- “Our government”
“Our” is the possessive form of “we.” This phrase assumes that a collective exists and has ownership of the government, which is another collective. To exist is to have a concrete, particular form in physical reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of where they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically observable entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what physical form they take, as all available physical forms are occupied by the individuals which are said to comprise the collective. Thus, there is no “we”; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By the same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each gun, etc. exists. As such, the phrase “our government” is meaningless. Additionally, to own something is to have a right of exclusive control over it. Part and parcel of this right is the right to physically destroy that which one owns. As governments use force to stop citizens who attempt to physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a government.
- “We are the government”
This phrase confuses society with government, which is as serious an error as confusing an entire human body with a malignant tumor growing inside of that body.
- “The social contract”
A valid contract must be presented honestly and agreed to voluntarily, without duress or fraud. The social contract does not meet this standard because the state will initiate the use of force against anyone who does not voluntarily enter into the social contract. The state is also not automatically dissolved when it fails to uphold its obligations under the social contract, so the presentation is dishonest if it even occurs at all. Therefore, the social contract cannot be considered a legitimate contract.
- “Our leader”
In the case of the state, we are not speaking of just any kind of leader, but a ruler. No one owns the ruler, and the ruler falsely claims to own those who are ruled, as the ruler claims a right to exclusive control over the ruled and has no logically defensible basis for doing so. Thus the leader is not “ours.”
- “The leader of the free world”
“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.
- “You don’t have to like our leaders, but you should respect them”
Respect should be a response to virtue. Ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, therefore it is unworthy of respect.
- “You don’t have to like the president, but you should respect the office of the presidency”
The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent criminal institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect.
- “Our military”
If the military is “ours,” then “we” should be able to exercise exclusive control over it. But “we” neither command the military nor have the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not “ours”; it is a tool of the ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in the form of martial law should the citizens succeed in violently overthrowing the government, and present a deterrent to other rulers elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and capture the tax base for themselves.
- “We need to make the world safe for democracy”
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. This sort of behavior should not be made safe; it should be made dangerous by giving the sheep means to resist the wolves. Some will say that this is what a constitutional republic does, but this is false. A constitutional republic is three wolves and a sheep voting for a representative among them to decide who gets eaten. To claim that establishing a constitutional republic counters the negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making a chocolate cake double-layered, one can magically turn it into something that is not chocolate.
- “You don’t have to like what the police/military are doing, but you should support them”
Again, respect should be a response to virtue. Just as ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, carrying out said orders is also not virtuous. Therefore it is unworthy of respect.
- “The homeland/Our nation”
As only individuals are capable of action, only individuals may rightly own property. There is no such thing as public property; there is only privately owned property and property which has been stolen or otherwise interfered with by agents of the state. Thus, there is no homeland or nation because these require collective ownership.
- “National defense/security”
There is no such thing as national security apart from each individual person’s security because there is no such thing as a nation apart from each individual person.
- “It’s the law”
In a statist society, the laws are a collection of opinions written down by sociopaths who have managed to either win popularity contests or murder their competitors and enforced at gunpoint by thugs in costumes. The implication of the phrase “it’s the law” is that this state of affairs is both necessary and proper, rather than inherently illogical and immoral. Also implied is that the law is somehow sacrosanct and immutable, which is clearly false because the aforementioned sociopaths both frequently alter the laws and routinely disregard the laws they make for everyone else.
- “Voting is your voice in government”
This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted correctly, that vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that politicians will do what voters tell them to do. Each of these assumptions has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is demonstrably false on several occasions at worst.
- “Voting is a civic duty”
A legitimate duty can only come from a legitimate right or contract. There is no such right or contract that could create such a duty. In addition, there can be no legitimate duty to perform an immoral act. Voting is immoral because it helps to impose violent rulers upon peaceful people and gives the appearance of legitimacy to institutions which deserve none.
- “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”
This is exactly wrong. People who do not vote are the only people who have a right to complain. Those who vote for people who win elections are endorsing politicians and their minions who will engage in activities under color of law that would be punished as crimes if you or I did them. Those who vote for people who lose elections may not be vicariously responsible for the crimes of state agents in the same degree, but participating in the system helps to create the appearance of legitimacy for that which is inherently illegitimate.
- “The public good/The good of society”
Society, or “the public,” does not exist. Each individual person exists. As such, there is no such thing as the public good or the good of society. There is only what is good for each individual person.
- “For the children”
Those who wield state power subject children to forced indoctrination that leaves them with few marketable skills and restrict the ability of suitable guardians to serve as their parents. They do not care about children as anything other than a means to shame and guilt people into handing over more liberty and property to the state.
- “Government is necessary”
This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.
- “Anarchy is chaos”
The word “anarchy” comes from Greek ???????, meaning “without rulers,” or more accurately, “without beginning to take the lead.” It does not mean an absence of order, rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is chaos plus organization.
- “Taxes are the price for a civilized society”
This is exactly wrong. Taxes are the price for failing to create a civilized society based on voluntary solutions, and the degree of taxation corresponds to the degree of failure.
- “Paying taxes is a civic duty”
Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and freedom of association. There can be no legitimate duty to comply with immorality.
- “We owe it to ourselves”
This would make one both a creditor and a debtor in the same transaction. This is a contradiction, therefore it is false.
- “We’re going to hold them accountable”
This is contrary to the nature of the state. The state apparatus allows some people to do what is ordinarily forbidden for anyone to do. Thus, the objective is to avoid responsibility for the commission of crimes. Avoiding responsibility is the opposite of being held accountable.
- “Who will build the roads?”
If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? It does not matter. What matters is that slavery is morally indefensible. So it is with government and who will provide services in its absence. Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular answer is incorrect. And who will build the death camps? The state also provides intolerable disservices which would almost certainly not occur in its absence.


fudge, govermnent is application of force. violence. death. and this guy says: "oh, it does not exist, it is not real". sure. show me where
The piece is a normative one, debunking various moral arguments routinely made by Statists to justify State actions; not whether the State actually does those things.
I don't see where he's making the argument you claim he is...he's challenging the proper use of words which do have meanings. If you can't understand the difference between saying "the govt" and "our govt"...which is more to the point of statist propaganda...then you're choosing to be ignorant.
“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves."
RUBBISH. whatever you think about the right or not to call itself "free", what IS there DOES EXIST
there are deals and treaties and alliances and other things that do cause very REAL things to happen, up to the most real of all things: PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, including WAR
and going all "lala-landish, I rule myself" does not make all that just go away. it just detaches you from your political interest in it
if the authors and pushers of this propaganda meme would be a tad more honest, they would put it this way: "please don't see yourself as a political actor in your polity, and disown anly allegiances to that polity". But it would fly less well, and might cause a few question on... why
"This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence."
Indeed, it's a stupid claim. The real necessity is... territory. We are humans, we need some space to live
The problem, here, is that governments occupy and annex to their jurisdiction any territory that is not being currently well defended by... another government
The claim that carries a burden of proof?
How to get one government out... and then keep them all out... without having to put up a new government for this express purpose. That's the Squaring of the Anarchist Circle
You obviously have not read history.
The ancient Greek City States had self rule.
Also some of them did NOT refer to their Government but to themselves as (Athenians , Melians (with the exceptions of the Spartans) and so on, simply because all the major decisions were carried out by a MAJORITY VOTE.
There were also Confederations named as Allience. Achaian Allience, Aetolian Allience
and so on.
This oughta be good. G does enjoy Greek political history.
well, what should I write, there?
"Also some of them did NOT refer to their Government but to themselves as (Athenians , Melians (with the exceptions of the Spartans) and so on, simply because all the major decisions were carried out by a MAJORITY VOTE."
he sees a plebiscite of all citizens carrying a majority vote as "not government", i.e. "self rule". problem is, what happens when this same plebiscite of citizens appoints officials?
generals, admirals, military tribunes, judges, governors of provinces, mayors, sheriffs, etc? how does he define such appointed officials?
I was just hoping for a free history lesson ;-)
Appreciating the gotchas of scalability tends only to come from hard experience (failure). The young, brash engineer always thinks his hot prototype is all that matters. The old engineer hands out enough rope for the young guy to hang himself with as it's the only way he'll learn.
"Get off my lawn" is the hot political prototype around here, usually dressed up in more obfuscating language. Scalability issues are rarely considered.
and so I got a valuable engineering scalability lesson for free! thanks for the juicy concept
have you seen my latest negative count, in the other article?
Link?
It's so damn hard to find anything here on ZH, or maintain a discussion thread beyond a day or so...
[no further comment necessary]
Most of these discussions wind up in endless normative analyses vs positive analyses dog-chasing-its-own tail kind of loops.
The Greek states may indeed have had self-rule. But they (and other minarchist/anarchist/more libertarian societies) clearly were unable to maintain their independence in the face of bigger and more aggressive governments, either imposed from outside or evolving from within.
I have little doubt that if we could persuade our fellow citizens that government was unnecessary, we could be living in much more just societies; but we are stuck with the people we currently must share our polities with.
Nonetheless, it is still worth making normative analyses of current less-than-perfect situations because eventually the tide of opinion may swing our way; when abolitionism first got off the ground, it was a hopeless cause; eventually, it became the dominant mindset.
How to get one government out... and then keep them all out... without having to put up a new government for this express purpose. That's the Squaring of the Anarchist Circle
Before you get there you work towards removing that government's de facto control over the territory. They may keep claiming it as their territory but if you get to the point that they can't tax you or impose any of their legislation over you then you've achieved the anarchist's goal.
This, of course, is just on a personal level. There will be different kinds of people on the territory. It is, of course, desirable to have more anarchists than statists around you. A predominantly anarchic society is only an ideal, something that will probably come naturally, one day in the distant future, as a new equilibrium.
I see ideas, technology, warfare, etc. evolving towards the point where even if you are in a dispersed minority surrounded mostly by statists you are able to achieve independence from the state, in other words, "government is not necessary to me, or to us, the anarchists".
Not to mention some small groups of people have been that way forever.
Anarchism (my meaning follows the definition here http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ ) requires the majority to understand and accept the philosophy. This level of maturity is currently beyond us, though perhaps could change in the future through tech. (Eg Hamilton's sci-fi Gaiafield). I think we agree.
It can't work now beyond the small scale, isolated clusters you identify because all it takes to destroy an 'ideal' anarchism is for one small group of thugs to unify and start doing what violent gangs do. Tends to snowball quickly.
Like the historical intersection of Islam and Hinduism. Thugs simply kill pacifists and that's that. Thug strategy becomes the only strategy, with civility arising in-tribe as a means to enable grander thuggery.
I used the word "anarchist" in the broadest meaning of someone who doesn't support or depend on a state. I happen to be an anarcho-capitalist which is incompatible with a lot of those left-anarchist ideas.
I think it will become feasible to counter organized criminal gangs with some global cooperative mechanism. It will get figured out eventually.
I do recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ in its entirety (linked above). It is well researched and written, and explores in great detail the topic of what liberty truly means.
In so doing it explains why there can be no such thing as right-wing anarchy, or anarcho-capitalism.
Eg: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF7
It might be better to refer to your philosophy as Rothbardian rather than AnCap. Even Rothbard himself rejected Anarchism, so why the hell he coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" is beyond me!
See: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-...
Ghordius,
This is another very weak ZH article, barely worthy of your comments.
What do you think about UK becoming a founding member of this China-led development bank ?
Is the fall-out with the US over this is feigned ?
This is another very weak ZH article, barely worthy of your comments.
Consider it a freebee.
Yes, allright, its free. But these kinds of articles are gradually eroding my interest in ZH and make me look elsewhere for information.
Where do you suggest people go and pay for high quality analysis of geopolitics ? Stratfor ?
Our President highly recos HuffPo..........not really sure why.
Any spinmeister will do, with no foundation you are simply rowing your boat from one island to another. Kick back and do some yoga, relax, let the crazy insane world go for a spell of the day, you'll feel better about it tomorrow, trust me.
Are you threatening to leave? OMG!!!! NOOOO!!!!
And for God's sake, don't look anywhere else for information. One source should always do...
ok mr. sarcastic, and which alternative sources of information on geopolitics and finance would you recommend ?
Maybe some people are interested in these statistics related to ZH :
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/zerohedge.com
Gosh, thanks for that link. I'll stop reading ZH right away, no doubt you'll join me.
I find it's a good summary of the memes in the statist/anarchist battle of words in the American political discourse. note that it's the "dominant non-party" manifesto: those who don't vote, roughly 50%
I find it fascinating. As well as the moral high ground they build themselves for themselves by non voting. Some excellent criticism, among the bits. But parts of them are simply silly, bordering to the delusional
----
a lot of the "feigned" is the way newspapers like to take it as a theme. no, absolutely in line with British core policies
a funny summary of that is "London to keep a finger in every pie and a foot in every market". That the Obama administration is handling this conflict as badly as the Cameron cabinet is just a sign how badly those two handle diplomacy
a simple example: did you know that the Bank of England is a non-active shareholder of the ECB? Every Pie, Every Market, The Spirit of Britain, if you want
it goes all back to the IMF reform, and how the US Congress thinks it can wish the consequences of not agreeing to it just away
"London to keep a finger in every pie and a foot in every market"
Ok, will certainly remember that line. :-)
Maybe another summary of British policy is "You make it, and we take it" ?
Every single argument about 'politics' can be boiled down to one issue. The right to initiate violence or not.
Not everyone thinks crossing a fence is violence.
Indeed some would argue the fence is violence.
I think both are true ... violence is unavoidable in a world of limited natural resources.
Especially if the natural resource is a collective brain with something to gain.
Violence is a capitalist or soocialist response to obtain something they have nothing to trade for what they want.
Trade beads with indians but as the trade grows, the realisation of value you demand more so in the end was cheaper to slaughter the indians and take the land. All powerful civilsations throughout history did this and swoed the seed from where the final revolution eventually comes from.
Uh....smoke dope much mr author? I agre on much of your sentiment, but we have to have some sort of system in place. There has to be rules. And as for the sheep, at least in this country he has a vote. We have to have elected officials, otherwise each of us every day would have to focus on running the country and not our lives.. Our system is about as close to perfect as you can get, and it is still far from perfect. It is designed to be a deliberate logjam. Thats the point. Laws that are commonsense and fair eventually get on the books and bad ones, even if they do get passed, eventually dissolve under their own weight. The current place we find ourselves is our system has been exploited by less than honorable people. cronyism has run rampant and politicians are looting the store. We have been lulled into a trance by watching propaganda crap on tv, allowed our educational system to be overrun by communists, given our wealth away unknowlingly to bankers under the guise of cheap money, we have lost our work ethic and have also lost our connection to our history and heritage. We are a collective and individuals at the smae time. Much like a family. We all do our part to make our society better or we tear it apart via a sense of entitlement and self pity. The military is made up of fine you men who all volunteer their lives to defend ours and they do deserve our respect. These are our sons and daughters. Our family, Our nation was founded with faith in god and that men can be good, but are corruptable. With centuries of precedent, our constitution and bill of rights was made. It was designed to keep tyrants from taking over our liberty while at the same time allowing us to select who would run our system of government while we lived our lives. There is no other way. They have all been tried and end the same way. Millions are marched to their deaths as the ruling class plunders to feed the incessant need for more and more power. The statist is a liar and cunning manipulator. We are deaing with this in the oval office right now. And to be coear, he has not been the only one. There is but a thread of difference between the parties. Thsi is where the individual and the collective diverge. The rulers of both parties have silenced the voices of the individual representatives we voted for via threats and intimidation. We are a nation of good people. Our way of oife is under heavy assault as the communists want to make us not trust one another and hate our differences and kill open honest devate. Those things are the underpinning of our society and they are being shredded. Once we all are intent on killing each other, the corrupt political class will move in for the kill. We need to wake up people. Our freedom to be different and have different viewpoints is what makes this country great. Not wealth redistribution. Not skin color. Not religion or ethnicity. Those are our strenghts and they are under attack, unfortunately by us. It needs to stop. We need a uniter, not a divider. The jackass in the whitehouse has torn this country apart with the full help of our dying dinosaur media as they seek favor for their survival. We have our work cut out for us. This article is pretty weak. Well intended, but not written by somone with real inowledge and wisdom.
Did you not notice how the Republicans also sing the same tune knowing it is just a matter of time until they get elected. Then because thry do not create decent objection about the current lot you get an easy ride when your turn comes around.
Last Labour government in the UK really fucked up the economy etc. with mass immigration and all the other stuff but the Conservatives sadi nothing. Even when the coalition got into power and found the note on the desk saying basically there is no money left the COALITION LET LABOUR OFF THE HOOK because they then knew through this parliament there will be VERY LITTEL DEBATE OR OBJECTION.
All sides are in it together and then it begs the question who is poulling all their strings and it is not the population.
unklemunky .. a more appropriate nic you could not have chosen ;-)
Yep. it's no wonder the scum and shit in your .mil have no problem raping and killing civilians any where they go, they can't respect each other ....
http://mic.com/articles/72503/pentagon-releases-startling-new-statistics...
and you think they should be shown respect.
LoL what a fuckwit you are.
[at least in this country he has a vote]
We have the right to vote for those pre- chosen by the system you think we should have. Recently the majority where I live voted to poison (fluoride) the minority. In your opinion this would probably be acceptable. The representative government you claim is almost perfect has passed draconian laws and taxes that make slaves of the persons within it's boundaries. That same system also tries to replicate itself in different areas of the world by sending thousands to deaths in wars that serve to increase its power and scope.
[The military is made up of fine you men who all volunteer their lives to defend ours and they do deserve our respect. These are our sons and daughters. Our family,]
They are not defending our lives,,, toppling other nations trying to replicate a tyrannical system on others is NOT defensive!
The system did not exist when the first pioneer americans made this nation. They built the roads, the factories and the bridges, not the system. Now that system robs, steals and enslaves those persons in the name of the better good.
Swallowing the propaganda,,, you sir,,, are the problem
Refuse to vote now ... never again because Democracy is a sham in all western nations as is the ruling elite who do whatever they want and pass laws / legislation to then justify what thety want to do. Once passed they then shout out that you must follow the law as if the law was laid down by all the people. WHAT A PACK OF BOLLOCKS.
The biggest mistake for human societies everywhere over the last 40 years was to allow the law / police / legislation / media etc. to be politicised because that allowed the parasites amongst us to grow so big the population can no longer support them. The capital locked up by these parasites was once the blood of the economy that no longer flows through the population and the FED / central banks carries out QE transfusions in an attempty to keep it all going. Then they tell the taxpayer they are on the hook for this debt? WTF.
What the FED fails to rrealise as it pumps more in, it grows the pool of total value bigger, the majority 99% populations sharethen shrinks and that means ???? ... The population can no longer support a real recovery in the economy and you now have to prise the capital out of those hoarding it. STAGNATION UNLESS THIS HAPPENS AND QE IN SOME FORM FOREVER IF YOU DON'T.
Ravings of a lunatic that wants to destroy the United States.
Hitler was right. Money is created as CREDIT, and can be given freely without need to be repaid.
Do the parasites have you brainwashed?
But without the government, who would throw us in a cage for not paying ransoms, excuse me, "taxes"? Plus, think about how overpopulated it would be if those 60 million hadn't been killed by their own government during the 20th century.
My two cents on a sheeple favorite "It's the law". Truth comes from God, justice comes from truth, law comes from justice. If rules parading as laws emanate from ignorance or evil they still carry the force of law, but are slavers tools, not the tools of free men. Real law can only live in the hearts and minds of men who sincerely seek to understand Truth.
If you ever get called for jury duty and think you have to pass an unjust verdict on the accused because the facts support an unjust law you can still throw a spanner in their system, they haven't closed that freedom loophole yet.
http://www.prorev.com/juries.htm
Yes they have,,, by allowing the law-yers to pick and choose the jury which is out an out tampering. This is the reason they will pick 6-800 potential jurors for 10 trials. And my favorite is the judge or law-yers explaining to the jury what they can and more important cannot use to make up their minds as to guilty or not... They observe the jury in deliberation via camera's and microphones.
Example, the last time I was picked for a jury there were 8 of us. 7 jurors and one extra. As soon as I made it verbly clear I thought the state did not prove the persons guilt,,, within seconds I was declared the extra and sent on my way. The rest found the poor slob guilty only because they wanted to get home early. If memory serves he got ten years on circumstancial evidence only. The man was sentenced by a bunch of lazy selfish assholes who could care less... same goes to the majority who have left the country go to shit because of their lazy, greedy and selfish ways.
"make up their minds" lol. think about that...
The United States of America was founded by one group killing and destroying another in the name of collective responsibility. The 'nation' was taken down in steps.
First was the Articles forming a weak Federal system with strong independent sovereign states that used to be colonies.
Next came the Constitution which made a strong Federal system over weaker sovereign states.
Then the unCivil war which relegated the weaker sovereign states to just areas on a map.
Next came the amendments to solidify the takeover.
The state militias were replaced by the Federal standing army's reserve.
The 16th enslaved the sovereign citizens of what used to be sovereign states by robbing them of their labor and production.
The 17th removed the now sovereign defunct states participation in the national government.
Then came the 'neutral' Wilsonian era of spreading democracy by force. WWI
Then the Banker takeover causing the Depression.
By using sanctions and other interference the system forced another system to attack Pearl Harbor thus ushering WWII and the nuclear age.
This superpower system was trying to take over the world causing another system to rise up against it,,, the ussr.
Many proxy wars between the systems killed many of those 'protecting' the systems.
When one system finally went broke the other took over and was carving it up into a bankers dream when one person whom appeared weak turned out to be a powerful adversary. This person stopped the carving up of his people and has stood tall against the now opposing system.
Using the threat of terrorism all the world systems has turned on their respective citizens removing their just and ordained rights by force. All these nations are now police states with national agencies designed to remove any last vestiges of these natural rights.
The peoples of the world now stands at a precipice. They either jump to their death or turn and resist. At this precise moment they're jumping by the millions.
Three words explain why this article is pointless masturbation:
Nuclear-fucking-bombs!
Trying to herd a bunch of AR-15 wielding libertarian cats into a showdown against a state military that's capable of building nukes is like asking six year olds to stand in a line on the beach with their arms out to stop the approaching tsunamai.
Our governance structures have evolved under selection, just like everything in nature. If your ideal (lack of a) government model can't be observed, then there's probably a reason for it.
Radical Marijuana gets it. Most others prefer fantasy and circle jerks.
Signed: a pragmatic, though reluctant, Statist.
I don't know,,, Those 'raghead' Afghans with rusty old AK's did pretty good against the american military marvel trying to nation build. I will give you the fact that we can bomb nations that cannot defend themselves into the stone age. Libya.
Are you sure pragmatism is your reasoning?
Militaries aren't designed for nation building, you know that. They're for nation destroying and it's the capacity to destroy that ultimately accounts for everything in the Grand Game. America is very, very good at ruining nations.
US neocons and neolibs lost the plot when they decided to 'nation build'. It's like hackng off an arm, then gaffer taping a new one on and expecting it to work. The older hawks would have just killed everything that threatened to stop the spice flowing and have left it at that.
Bit of a stretch to claim the Taliban are sitting on any kind of victory, just a pile of corpses and a ruined country.
The Taliban are not a military,,, they represent the proper use of militia, a use the usa constitution had in mind. That use? To defend the nation againsr foreign invasion or worse an out of control tyrannical government at home.
A 'military' is used to intimidate and destroy as you allude to. A militia is used defensively only,,, which is why the national government eliminated them.
[Bit of a stretch to claim the Taliban are sitting on any kind of victory, just a pile of corpses and a ruined country.]
The fact the usa military is slowly leaving is proof of their victory. Future years will tell of our defeat. The pile of corpses was brought upon by the usa military yet again being used to force our democracy on others.
This foolsball mentality and my government right or wrong of the western Peoples will be be their undoing...
You are precisely wrong
It is precisely the bomb that will finally allow a smaller group of people to defend themselves against the tyranny of a larger group
How many nuclear countries has America attacked? Cue the Jeopardy music...
It is precisely the bomb that finally allowed a smaller group of people to offend against the resistance of a larger group. <- fact.
Nukes can deter an aggressive State, yes. Now in what fantasy land does a non-state possess the technical competence and funding to build ICBMs?
Nukes are State vs State: reality. This article dreams of no States: fantasy.
Maybe if there was a free market for nukes then you could buy one and stick it to the man, but there isn't and won't be.
Pakistan has the bomb
Iran won't stop until it does
You can be sure Saudi Arabia is working on it too after the recent backstabbing by Obama
Seems like the dam is breaking
Tick Tock, Tick Tock...
How much thought have you put about the practicality of nuclear bombs?
How do you think that a statist would use nukes against an opponent that is dispersed between and around his/her whole taxpaying base, personal friends and family? Such an opponent does not gather together in one place.
In a confrontation between a government and individuals I can think of one kind of target that they are somewhat suited for: centers of power.
The technology and the warheads themselves have a much greater ability to sneak into the hands of those who want them than is commonly thought.
I agree with that. Things have a lifespan though, and there have already been many other social constructions which have died (e.g. some cults, religions), and I think governments are next.
Environmental factors and ideas change (e.g. technology) and make existing things less and less viable and new things more and more viable. Some old things get a new lease of life, get updated and mixed with new things. For sure this evolution can be dramatic at times, go through extremes until a new equilibrium is reached.
You're reading it too directly. The nuke is the trump card but it's not the entire hand. Sitting under the nuke is a hierarchy of deadly weaponry and personnel, extending down to militarized police, true of every nuclear state.
For internal matters, that is what is used. Using nukes would be like swatting flies with a rocket launcher, destroying the house in the process. Wrong tool for the job.
For a nuclear capable nation to fall, TPTB must prove unwilling or unable to suppress local dissent with coordinated police or military force: USSR being the case study. I stress that though the USSR fell, the State of Russia survived and the nuke-enabled military did too, minus a few territories, all of which also became States.
States evolve, only disappearing when they lose fighting capacity and are absorbed into another State. Spain did have a brief experience with Anarchism in modern times but it ended violently. Pockets of it do survive in Spain (eg the governance structure of Mondragon).
I agree that a sound way to defeat a militarized State is dispersed, popular dissent, enough to attract the soldiers and police into the ranks. Problem is that, all too often, said soldiers and police quickly assemble into a new government and the frying pan has become the fire.
I like your optimistic undercurrent, but I've resigned to pessimism. We're living in Brave New World. People have their Orgy Porgy, Feelies and Centrifugal Bumblepuppy. They're distracted, disengaged and diseased. Effective change requires solid engagement which only tends to come following severe and rapid socioeconomic collapse. Again, all too often, popular rage aims at the wrong targets, a new State emerges and it's the same old shit.
Some of the things that give me the optimism are new technologies. It is entirely feasible to put together a few existing technologies and have e.g. an armed drone that you could control remotely without leaving a trace and deter any tax collector or whoever tries to violate your personal rights. Or get something like anonymous crowdfunding for a whole swarm of drones and kill every aggressive statist in an area if need be. There is this asymmetry that most government agents find themselves confident enough, or just need to be open about the fact that they work for the (aggressive) government, while there are a lot of things that an anti-statist can do without revealing their identity. Someone is eventually going to be pissed off enough to kill the known government agent while the government won't be able to find out who did it. It can provoke several kinds of reactions from the government, but none of those work out well for them in the long run. Governments would eventually degenerate and revert back to fragmented and clandestine operations much like the other kinds of criminal enterprise that we know and can more easily keep in check.
At the same time more and more of the services that are today promised by governments get alternatives provided by the free market and decentralized cooperative solutions.
It sounds like your philosophy is essentialy "force equilibrium".
If nobody has superior power then nobody has the ability to abuse that power without getting smacked down. The ultimate "checks and balances".
It's a fine philosophy at all levels: personal, local, state, federal, and international; and one I also support, with two qualifiers to outline a point of confusion.
1: cold force equilibrium (low risk) is preferable to hot force equilibrium (high risk). Every nation could have nukes under MAD (hot equilibrium), or NO nations could have nukes (cold equilibrium). It's clear which is better.
2: wealth is power. Wealth buys people, particularly to kill other people. Excessive wealth disparity translates directly into a force disparity and that force is abused to maintain wealth. Here, hot equilibrium (large middle class) is preferable to cold equilibrium (everyone poor).
How does this mesh with a right-wing AnCap / Rothbardian position? I see it as incompatible, particularly due to point 2.
1: First of all, it's in every party's interest to have the most efficient weapons that can do an effective job at defeating any potential adversary. When a technology already exists (nuclear weapons) that is the consideration that matters. The other considerations are lower priority. When you have more accurate missiles - fine - you could reduce the yield to reduce or eliminate some risks (potential collateral damage). Any wishes of no nukes are irrelevant until there is something better that can do the same job, or until the job becomes easy enough to handle without nukes (i.e. there are no more potential adversaries which have appropriate targets).
Even then it is not totally clear whether it is better not to have any nuclear explosives, although it would certainly entail a cost possessing any. There are many lower priority factors which would play into deciding whether it is better to have them or not to have them (or any other kind of weapon).
I think you let a fear of something unknown burden your judgement on this one.
I think this point is more of a practical issue, rather than a philosophical one and that's why I give you this answer.
2: I do not agree that excessive wealth disparity translates directly into a force disparity sufficient to maintain itself via non-voluntary means.
The evolution of warfare is such that it becomes cheaper and cheaper to attain a force sufficient to defeat any potential adversary. Just as wealth over some level doesn't buy happiness, it also doesn't buy aggressive power.
Moreover, looking at disparity between individuals completely disregards cooperation (as a reminder, the majority of popular game theory concepts, including MAD, concern only something called "non-cooperative games", in other words games which have an artificial and unrealistic restriction of no cooperation). You can have cooperation even without any prior agreement. People can cooperate merely by coincidence of ideas or feelings. Cooperation on the non-aggression principle plus defence is a solution. People tend to betray each other or fail to cooperate on the evil ideas though.
"Our governance structures have evolved under selection"
The main evolution was in the development of obedience and only because it promoted survival. The social hierarchy.
Now it's the main threat to survival and that obedience will slowly change.
This article leaves out the most insidious phrase of all. The use of "National Interest" to support the corporate fascist MIC.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat in audio book version
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Education-and-Professional/Law/The-Law/6936
For any neophytes that might want an overview of anarchy
I love this article
Best quotes
Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.
“Anarchy is chaos”
The word “anarchy” comes from Greek ???????, meaning “without rulers,” or more accurately, “without beginning to take the lead.” It does not mean an absence of order, rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is chaos plus organization.
You have an enlightening contempt for the Authoritarian Establishment and a great repect for the individual - How old world American - love it.
Go Anarchy - Now we just have to wait till the establishment-loyal sheeple die off and get out of the way and we may have a shot at establishing an Ideal Anarchy.
"""To claim that establishing a constitutional republic counters the negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making a chocolate cake double-layered, one can magically turn it into something that is not chocolate.""""
What a joke. The whole writing reads like someone has come to strong conclusions and presented them as facts... Then you read some of the inane analogies and arguments... And then the discussion thereof in this thread and your left with a feeling of "there is no hope left for humanity"
That lack of hope should have been realized thousands of years ago.... thus making every single event and discussion moot.
Here is where we are... The world sucks and we have the power to change it... Again... But we won't... And if by some miracle we do... It will be business as usual in no time at all. We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again..
Just as the markets need to rinse by being left alone and not propped up... Humans need to rinse... As i believe Einstein said? WWIII and how it will be flought is uncertain, precisely... But certainly, WWIV will be fought with sticks.
Let's get to the sticks part already and good luck the next time around.
Your right and his conclusions are right on.
The world sucks because we allow it. And we allow it because we are too lazy to change it. Change amounts to responsibility which no one wants, thus the reason for laws and lawyers.
You are most likely correct in that we will do it again but only because we allow the system to fuddle the young minds with bullshit. Parents too lazy too even school their own.
And if by sticks you mean nuclear war I suggest the following link. Nothing or no one will survive to use the sticks,
http://thebulletin.org/what-would-happen-if-800-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-...