story.
not sure there is a shortage of ethically based folks to represent us, accept the planet managers and their firm grip on the powers that count. with so much to distract us, even truth, we fail to look at what we eat.......at the ingredient list, and care enough to make a change of buying.
I don't know what system of gov't works best, but I can damn well tell you that this jambalaya of cronyism-facism-corporatism-lawyerism-public sector unionism that we call the US of A, ain't working for most people.
ALL PURE NONSENSE...the best nations in the history of mankind are the small white nations--iceland, denmark, austria, switzerland, norway, finland etc.
Let's see if we can use our BRAINS and figger out why!
Apples to apples only. This analysis applies only to white western nations.
Homogeneous--means more united. United means the people have more control of the government. That's a good thing. You WANT the people to have control. You don't restrict your own ability to control your car, do you? No, cuz you WANT to be able to control your car.
Parliamentarian--that means the real power of the gov't is place in the hands of the reps from the lower house, which means they are elected from SMALL voting districts. Smaller means more united because there are fewer factions. When a district is more united, the common interest is more well defined, and thus the people are better able to elect and hold accountable a politician to represent. Accountability is GOOD!!
Small--these nations are SMALL, and so they have few factions in the populace. Few factions means more unity. Again you WANT a unified populace. Unity means a well defined common interest, which makes it easier to elect and HOLD ACCOUNTABLE politicians.
Now, what you want is a constitution that DEFINES and CREATES a nation or sub-nations that embody the concepts expressed above--small, white, homogeneous, parliamentarian, united. Starting to get the picture?
With respect to the USA, modify the constitution out of existence and return to the ...wait for it... ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION!
You may now return to your regularly scheduled cliche-fest.
Yeah, I prefer no government at this point, especially considering there is no history of any good form of government that has not swindled those it ruled.
If the early americans had listened and understood, there may have been a chance. Maybe and that is a BIG maybe. 99% that things wound up this way anyways. They will fight for what they want generattion after generation. The regualar folks just aren't seeing things in those terms or along those kind of time lines.
Maybe after this people will finally realize what it takes and beat (not physically) it into their kids heads that you can NEVER let up. EVER!!! That's what they do.
The only permanent form of government should be the 4th Branch: The Executioners.
Definition from the Manifesto for Civil Government: The Executioners, average Citizens one and all, are tasked with 1) identifying actual and potential candidates for political office; 2) taking said sickos into custody and placing them in one of the Public Nuissance plexiglass enclosures that have been constructed in all decent communities; 3) flaying the skin off of the cretans, slowly, over a period of not less than the time it takes a minimum-wage worker to earn enough money to buy the car that the egomaniac was known to drive at the time of identification; and 4) to contract with the oozing pile of bloody pus for an adjustable mortage that is based on a rate that is not less their age multiplied by the inverse of the daily-assessed IQ of George W. Bush, plus the prime rate, over the life of the loan.
And yet we find Scotland, England, and France highly socialist with a notably top-down structure. Not sure their systems are as effective as you think.
I'm sorry Mr. Armstrong. The framers of this once great republic thought through all the ideas (but not tech obviously) that you present here, debated most of them in the Constitutional Convention, and arrived at a better set of solutions than you present here. I appreciate the effort and acknowledge the sources of your complaints, but I could take each of your suggestions of how to improve the structure of our Government on for the same reasons they were dismissed by the framers. The simple truth is the federal courts have refused to uphold our fine Constitution, and we are doomed as a result.
As found as I am of the Constitution, the inclusion of an annual ostracism could have limited the influence of a number of very bad actors we complain about and parody often here at Zerohedge.
You're wrong to think 1 yr terms and banning career politicians wouldn't fix a lot of our problems
Yea, yea, yea.
Harry & Dianne (CISA) are at it again.
Given the choice between an elected or unelected mafia i choose the latter; The unelected steal only 5-10% of your hard earned whereas these elected crime dons can fuck you for 80%.
Martin Armstrong's mother indulged 'little Marty' a bit too much methinks.
http://edge.org/conversation/can-science-help-solve-the-economic-crisis
The depravity of man. We knew this a long time ago.
Why do these guys think that writing articles now about what was known thousands of years ago is pertinent or somehow insightful? We live in Satan's system.
This end of this story has already been written to those who care to look.
sschu
And once again, not a word about the FED, Banksters and Wall Street raping and pillaging the country.
Fuck you Marty. You look like controlled opposition at this point.
What does the aurthor mean by having a positive as opposed to a negative Constitution? I stopped reading after that statement. If the author is implying a constitution of positive rights over negative rights - then that is the second reason why you would want to stop reading any further. Legal positivism is 90% of the problem - "you can only do what the state allows you to do (or is law). Negative liberty (which is the essence of the Constitution and free market capitalism - prior to Obama et al eviscerating it) says, "you can do anything you like so long as it does not interfere with other persons or their property." Negative Liberty (See Narevson), suggests a least cost method of organizing individuals, resources, and innovation without coercion. Positive rights, or, positivism in general does not work because eventually it is incapabale of of sanctioning or making lawful an infinite measure of actions that may or may not interfere with other sanctioned actions. We can already see the prohibitive costs legal positivism has created. People and resources simply go elsewhere.
A declaration of rights outlines positive values, such as a right to hold property, whereas a constitution takes those rights away (e.g. by declaring that the State has a right to take your property under certain circumstances). It places the rights of the State above your own.
negative liberty defines what the state cannot do to you: The state cannot abridge your right to free speech, for example.
positive 'liberty" defines what the state must do FOR you: The state must provide you with a "safety net" of social programs, for example.
Our Constitution is primarily of the negative liberty sort -- but our personal constitutions, at least those of the 49 percent leeches, want more free stuff, that is, they want to have their needs encoded in law, in a positive way -- to make the state do X for them.
You're right, Pareto. I stopped reading after the author's positive rather than negative comment. The author used 'positive' in the form of "positive Constitution", but when I Googled that phrase, all the hits I perused centered on positive rights. A good mini-definition from this article about Ruth Bader: The competing vision of liberty (ie, to "negative liberty") is the notion of “positive liberty,” which empowers — indeed, requires — government to act for the betterment of its citizens. Think about “rights” such as the right to housing, the right to health care, and the right to education — all of which are contained in the South African constitution that Justice Ginsburg deemed a better model for the Egyptians than our own Constitution..
OK, so gov't is to provide those 'rights'. My God, it would have to be bigger (ie, consume a larger percentage of GDP) than our current gov't. Thus, it would of necessity become more corrupt.
The author's thesis is basically turgid. He says this, "The best we can hope for is a hybrid between Democracy and a Republic ...", and then says, "With technology, each and every measure must be voted on by the people." If every measure is voted on, then we don't have a republic but a pure democracy.
Yea, I suppose the Tyler's need to post poorly written articles, too.
Pareto,
I loathe Obama and his administration but your statement that the "evisceration" of the US constitution began with that administration is ABSURD.
One of the first chief justices of the US Supreme Court, the now revered (of course!) John Marshall began stealthily dismantling the constitution in 1800. And the process he started has been slowly ongoing every year since.
The US Civil War, so called, was in effect a counter revolution to the US founding and its principles and in the year 1913 the final stake was driven into the form of government handed down by our forefathers. Television has been the tool used to mop up the remaining remnants of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution through corrupting and dumbing down the population.
Your eyes opened to reality around 2008 but the process of evisceration has been ongoing for 214 years.
There is only one form of government that is acceptable and for the first time in history we have the technology to make it possible - direct voting on ALL issues by eligible voters over the web.
This will put ALL the power under direct control of the eligible voters- politicians would have power ONLY to propose, but NEVER to enact, a power which only the eligible voterswould have.
Eligible voters excludes illegal invaders & entitlement tit-sucking thieves & parasites.
Mob rule. Say goodbye to your rights under your proposed system.
Mob rule is what prevails now, which is why income taxes are sky high, entitlement programs proliferating, govt debt exploding, illegal invaders swarming, etc, etc, etc.
Are you one one of the entitlement tit sucking thieving parasites who would be excluded from voting under my system ????
Are you kidding? We already have Mob rule. In any case .GOV must be constrained and competative for a system to work.
Our votes are rigged. Everything is rigged.
Detroit filed BK. As soon as it was known that the art museum would not be sold, the art museum management gave themselves 30% plus raises. These people already loot $100’s of thousands a year in salary.
Either you are in, or paying for them.
Beware 2014.95 3/4, and especially 2015.223456!
I think the Doge was in Venice, not Genoa. And many historians think that it prevented the accumulation of dynastic power, not corruption so much.
But in any case, Mr. Armstrong has voiced noble sentiments. But I for one don't expect any reform in my lifetime.
Don't you ever wonder why no one talks about those other founding fathers? Ya know, the paragons of virtue who founded the NYSE.
The New York Stock Exchange has roots that go back to a spring day in 1792, when a group of 24 men met outside 68 Wall Street in the shade of a huge sycamore tree that locals called a buttonwood. They set down the rules they would trade by and called it the Buttonwood Agreement. Later that year, trading moved into a room on the second floor of the Tontine Coffee House, where it remained until 1817. In the words of its president, it was a place “filled with underwriters, brokers, merchants, traders, and politicians; selling, purchasing, trafficking, or insuring; some reading, others eagerly inquiring the news…Everything was in motion; all was life, bustle and activity." It was also a place built on slavery."
http://maap.columbia.edu/place/16
The Buttonwood agreement was only one sentence long:
"We the subscribers, brokers for the purchase and sale of public stock do hereby solemnly promise and pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not buy or sell from this day on for any persons whatsoever any kind of public stock at a less rate than one-quarter percent commission on the specie value of, and that we will give preference to each other in our negotiations."
The 24 signers of this compact were: Leonard Bleecker, Hugh Smith, Armstrong & Barnewall, Samuel March, Bernard Hart, Alexander Zuntz, Andrew D. Barclay, Sutton & Hardy, Benjamin Seixas, John Henry, John A. Hardenbrook, Samuel Beebe, Benjamin Winthrop, John Ferrers, Ephraim Hart, Isaac M. Gomez, Gulian McEvers, Augustine H. Lawrence, G. N. Bleecker, John Bush, Peter Anspach, Charles McEvers, Jr., David Reedy, Robinson & Hartshorne."
Shouldn't there be a national buttonwood day to honor these "founders"? /s
Anarchy or nothing!
Either Or? aren't they the same
Be careful using that word, it has been corrupted by those who fear it.
Anarchism is a bit more exact.
People who wish to be leaders are scared by the concept of no leader, which is the core of anarchism, so they used their control over media to change the meaning of the word in the minds of those who don't think.
Martin who?
Man, he needs an editor.
The man needs his ZH inviitation revoked.
He's just like ebola fear news, taking up otherwise useful space........
So what else is new?
Best form of government?
No government.
So-called "government" does not exist. The word "government" is simply a name assigned to the most egregious pack of predators around. The predators exist, their weapons exist, their actions exist... but that's all that exists --- a pack of predators.
To assign an additional name to something that exists does not create something new, it only creates a name to identify what already exists. What exists are human predators. PERIOD.
And so, the obvious answer to the question posed is... no so-called "government" can "work", because no "government" can exist in the first place.
Of course, a pack of predators can "work" if the goal is to harm producers and enrich predators. And indeed, that is what is happening, and has been happening, since the first pack of human predators decided to assign a name to itself thousands of years ago.
The only sane answer to the kind of question this article poses is:
I refuse to be governed. And I will defend myself.
You wrote: "I refuse to be governed. And I will defend myself."
Just asking, does this mean that you are willing to lock'n load, to go kinetic, or just words ???
Ironically the most productive Americans are pacifists, while the thieves & parasites are activists.
Just curious to see who is really willing to go to pitchforks, muskets, etc
You identify a huge problem. To succeed, producers must defend themselves, and must be prepared to defend themselves vigorously. Otherwise they are easy pickings for predators and parasites.
But very, very, very few modern producers do defend themselves. You might ask why.
Well, of course the 12~20 years of brainwashing kids get in "schools" is a very large influence on a vast, vast, vast majoriity of the population in "advanced" countries. By the time they stop being little slaves in school for a decade or two, they are habituated to being little slaves and submitting to whatever activist predator or parasite claims fictional authority over them.
But I believe there is another factor at work. The focus of everyone who is a real, serious producer is to produce, which is the opposite of destroy. Almost every second of every day of every year and decade they focus on producing things, and so implicitly if not explicitly consider production a positive value (something to strongly prefer), and destruction a negative value (something to strongly avoid).
And so, only those producers who are especially thoughtful [and clear minded] even recognize the absolute necessity of "destroying destroyers" in order to protect what they value (production, and a good healthy life).
But this approach does not work, and this cannot work. No predator or parasite will cease their abuse when extremely few producers defend themselves. Sadly, in the thoroughly brainwashed world of today, most producers actually sanction and defend the human predators and parasites... as well as keep them feed, clothed, housed, cared for and in many cases pampered and treated like royalty (and sometimes literally considered royalty).
Which is why mankind is headed down the tubes. Unless you are very attentive and go to extreme (and likely risky) lengths to avoid supporting the predators and parasites, being a producer today is just plain stupid. Not because you should get something for free like the predators and parasites, but because you are literally keeping the predators and parasites alive, healthy, powerful, and in the business of wholesale, planet-wide enslavement and destruction.
And, of course, more producers catch onto this fact every year... and shrug in one form of another.
To answer your questions more directly, here are my answers. Yes, to be effective, a producer should put themselves in a position where they are not supporting the predators and parasites, and either be so well hidden and disguised that the predators leave them alone, or else yes, lock and load and be ready to defend yourself and your property... and help defend other producers when appropriate.
As you imply, the problem in modern times is that vastly too few honest, ethical, productive, benevolent folks are willing defend themselves, much less do what they should do, which is go out and actively exterminate dangerous predators of all species. And so, the very few who are willing to take such actions see very clearly that they have too little support to make a dent in the domination that the human predator class enjoys. And so they too stay inactive. They seem to be biding their time, but given the "slow-but-sure boil-frog-in-water" approach being taken, they are only biding their time until they day the predators wipe them off the face of the earth, or they die of old age.
It would only take 1% to 5% of the population to wipe out the predators... and if they were smart and adopted extremely low-risk but effective extermination techniques, 1% would be sufficient. However, they would need to "go for it", not "chicken out", and "not stop until the job was done".
If the world was populated by humans with a little guts, I might take a different approach. But given the reality, my approach was to "get outta dodge" (far from the USA or other "advanced western nation"), move to the extreme boonies ~125km from the nearest human being (where no land vehicle can reach), and set up my own little self-sufficient paradise. Not fancy, but comfortable. Frankly, it is absurd that people like me decide take these kinds of steps... steps that consumed about 80% of my life savings (including my little airplane, which is pretty much the only way in or outta here).
It has always been my nature to evade rather than fight. And I enjoy solitude, so this approach works great for me. But it is the wrong approach in the sense that it will never end the problem, only let me avoid most of the consequences of a world headed straight down the tubes into permanent abject tyranny and slavery, assured by overwhelming application of high-tech approaches and devices.
Yes, I can defend myself, and would if necessary. But I haven't seen a single human being anywhere near my place in the past 3+ years since I finished construction and implementation. The predators and parasites know how much easier it is for them to harvest where population density is high. I'm so extreme an outlier that I don't expect to attract their attention, here in the extreme boonies, inaccessible by land vehicle, and invisible from above (except a low-and-slow flying helicopter perhaps, but that's not gonna happen).
Best book ever, lays out what legit govt is & isn't is 'The Law' by Frederick Bastiat.
Quick & free on-line read here http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Open governance
Everything else is online why not governance?
Cameras in every governance edifice, from every angle
All bureaucrats wear cameras, home too, even to the restroom
Aggressive automation of all possible bureacratic functions and non stop rotation of all flesh bureaucrats left
All governance data online in real time
An actual real social contract, actually several options A-Z
And no more of this assumed consent, sign on the dotted line if you wish only
One very helpful thing to add to the medical screening of potential power-weilding people would be a PET scan to determine if the person has psychopathic tendencies - and reject them if the results were positive. Of course, the vast, VAST, majority of politicians and bureacrats would fight this with every fiber of their being because they know they'd fail the test - but it would be one way that - should we ever get out of this pit of vipers - we could try to prevent it from ever happening again.
The best people to have in charge are competent people who don't want the job.
The City Council where I have to live has passed a by-law outlawing hanging laundry outside on a clothesline.
Imagine what would become of this kind of useless edict if we could all ratify or veto it ONLINE...
so, I presumed the end result of that is..... hang clothes on a line, get a fine, refuse to pay, get arrested and have your property sized, or defend yourself, get shot to death by 10 deputies firing 430 round, then have your property distributed amongst the police force. May as well rape your wife while they are at it and post the pictures on the web.
civil forfeiture.
gotta love the cunts running merica.
Really? Benevolent Dictator, that's the best we're going to do? This guy is totally full of shit. Try Liberty, it made America a juggernaught; and leaving Liberty, it destroyed America. There's a contrasting two systems of government for you. Like I said, try Liberty... again. And send this delusional miscreant to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela where he can enjoy a tyrannical state, because the one in Amerika is about to end. www.electanewcongress.com www.electfawell.com www.scienceofliberty.us
SURFS UP AMERICA!
Dude's got a biased opinion.
The large number of government programs that have failed to carry out their duties and the dim view many Americans have towards Washington may be starting to take its toll on those who think big government is the answer. The Democratic Party has long been thought of as the party of "big government" filled with believers that government can solve and is the answer to curing many of our woes.
Sadly cost and reality are quickly beginning to show the flaws in this theory, government is far better at providing access of citizens and good at passing popular laws, but the private sector tends to be more efficient and better at controlling costs. More on the flaw in the concept of big government in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/11/flaws-in-big-government-concept.h...
In an investigation about two years ago 60 Minutes uncovered evidence of several instances of insider trading among prominent government officials. In a hurry then to save our public servants from embarrassment, President Barack Obama jumped on board. "Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress," the president declared in his 2012 State of the Union address. "I will sign it tomorrow."
The bill sailed through the Senate on a 96-3 vote, passed the House 417-2 and Obama promptly signed it, noting that its disclosure, and accountability requirements would apply to and demand transparency from virtually everyone in government who had access to inside financial information. Now this has been undone, my tip off was a April 27th 2013 Chicago Tribune editorial that reported Congress had voted to repeal part of the STOCK Act that recently became law. More on this subject in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/04/washington-insider-trading-is-bac...
Anarchy is for free men, government is for cattle. That's the way it always has been, and the way it always will be. Those are immutable laws.
Be careful, Martin. You'll end up in solitary again.