This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The State As A Fantasy
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada
The State As A Fantasy
If there were a prize for the best “do as I say, not as I do” politician, the latest winner would be California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein, who is currently leading a crusade to plug the White House’s recent spring of classified military leaks, is the Chairwoman of the powerful Select Committee on Intelligence. Because of her position of power, she has become “deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media.” In other words, Ms. Feinstein finds it appalling that the American public is finding out about the not-so-glamorous doings of its own government. Her scorn for disinfecting sunlight has inspired her to call for the prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for espionage.
This talk of super secretive government would be all fine and good for a minion of the security state except for one thing: Senator Feinstein is one of the biggest leakers in Congress herself. And it just so happens that her husband has benefited financially from contracting with the U.S. military. For all her talk of protecting the American people, Feinstein is just another well-connected thief in the societal racket known as the state. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald trenchantly observes:
That the powerful Senator who has devoted herself to criminally punishing low-level leakers and increasing the wall of secrecy is herself “one of the biggest leakers in Congress” is about as perfect an expression as it gets of how the rule of law and secrecy powers are sleazily exploited in Washington
In the scum filled world of politics, unscrupulous behavior is a permanent fixture. It’s why the rule makers go out of their way to convince the voting public that its best interests are being taken to heart. The vision of a righteous government is sold to the people not just on Election Day but everyday thereafter. As long as voters stay complacent in the fantasy that their elected representatives are fighting the good fight, outspoken critics of the state will remain a minority. No amount of shoddy logic, guilt tripping, or blatant lies will awake the masses before it’s too late and all previous memories of freedom have been violently stripped away.
The truth is suppressed by the fantasy being continually force fed to the public, not just by politicians and their teleprompters, but by the a vast portion of the media which acts more like a squawk box for the state itself rather than an independent observer. The New York Times, the supposed great standard-bearer of journalistic quality, recently admitted that its stenographers and reporters allow their writings to be contorted by the same public officials who they claim to cover objectively. These reporters, so desperate to get a few words with any government official, are willing to give full discretion on what is reported right back to the people whose interest lies in manipulating the information the public receives. As the Times article reveals:
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.
The unconscionable behavior of the political class should be thought of as a contagious disease that infiltrates any industry that comes within influence of the state. Government contractors, lobbying associations, favored corporations, and even the press all seek to use the monopolized power of government to further their own interests. Instead of attempting to roll back stifling regulations, many of these firms simply wish to get in on the spoils of the great extortionary scheme. The results are always the same. Politicians pretend to be saving the people from cold-natured capitalism while politically-connected businessmen and bankers act as if their commercial success is completely of their own doing. The hidden truth is both act in tandem to fleece the average taxpayer.
The fantasy then continues unabated. As F.A. Hayek recognized in The Road to Serfdom, central planners and their intellectual patrons achieve their power by gathering the
“support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”
No matter how many times government policy fails to deliver on its promises, the reasoning stays the same: Politicians just need more tax dollars to spend goods into existence, central bankers need to print more money, human rights must be stripped away to ensure safety, consumers need to spend more and save less, and government will always know best.
Today as most major economies are taking a turn for the worse, news outlets are filled with the pleas of esteemed intellectuals for further monetary stimulus and spending. Even those economists generally considered in favor of markets are looking to central banks, which are given a totally non-free market government grant of privilege, to induce a boom in lending and demand through printing money. As Pater Tenebrarum pointed out, it appears that Federal Reserve is close to announcing another round of monetary expansion. The Telegraph’s veteran economics commentator Ambrose Evans-Pritchard even went as far as to pen an editorial titled “Weimar solution beckons as manufacturing crashes in US Fifth District?” No one seemed to ask the more important question of “since when does destroying a nation’s currency and setting the foundation for the rise of a murderous regime actually help out manufacturing when all is said and done? “
Even the man on the street, unlike Evans-Pritchard and his money-crankish peers in academia and print media, realizes that adding to the stock of currency does not add to society’s overall stock of wealth. More paper dollars, euros, yen, etc. isn’t the same as more foodstuffs, personal computers, and cellular phones. When Zimbabwe’s stock market was skyrocketing to heavenly heights in 2007, the inflation lovin’ crowd must have looked on with delight at the uninhibited fruition of their favored policy. Grandmothers carrying wheelbarrows full of cash to the supermarket to purchase a few loafs of bread meant nothing in the face of accelerating GDP figures.
But again, the fantasy at play here is the idea that the state can create something out of nothing with the magic of the printing press. But as history proves time and time again, unbacked credit expansion always sews the seeds of its own destruction as the boom must inevitably turn to bust. The real beneficiaries of newly created fiat money isn’t society in general but, as Murray Rothbard notes, “the State, State-manipulated banks and their favorites” who are first in line to receive the currency first. Proponents of central banking must spend a good deal of time concocting nonsensical explanations to ensure the overall public realize how ripped off it really is.
At no place in time were governments ever formed with good intentions in mind. This is the unvarnished truth as opposed to the fantasy world that is indoctrinated first within public school classrooms and is repeated in various outlets until old age. The state being a burden on society is a universal principle that transcends through all governmental levels and sizes. It was recently reported that a thirteen year old had his hot dog cart shut down by city officials in the city of Holland, Michigan. Because of zoning restrictions aimed at protecting already established restaurants, the boy, Nathan Duszynski, saw his small enterprise succumb to the crookedness of local government officials.
Now just think about this for a minute. A thirteen year old was savvy enough and had the foresight to purchase a significant amount of capital to start a modest business. When most kids his age are sitting in front of the television, Duszynski was gaining real world business experience. His customers didn’t say no to his effort; the government did. The public is typically told that zoning laws are for their own safety when quite the opposite is true. Zoning laws, like practically any decree that stems from closed-door dealings of politicians, are to the benefit of some individuals at the expense of others.
Mr. Duszynski, by virtue of his entrepreneurship, has already accomplished more productive-wise than any lifelong bureaucrat or politician. It is this writer’s hope that the shutting down of his small business will serve as a lesson for him in that he won’t buy into the fantasy that the state exists to provide peace and liberty.
»
- 34001 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You mean reality and your religion and mysticism.
You have, yourself stated that man has never been truly free of some from government and implied that only form of government has made the difference (voting). I can somewhat agree. Since we agree that man has never been free from government, from what evidence are you able to ascertain that free of government, humanity would devolve into a violent chaotic road warrior mess? How can you describe what we have now as anything other than violence and chaos?
Back to your lesson in A is A.
In order to have a check on power, there must be some compelling force upon the actions of the leaders. Democracy has proven itself to be impotent. Religion has proven to be impotent. Any appeal to a moral or ethical code has proven to be impotent.
What will this force be that can compel people to use power for the benefit of the greater society? If we are to believe Lord Acton, power corupts. Therefore, it is the elimination of power from the equation that provides greater balance to the equation of governance.
Eliminate the police power of the state, eliminate the power to control the currency. Eliminate legal tender laws. Allow communities to be self enforcing with power decentralized across the nation.
People working collectively can accomplish great things and achieve great efficiencies, but not if the leaders have the power to influence and control the result. This does not imply that government is the best method of achieving this goal. Government is what we have attempted so far, but it has ALWAYS failed. Therefore, we must seek to accomplish these goals by a different method, one that treats power as the dangerous, toxic component it is.
Great theory, but it has never worked in practice anywhere throughout human history for longer than a few decades at most. Tryants always, always, always come on the scene sooner or later and collect/take power. Our system of government was a response to tryanny. It is ironic that people who claim to love liberty wish to undo the solution.
Our system of governmemnt has become a tyranny. So, why don't we try a new theory and put it into practice?
It has never worked? Wrong answer. Please refer to The Pennslyvania colony, Somalia prior to 1963, the "Wild West"- private contract wagon trains and mining operations.
The solution to social governance will hardly be solved in twenty years or a century, but we know where the problems lie: the police power of the state.
NOTHING you have advocated in all your posts has a scintillia of changing the current power structure. You want to work within a system that is toxic. Won't work. Try again.
"...for things like roads are schools and airports and scientific research and food for the poor are wrong". Sure, it is all for the poor. What a ridiculous argument, playing upon common sympathies. Why should we pay for the poor? Is that not the purpose of charity or private employment?
There is no good argument for theft- not even for "the poor".
Let me summarize your philosophy. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Fuck everyone else. Me. Me. Me.
Sound about right? That's fine, but don't try to sell the bullshit that you want to get rid of taxes or government for the good of the world like you all try to do. You don't want to contribute. You want all the benefits of our society but you don't want any of the rules or the costs. I get it.
You continue to evade my arguments. You change the subject, attempting to malign what I haven't even consented to. The propagandist is so easily revealed.
You have failed to explain how government will become better, you have failed to justify its' actions.
Any community based governance structure implies contribution, it requires the payment of personal wealth to be part of the solution. However, it does not create a State that can seize your wealth for its" purposes alone. This has nothing to do with me, but with us.
Try again.
Please tell me you're a 12y old kid.
A choice between 'me' and 'a slave of some circuits in your head' will always be 'me'. That 'me' is a very charitable person.
And how do you know that getting rid of government wouldn't be good for the world? Are you God?
Four hundred million people killed by government in the 20th century might have disagreed
We engage in voluntary interaction. For example, we love to make love but we don't find forcible rape to be a virtue as you do.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4053
I could accept the standard level of corruption you get from any politician, if I thought they still believed in America first. I don't believe that anymore.
Stupidest thing the US ever did was allow the proles to vote. It is easy to see who benefits, and it isn't the producers. Commies need to die in fire.
It is all about control, and half of the population thinks that is just bitchin. We are doomed. Idioocy reigns.
Blame the welfare queens all you want, but it is pretty obvious for anyone who cares to look that the people with the most power in this world -- the banking class and others who mostly inherited wealth -- produce nothing. 400 individuals have more money than 1/2 of the entire population of America. They control all of us and they have duped people like you into thinking that they should be given even more power.
They've duped people like you into thinking it's a great idea to give the vote to people who have no skin in the game by tossing bones to them, thereby keeping hard working Americans as slave labor forever more. Regardless of which way the election goes, just have the masses blame it on the right, or left, but keep those votes for more handouts coming in.
Quite the contrary. My proposed solution includes taking money out of politics, throwing out almost every incumbent, placing strict term limits on all state offices and higher, and other major changes. My problem with this author is that he wants to hand the keys to the oligarchs.
You dream the impossible dream, my friend. What you desire is not compatible with human nature.
Reagan was right all along. Government IS the problem.
How do you take the money out of politics? Are you unaware of black markets and how they function?
Are you ignorant of power and how it functions? Your solutions are the ramblings of a simpleton.
If all politicians are bad, how does throwing out all politicians solve anything? How do you control the selection process? and if you do, how is your system better? It just a different power group.
You cannot heal a toxic system, you can only mitigate its' effects. You must convert the system to one that eliminates the toxicity. You must find a different system.
Funny how whenever you guys are challenged in your fantasy that everyone will just get along without elected government to keep them down, you resort to name calling.
If the shoe fits. I don't see you providing a response to my argument.
Maintaining a state of peace and freedom is always a challenge but I believe that you can combat your oppressors more successfully if you don't hand them the whip with which to beat you.
We are not doomed.
You're here, aren't you?
Our species is waking up.
Don't stumble at the end of the race.
Objection! Still no photos of hot babes in football gear.
Sustained.
I have a website for that, if you have a credit card.
She's a wide receiver.
Link?
Oh you wish.
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/larry_flynt_the_right_to_be_left_al...
Be sure to note the precedent set defining RICO...
.
Did you have something to add Bob?
Just throwing this out there...what do James Holmes, Amy Bishop and Nidal Hasan really have in common? Why, there were passing through or working for academia weren't they?
Now, what are the odds of that?
I'm thinkin a case can be made that "institutions of higher learning" lead to death & debt.
It's his moment of silent prayer. He has to bow and face Washington.
Praise be to Gaia most merciful...lol.
And the winners of the Shadow Boxing Tag Team Championship Of The World are . . .
Very impressive boyz. Give yourselves a pat on the back.
Sooo, ummm...Bob.
What do you make of this James Holmes cat?
Wasn't his career interest about digging around inside peoples heads and finding out what makes them tick? What are we to make of this "gifted scientist" working on his PHD with federal grant money? Do you think his education made him homicidal?
And if so, what sort of waiting period do we need to apply to people trying to get into this field of study supported by our tax dollars?
I was sitting here this afternoon trying to think of what the federal government does for me personally. Some of these services may be only on a local level without federal funding, but I'm just thinking out loud. Water? Yes, but I have to pay for it every month. The postal service? Yes, but I have to pay to mail anything. Roads? Yes, but they are full of potholes, and I have to pay to use the Thruway. Schools? Yes, but my daughter goes to private school. Emergency services? Yes, but I have to pay to use an ambulance or if I call the fire department. I'm striking out here... what does the government do for me that I cannot do for myself? I can't think of a thing.
If you end up a road stain or a chalk outline, they'll clean you up. But yeah... that's about it.
Well, yeah... but you (or your family) have to pay extra for that, too. http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2012/06/25/disgrace-grieving-mom-billed...
They can tax the shit out of you...
Actually, it's the local authorities who will do that, not the Feds.
The federal government, as currently composed, is a giant protection racket and wealth destruction scheme.
I was thinking of gov't at some level. They are almost always the clean up crew.
Your house is on fire: Wait 10 mins for them to show up and try to stop the blaze.
Your house is being broken into: Wait 10 mins for them to show up and depending on what state you're in, consider saving your own ass by shooting the perp.
Your house was robbed: file a report.
We don't need more gov't. We need better citizens.
Putting aside how absurd your question is and how you simply take for granted everything that society affords you, how incredibly unexpected that a person of your ideology would view the entire issue in terms of what is in it for you.
society!=government
Heh. C programmer.
C#
You make a lot of assumptions there about my idealogy and apparently believe that pursuing a single line of thought at a given moment in time is somehow an indication of who and what a person is...but regardless... what is it that government does for me? You mentioned airports in another post, but I won't fly anymore because I prefer to have some say in who molests me. Military? Yes, but sadly they are spending all their time fighting illegal wars that have little to do with our security. Nation building, in effect, makes us less safe than we would have been if we had minded our own business. Absurd or not, this is what is on my mind at the moment.
To clarify, it isn't the benefits of society that I am currently questioning...it is the benefits of government.
Okay, I'll bite even though I suspect you will just switch gears and find another reason to be against everything that you don't want to contribute to financially. The society in which you live is defined by government. The power infrastructure, the roads (that carry not only you but your food, fuel, computer crap you buy so you can post on ZH, etc), the airports (whether you chose to fly or not, airports make commerce as we know it possible), your GPS unit that was developed due to government funding of the space program, the police that will come to your house if someone tries to rob you, the fire department that will try to save you if your house is one fire, the public school system that makes the large majority of the population literate and employable so that we don't resemble countries like Brazil with vast areas of extreme poverty and violence, and more other examples than I care to list. I agree with you that our MIC is out of control and must be reigned in. I agree that government as a whole is out of control and reigned in. That is a heck of a lot different from these ideologues that throw out terms like "statist," suggesting that all government of any kind is evil even as they bask in its benefits.
"the society in which you live is defined by government".
That's precisely the problem, dipshit.
In your fantasy world, the Rothschilds can rule you without regard to elections. Have fun with that asshole.
In your fantasy world, the Rothschilds can rule you without regard to elections. Have fun with that asshole.
Instead we have "the Rothschilds" (take that to mean the banksters, and the large corporate interests who own the politicians in DC) who rule us regardless of the outcome of elections. I am NOT having fun with that........................
Ciao, CZ
"vast areas of extreme poverty and violence"
You mean like CHICAGO?
That chicken was not raised with "CHICAGO VALUES".
Do I suggest that our system is perfect? No. Just better than it would be without the benefits of government. I happen to think our government is massively overblown and needs to be reigned in, but not eliminated. P.S. there is far less violence and poverty in probably a dozen countries in Europe and Scandavia that are far more socialist and "statist" than the U.S., so what is your point other than to reveal that you enjoy sitting around throwing red meat to your like-minded posters here who think Chicago is a dirty word because Obama is associated with it?
"Obama is associated with it?" What?
I was associated with it until December of last year,
Thank God my fam is out.
"Literate and employable".
Perhaps a night on the West or South sides will show you how well that government and it's schools are working.
Detroit? Oakland? Philly? Cleveland? Newark? Miami? Memphis?
Chicongo?
It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who assumes so much... especially when so many of their assumptions are false. ;) Where have I said anything about not wanting to pay for things? In actuality, I am more than happy to pay for value received.
As far as your list goes, fair enough. Let's just say I do obtain benefit from some of the areas mentioned (and I do...though not in many of them due to my efforts at becoming self-sustaining), and that the state plays no role in providing them. Would you take the position that if the government did not provide these services, they would not be provided at all? I tend to believe that they would not only be provided by the private sector, but at a much great quality and value than what we currently have.
I am not looking to eliminate government entirely, but it has burgeoned far beyond its purpose of preserving liberty and I believe the federal government has become the greatest current threat to our liberty. I don't look to the federal government to take care of me, or provide services...the states can if they so choose, but it isn't the job of the federal government. There is just no excuse for what we see in Washington today. If I have to see government in my face every second of every day, it is too damn big.
How do you "bask" in tyranny? How do you "bask" when over half of your labor is appropriated? There are more exmples than I care to list.
Government is evil, not that it has to be, but it has always become exactly that. Therefore, we need to change the paradigm, if we are to ever see a change.
Go back to your government desk, will ya?
"how you simply take for granted everything that society affords you"
Everyone who goes to live AWAY from society, off of the grid, so to speak, is still REQUIRED to cough up his/her "fair share" in taxes, to be doled out however government sees fit to dole them out.
Government does not do anything for the likes of those people, and yet, those people must pay for government.
Those people trade with others in similar circumstances, and they all have to pay a percentage of each trade to the government which does nothing, WHATSOEVER for them.
Now, I bring up these people not because it applies to me, but because the statist mentality demands that these people contribute, in order to help provide the safety net for the poor. Well, currently, and for the first time in the history of this nation, there are many more people who are sitting in the "safety net" than there are people who are paying for it... What does this mean for the rest of us who actually DO pay for it?
It means we have less political clout than those people who want our money..... Cut taxes for the people who actually work for a living? We would receive a warmer reception if we quit our jobs and applied for food stamps....
I do not like the government because it caters to those who need government services, NOT to the people who actually pay the bills. I for one wish to be left in peace.
Ciao, CZ
We would receive a warmer reception if we quit our jobs and applied for food stamps....
I believe that's the textbook definition of 'going Galt'.
Please rectify your recurring error. Society is not synonymous with government. The anarchist's or libertarian's disdain for organized violence does not bar him from voluntarily interacting with individuals who wish to interact with him. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this very simple idea?
I don't normally give free advice, but I am drinking heavily, behaving badly, and writing too damn many comments!
If you live in a place where you pay for water -- move.
Sell your 401K, take the hits. Find a place far from the coast, with a well and a fireplace, and some land. Buy it, and go there. Tell your boss whatever you have to. Tell him you found religion. Tell him you have cancer.
Don't wait, and don't worry.
Go in the clothes you are now wearing.
You've covered the boss boss, but what do you tell the wife boss???
Well -- when I did this -- 9 years ago -- I told her something like --
Man, you are drunk !!!
What does your government do for you that you can't do for yourself, you ask?
It builds $350 million dollar fighter planes. It drops bombs on weddings half a world away. It builds the largest bureaucracies ever seen. And it feels up your butt crack at airports. You can't do those things yourself.
No doubt. I could not have done this in a million years but I was forced to pay to have it done.
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/thumbnail.php?file=cat_117/1056.jpg&size=art...
One of the conclusions I've reached recently is that morality is the root cause of most evil.
Each of the moral spheres: harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity, can be hijacked to motivate people to do great evil.
For some reason the most effective scams are those in which the perpetrators present themselves as the solution to a problem which they create themselves.
"Even the man on the street, unlike Evans-Pritchard and his money-crankish peers in academia and print media, realizes that adding to the stock of currency does not add to society’s overall stock of wealth. More paper dollars, euros, yen, etc. isn’t the same as more foodstuffs, personal computers, and cellular phones. When Zimbabwe’s stock market was skyrocketing to heavenly heights in 2007, the inflation lovin’ crowd must have looked on with delight at the uninhibited fruition of their favored policy. Grandmothers carrying wheelbarrows full of cash to the supermarket to purchase a few loafs of bread meant nothing in the face of accelerating GDP figures."
Nice chart! And think of how retail sales would look in such disaster. Here's a question in support of your article. If printing to resolve the house debt and underwater mortgages is the solution, where are all the McMansions in Zimbabwe? Printing does not increase wealth, it transfers it to the party that is printing. Counterfeiting is illegal because it is ill gotten gains that destroys the monetary base. Counterfeiting is beneficial only to the party that is printing or to the people they gift the money to.
Excellent summary! Tyler. The contagious disease of the political class was in dramatic show mode last night in London. It was a circus for the people and a modern display of the police state to protect the frivolity.
The orchestrated War on Terror was really missing that moment of silence for the Israeli athletes’ killings (the Jewish homeland in planetary focus)…with the fireworks and pop culture from a helicoptered Queen Elizabeth to Beatles and Bond…because the whole world then would have witnessed the real reason for the most extensive security and surveillance operation in history - the frivolous circuses of the people protected by the Police State and the constant encouragement that the threat of terrorism will continue. And the Committee knew that.
John Whitehead on Lew Rockwell this weekend quotes the Christian Science Monitor's depiction of the multi-billion-dollar party called the 2012 Summer Olympics: “Salt Lake got to show that its Mormon community was open to the world. Turin got to show that it was not the Detroit of Europe. China got to give the world a glimpse of the superpower-to-be. And Vancouver got to show the world that Canadians are not, in fact, Americans.”
And what is London showing the world? … London is showing the world how easy it is to make the move to a police state...
Writes Whitehead:
Welcome to the 2012 Summer Olympics, the staging ground for the coming police state.
Under cover of the glitz and glamour of these time-honored Games, a chilling military operation is underway, masterminded by a merger of the corporate, military and security industrial complexes and staffed by more than 40,000 civilian police, British military and security personnel, as well as FBI, CIA, and TSA agents, and private security contractors. …
In addition to the usual tourist sights…visitors to London may find themselves goggling at the military aircraft carrier floating in the Thames, the Typhoon fighter jets taking to the skies, ready to shoot down unauthorized aircraft, aerial drones hovering overhead to track residents and tourists, snipers perched in helicopters, an 18-km high, 11-mile long, 5,000-volt electric stun fence surrounding Olympic Park, and 55 dog teams patrolling the perimeter. Several locations throughout London will also feature surface-to-air missiles, including some residential areas in East London that will have them perched on top of apartment buildings…
Roughly 13,000 private security guards provided by G4S, the world’s second largest private employer, will be patrolling the streets of London, under a $439 million contract with the British government. Due to some last minute trouble recruiting and training guards, 3,500 additional British military troops will be called in, making a total of 17,000 troops scheduled to police the Olympics.
More than 500 American federal agents, trained in the methods of security theater, will be on hand to assist Britain’s security forces. In fact, the CIA, State Department, and FBI have all been working closely with British authorities for well over a year in preparation for the Olympic games. TSA agents – infamous for stealing large sums of money from passengers’ luggage, patting down children and the elderly and handicapped, and, among other things, breaking diabetic passengers’ insulin pumps – will also be on loan to the British to assist with airport passenger screening during the Games, which will include fast-track fingerprinting for Olympic athletes.
There’s even a security patrol tasked with making sure that local businesses observe the government ban on symbols and words relating to the Olympics lest they cause economic harm to the “official” corporate sponsors, including Adidas, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and BP. These purple-capped government officials are authorized to enter businesses to look for violations, and can impose fines up to 20,000 pounds ($31,000). Included on the banned list are such words as games, 2012, gold, silver, bronze, summer, sponsors, and London. As Slate reports, “So far a London café has been forced to remove five offending bagels from its windows, as has a butcher who had the temerity to do the same with sausage links. Spectators have been warned that to risk wearing a garment adorned with the Pepsi logo may result in being banished from game venues and that nobody but McDonald’s can sell French fries at any Olympic concession stand. An old lady got tagged for sewing the five rings onto a mini doll sweater.”
And then there’s the surveillance. With one government-operated outdoor surveillance camera for every 14 citizens in the UK, Great Britain is already widely recognized as a surveillance society. However, in preparation for the Olympics, London has also been “wired up with a new range of scanners, biometric ID cards, number-plate and facial-recognition CCTV systems, disease tracking systems, new police control centres and checkpoints. … Even neighborhoods beyond Olympic park have been embedded with biometric scanners and surveillance cameras with automatic facial and behavior recognition technologies.
Unfortunately for the people of London and beyond, the UK’s willingness to host the 2012 Summer Olympics has turned this exercise in solidarity, teamwork and nationalism into a $17 billion exercise in militarism, corporatism, surveillance and oppression.
http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead50.1.html
In short, why do we have all these police? Answer: Because of the continuous war against countries in the Middle East by the U.S.-Britain-Israeli military-industrial-police-state complex.
Demonstrating that even the dimmest bulb can cast shadows in a pitch-black room, thank you, James E. Miller.
At no place in time were governments ever formed with good intentions in mind.
Uh oh. Can we expect backlash to this implication about the evil goals of the Founding Fathers?
Probably not. Not around these parts.
You brought it up.. start the conversation..
There's not much to say.
People here who lap up Miller's work and maintain the perspective that the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are models of perfection are failing somehow to understand their own philosophies.
It's not uncommon, but it's certainly either stupid or crazy, no matter how you look at it.
I'm a firm believer in the potential for anarchism, so in that regard, I'm on Miller's side. For some reason, though, he spends all his time bitching about what he doesn't like about today's system, when it would be far more useful to present the vision for anarcho-capitalism's method of preventing the weak, crooked, and sick from fucking everything up.
Example: is there an anarcho-capitalist model that'll feed Down's syndrome orphans?
is there an anarcho-capitalist model that'll feed Down's syndrome orphans?
You don't want to know - you just want to kill ancap ideas.
I answer this foolishness merely for the sake of newbies. I have no desire to excuse myself to worshipers of murderous systems.
An acap world handles the unfortunate with charity - same as ever.
Can we really imagine that states - murderers of hundreds of millions over just the last centurey - are morally superior to average guys? Puh-leeze. Were the streets of American full of starving old people and dying unfortunates in the 1800s? No, they were not - because average people got to keep their money, and because they were charitable with it.
Average people are - always - morally superior to states.
The state is - always - a thieving moral degenerate.
The state is the most efficient engine developed by man to concentrate the worst parts of human nature, and diminish the best parts.
You're so incredibly gifted as to know my secret intentions, despite everything I personally know about myself, and yet you can't come up with a real answer.
That's why you guys are such a joke. You're certain you have a perfect theory to work from, but anytime someone asks for practical information you fall back on vague generalities.
Here's my suggestion: an employee-owned business which provides child-care for a fee and offers product consulting services for businesses designing for the youth market. As possible, the wards/charges can perform productive tasks towards the chartered goal of caretaking for the Downers.
It's hella more realistic than expecting the 2000 people who own the planet to suddenly start paying for the welfare of the "little people."
In case you haven't noticed, despite the fact that "charity" is alive and well, the rich are not currently taking care of society's weakest members.
You can blame government for that, but it's complete bullshit. Government is at best a distraction. If the rich can buy islands and start wars and control goverments, they really WOULD be able to protect children from starvation and abuse if they had any interest in doing so.
Blunderdog,
Let me attempt to answer your question.
We have become accustomed to the idea that government is the only way to take care of every problem in society- whether it does or not.
To focus on an obscure result is not an appropriate test for any concept. Yes?
There are many problems that would need time and experience to find answers. AC has a system of theories, some of which have been tried and been successful (private security, arbitration courts, insurance, etc), but there are many the people would have to find new answers for. It is not a perfect model- we are not a perfect species.
For me, the question becomes one of what works? The present systems are beyond broken. They are unlawful, they are criminal and they kill with ruthless precision and regularity.
When will we be willing to give something new a chance? Will it not grow and metamorphisize on its' own? Will there be problems and setbacks? Hard not to be. Still, what choice is there?
I don't have all the answers, haven't met anyone that does, but I do know fucked up and tyranny- and that is what we have.
That was an honest and thoughtful answer, Sean. Thank you.
The trolls on this subject are usually the same guys, bent on killing any idea that impinges on their beloved state. The state can provide utterly horrific results, yet these persons will stain to find one thing that might go wrong on planet ancap, then reject the whole concept for that single flaw.
As I said elsewhere, the state is morally degenerate. That is the core of it all. Ancaps are willing to live and let live. Statists enslave everyone, destroy those who object, and declare themselves righteous.
To focus on an obscure result is not an appropriate test for any concept. Yes?
Try focusing on ANY result.
This is a physics problem. We're talking about changing our methods for solving certain problems. Here on the board, there are supposedly MANY believers that anarchism can work--we're not talking about Yahoo! boards where you have to overcome the initial resistance to the idea of changing things. And despite that, no one can be assed to provide an answer to any question about a better approach to ANYTHING.
There's no way we're going to get from a state-dominated society to the perfect anarchic model overnight. In order to get from point A to point B, we'll need parallel systems operating independently of each other. The perfect example is something like Hezbollah--it is a non-national government that operates alongside the current nation-state borders and provides an alternative to the state governments of Lebanon, Israel, etc. They run schools and welfare agencies, provide some form of "criminal justice" system and conflict resolution, and engage in the equivalent of national defense against external state aggressors.
Where is the comparable vision from the anarcho-capitalists?
Obviously reading Miller and agreeing that "shit is fucked up and bullshit" does nothing to effect any kind of CHANGE.
Surely with all the like-minded posters here, SOMEONE should be able to provide some kind of positive idea for how to accomplish something. So why is it that a person such as myself, asking what SHOULD BE A DEAD-SIMPLE QUESTION, gets no meaningful response?
Charity? Sure. Just like justice and freedom and honor.
Platitudes. We can all agree the current structures are broken, and we SHOULD all understand that without a vision of where we're going, we'll be stuck with this garbage forever.
(It's tiresome, too, that after almost 2 years I'm still getting the same pathetic straw-man responses that I personally am some kind of big-government statist. Jeez, it seems I have a better imagination for the anarchist or minarchist future than the wild-eyed ancap zealots. Your "movement" is not going to get much teamwork going if asking how to do something results in nothing but misguided personal attacks. Duh.)
Try "Anarchy and The Law" by Stringham. That is a start. There are plenty of ideas and solutions explored. The problem here is the lack of structure that is the nature of anarchy. Have you ever looked at the history of anarchy? Scores of authors and each one has a different modus operandi. Which one wins? You can't know, until the opportunity presents itself.
Anarchy is not for the anal planner, it is for the responsible community member that desires to provide leadership without the trappings of power.
However, you have a very valid point: where are the solutions?Where are the examples? While there are historical examples of contract societies, clan/ pastoral societies and colonies run without central government, let us consider a more modern example.
A community that operates on social credit with the addition of sound money and some fiat currency from the current State. The community could slowly remove itself from the control of the state by using social credit for most transactions. This eliminates the need for money, the payment of taxes for income and the fee systems of the banks. By transferring fiat income into sound money, they can build a community wealth sysytem that can be used to create power, water and sewer systems, etc. Additional fiat could be used to pay taxes to the existing government until it collapses.
Communities could then establish communication hubs with other communities for trade opportunities to acquire goods and services they might need. Power stations could be built. Arbitration and insurance companies established. These communities could then slowly eliminate government positions and transition to a completely private source economic model.
Would the community be a reflection of all current modern communities? Probably not. There would be trade-offs. Still, people would be free to choose the best solution for themselves without the need for revolution. Barter and social credit systems have existed for thousands of years and are the most common reset option after a breakdown in governance structures. They are incredibly flexible and easy to establish.
Now, what about the down syndrome child? Last time I checked, they need very little care outside the extra burden placed on the parents. Whom, were the ones that bore the child and therefore, bear the responsibility for it as well- or are we going to throw personal responsibility out the window? The costs are cheaper in a private medical system, then in a government assured of profit for corporation system and the care may be better as well. Doctors will not cease to exist in an anarchy model, they will merely still make house calls and may take payment in trade. Now, how is that problematic?
Last time I checked, they need very little care outside the extra burden placed on the parents. Whom, were the ones that bore the child and therefore, bear the responsibility for it as well- or are we going to throw personal responsibility out the window?
I used the example of orphans for a reason, you know.
But regardless--we both know that there are many people who for whatever reason are incapable of self-preservation. Mental illness, congenital problems, physical trauma, whatever. I believe one of the reasons so few people will entertain any discussion of anarchism is because they don't want to live in a world in which there are starving beggars in the street, but there are often no good answers as to how to mitigate such a problem after the abolition of the welfare state.
I'd propose something like homestead grants for the development of self-sufficient communities, somewhat like Indian reservations. The Israeli kibbutzes were relative success stories in that regard. The government currently "owns" vast tracts of land which are rented out to profit-seeking private ventures for things like resource extraction.
Providing similar access to WELFARE-seeking private ventures would be a lot cheaper and more logical than shuffling other people's money around. The only problem is that it has to start somewhere, and the folks who need the opportunity have neither the money nor the credit to provide the starting stake.
I'm not sure any existing form of state government has resolved how to take care of those that are incapable of taking care of themselves. The welfare system is a failure in that regard. If anything, it has made the problem worse by providing an empty promise. I still see plenty of homeless people and beggars in the street. Private charities still abound- and do good work.
Before the welfare state, families took care of their own- there was no other choice. Another opportunity to incentivize responsibility.
I'm not sure we realize just how far the state has taken us down the rabbit hole and what a return to the surface would entail. Creating dependence in all areas of life at a slow creep over a hundred years can cause us to forget how life was conducted before government was so pervasive.
More important, this present system is not sustainable. It results in a continuing drift towards greater poverty for almost everyone. Tyranny must rise to protect the wealthy. Is this what we really want? Is this acceptable? When do you choose to effect a change? When it's too late and the choices are draconian?
Local community voluntaryism has great appeal as a transition mechanism for me. It eschews violence and puts an emphasis on building a new prosperity while slowly going through the process of withdrawl from the State. People need to start investing in each other and let the government fail. It will collapse anyway- the US and every western nation is bankrupt. They have made promises they cannot keep and now they will try to steal what wealth is left and accessable.
The responsible actor will place their family and community first. We rarely associate this concept with anarchy, but in my mind, it is the first rule so to speak. Technology and the access to education has made government obsolete. I refuse to believe the only way forward is by tyranny.
I always enjoy our discussions. I appreciate a good mind.
Our Founding Fathers were against government. They gave us the tools to break government. And what did we do? We broke the tools.
Best comment today: We broke the tools.
The Constitution is not a model for anarchism, tho. That's an epic fail.
Can't really argue with that... but you don't really believe that tens of millions of American patriots, gun owners, active-duty military, veterans, reservists, police, federal marshalls, and so on have become completely powerless and are inconsequential to the present situation... do you?
Actually, the founding fathers were against popular passion and democracy. The Constitution was designed to defeat them. They wanted a more central government, as the Articles of Confederation did not give them the control they desired. So, rather than amend the articles (which would have been lawful) they went around them and started constitutional conventions to effect- essentially a coup d'tat.
"The First American Republic" by Chrolton is a fine start.
It’s well known that the Founders were opposed to democracy and to what they considered to be a kind of mob rule, but they did not want to form a central government because of their experience with the monarchies of Europe. They did, however, want to have a central document, a single philosophy, that would protect individual rights against what? - central control by special interests.
The principle of the founding documents was to protect individual rights and property. And what better way than to harness the mob that would be immediately controlled by a tyrannical force. Because the mob is uninformed it is putty in the hands of oligarchs, as we have seen.
The central point is they did want a central document, something that would be unchanged, and not a central government as you say; as a matter of fact it was the understanding of almost all colonists that the government would operate at the pleasure of the states.
Don’t use a play on words to rewrite America’s founding history as the liberals do who came in to take it. Our founding government worked for a long time because there was a majority of honorable men in America and when they saw problems cropping up they could agree amongst themselves on how to stop them. We now have a majority of dishonorable men, able to be bought off, able to lie and able to use the government for their own benefit and special interests and not those of their constituents. These were not the kind of men who orginally operated American government at least up until the Civil War.
The founders were merchantilists. They also had invested considerable personal wealth in the revolution and hoped to have those funds returned. They wanted a king and only Washington's refusal stopped them.
The principle of the founding document was a central governing power to protect the merchantilists. The Bill of Rights was a necessary addition, required by the States and their representatives in the Continental Congress. Please don't attempt to rewrite history. If you need additional resources, ask.
They did want a central government and that is what they got. They approved of the monarchy, just not as it was being applied to the colonies. Their constitutional rights were being violated because they were colonists.
You are the one attempting to rewrite history. Our government has not worked since day one. If you studied the history you would know that. Start with Morris, Hamilton and the First National Bank. The collapse of the bank, the machinations of the Rothschilds and the Second National Bank. The Founders were land speculators, do some more research , you might just see why we got what we did.
"They also had invested considerable personal wealth in the revolution and hoped to have those funds returned."
And they also had considerable wealth (and some of their lives) destroyed for signing on to this endeavor against a monarch.
"The Bill of Rights was a necessary addition, required by the States and their representatives in the Continental Congress."
Don't pass over this so briskly Sean. There is more there than meets the eye.
Without that simple, additional document, enshrining the rights of the people >>>over<<< their new government, that government would have never existed.
It has always been the consent to be governed. Without that consent everything falls apart. Consent is well recognized in Natural Law and was known by them and the common man.
This idea didn't come from kleptocrats. It came from the people.
Without the consent to be governed in a certain way there will always be rebellion. No law or government or armies can stop it once its underway because government can only stand on those backs who don't resist it.
I resist it at every turn...out of a little compassion for my fellow man and in large part pure spite on my part.
Its the least I can do ;-)
My point being, the Federalists didn't want the Bill of Rights added. It was added later. Their idea of consent was voting rights for what amounted to between 3 and 13% of the people- landowners and men of wealth.
The State has never needed the consent of the people, merely their approval. If the founders wanted people to vote, they would not have limited the franchise. If they thought men had inalienable rights, they would have provided them to All men and women, not just white men of property.
The Constitution is a contract. Like all contracts, it REQUIRES the consent of BOTH parties. However, we have never been given an opportunity to accept or deny. Our approval has been assumed. Lysander Spooner being quite elegant on that subject.
Further, being indoctrinated from the age of five works against a free and clear acceptance of this responsibility. Therefore, people need to be able to make this choice in full understanding.
If our allegiance is a product of force, there is no nobilty in it. There is only coercion and that is the same as slavery, regardless of how we present the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
When forming a government at a fixed point in time you make accomodation for the present realities and the future or it doesn't get done at all.
That is exactly what happened.
This was never proposed to be a democracy. Put another way, do you think its better or worse for the country at large that Kim Kardashian's or Brad Pitt's vote cancels out yours? They are both wealthy land owners but both as dumb as stumps.
I can't accept your assumption. There is no need for either- this is the problem of a state. By setting the rules, you give those capable of creating influence the opportunity to game it- and they do. Nothing has to "get done", the society will create the tools it needs for the job at hand and then allow them to fall away or become entrenched based on their economic value.
What happened was a compromise that allowed the federalists to get the change in government they wanted. The structure allowed them to make further changes, solidifying their rule as time went on. The People were marginalized at every turn. It continues today.
I never said it was supposed to be a democracy. I made the point they were not heroes. They were opportunistic men that took advantage of a bad situation with the monarchy to effect a change in power that put them in charge. This change in leadership was neither heroic nor pantheonistic. It allowed for a priviledged class to remain in control of the political economic system of the colonies. This is the reason the antics never changed, from the first national bank to the civil war to FED to Roosevelt's fascism to our present totalitarian government.
America is the history of good people fighting the effects of the Elites. We had a chance when the laws were simpler and less comprehensive- now, we are just smothered in slavery. The Constitution did NOTHING to protect us- it, in fact, provided the legitimacy to make debt slaves of us all.
Every society will have rules, theres no way around it.
From the mundane...don't pick the flowers in my garden because I planted them for my family to enjoy, to the more fatal don't rape/kill my sister.
Those are societal rules.
For the weak and timid who will not or cannot stand against either of the above on their own, society institutes government. It can be as loose as vigilante neighbors hunting down human predators and dispatching them on the spot or as formal as laws, search warrants & trials...but its still government.
Just because the predators have taken over places of high importance doesn't mean that correct government itself is bad. It just means the predators have gotten themselves into positions of importance...they can be deposed, its not like that has never happened before.
I always end every conversation with an anarchist (if thats the proposal) the same way. I have full faith in your and my ability to protect ourselves. The little old lady down the street, not so much.
I always end a conversation with a socialist (if thats the proposal) the same way. In a small "tribal" community it will work because of small scale. The larger the community the more chiefs required. My assumption is an Indian (native) configuration. It still requires direction & expectation by the chief and the community.
I'm for small limited government of the republic variety based on the rule of law, not no government at all. No one is above the law. This isn't being practiced now...witness Jon Corzine, insider trading by elected officials etc.
The predators inside and outside of government will always be with us, thats just human nature. Our duty to each other is to root them out if we expect to remain free or return to when we were free'r.
I always enjoy it Sean, I think we both want the same thing, we just have different ways and expectations of others for getting there.
Every society will have rules- agreed.
However, society does NOT create government to protect those less capable of defending themselves. Why would a predator want a stronger society? Why would a predator want laws and regulation? Unless they were going to co-opt them for their own purposes?
Government is always created by the leadership of a community, yes? This leadership always contains predators, yes? Further, why go to all the trouble of creating and maintaining a government, if you are not going to benefit from it? Yes? The laborer as a class has never been protected by government. If you have a citation, please insert it here.
I agree that predators will always be with us, but giving them the police power of the state to abuse the herd is wrong headed. The only protection that a herd has, is self defense, but in order to use it, it must be free to act according to its' needs- not the dictates of law or a rule imposed by a predator.
Power must be decentralized, because it cannot be controlled. The only way to do this is to invest the power of veto at the lowest level- the sovereign person. All power must be subordinate to that. That way, any liberty surrendered by the person is voluntary.
Will there still be predators? yes. Will there still be victims? yes. However, they will not be empowered by the state, protected by the state and raised to a class above the people of the society.
There is NO combination of rules and regulations that will correct the deficiencies of government. History has proven it. Therefore, we are left at the unopened door. Do we try something new, unknowable, frightning and exciting or do we continue to trudge down the road to perdition and slavery? Tough decision!
DP
Example: is there a government model that doesn't kill thousands or millions of people?
I'd worry about that before worrying about whether charities can help care for Down's syndrome orphans. Which begs the question: would you feed one?
You're not going to find a lot of "anarchist governments," and if you think really hard, you might be able to come up with a hint as to why that is.
Yes. Obtain food. Prepare food. Serve food. Clean up.
Brilliant. So, something like, "steal food from your neighbor and give it to the kids."
You might want to be more specific, as the current suggestion is open to abuse.
But why bother? In theory, it's all the same, and it'll just keep not happening forever.
No. Create value. Trade on that value for food. Continue as stated above.
I wonder what would happen in the USA if the United part were removed, that all 50 states would be independent countries instead? Is the state identity among populace going to be stronger than "being American" in the future? Especially if federal government collapses badly due to skyrocketing debts.
Only thing that will cure this ponzi scheme is when all the perpertrators eat thier young in canalbilizing the remains of the last true man labor hours into us treaasury printing.
There is another option vote the bastards out and vote the new bastards in, at least the next bunch of leaches will take awhile to get on line , even if both parties are lapdogs for the fractional reserve bankster system.
MUST SEE COMMENTARY FROM DAVID STOCKMAN :
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/new-economic-collapse-video-it-mak...
Advice only:
Be careful on how the Senator Feinstein story is being spun on security leaks. At the end of the day, it’s all about protecting self-interests & dirty secrets which may haunt/excel career ladder climbing public servants.
Let’s review this from another angle. Same group has now defined a computer keyboard just as deadly as a round of ammunition. How can the two be combined under the same bill? Easily.. they don’t want you to be able to publicize Government fraud on the internet and/or take the law into your own hands. This bill kills two birds with one stone. HAHAHAHA.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cyber security bill: By Ramsey Cox - 07/26/12 07:29 PM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
First, they took away your toy water guns.. then they took away…
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/dc3034.doc.htm
Open to debate or discussion.
A few things to note here:
1. "the political Class" as some like to call it does include some lifelong politicians. However, there are plenty of revolving door bureaucrats who split their time between government and the so-called private sector. You can be sure their government time is spent ensuring an easier road for themselves and their company during the private sector time.
2. For decades I've heard half-literate dumbasses complaining endlessly that we need to run government more like a business. Well they got their wish. We've had Gov-corp since at least Reagan (yeah, I know it's been there since the beginning, but Reagan stepped on the accelerator). I hope all those dumbasses are happy with the results.
3. It's easy to blame the politicians for all the greed and corruptions, but all politicians are is a reflection of our society at large. The vast majority of Americans are shallow, greedy, easily corruptible, sellouts themselves who's anger basically lies in the fact that they are not on the inside getting the goodies. I would bet heavily that the majority of Americans would jump right into line and play the corrupt politician role quite well if given the chance, instead of playing the role of a reformer.
Conclusion: the American people have gotten the politicians and economic system they deserve, thanks to the simple minded majority.
Actually, our government has been infiltrated with grownups who had a bedwetting childhood experience. They’re so mad no one could escort them to the toilet during the night. Instead, they woke up on their piss drenched mattress in humiliation.
You are exactly correct that we get the government we deserve. The best way to degrade the government is to degrade the culture.
The Cultural Marxists figured this out almost a hundred years ago, and they have been remarkably successful. So successful that not a man in a million even knows who they are or how they operate, even though they are pretty easy to spot once you know what you are looking for.
I don't think it's anymore the cultural Marxists fault than it is the fault of greed obsessed corporatists. The whole left/right, BS is just trying to blame one over the other when the whole shit is to blame. It's like the dimwits who still live in the cold war era of socialists, communists, capitalist, etc... when none of those labels exist in their theoretical form in reality. But hey, we've been told that we're supposed to hate Marxists or socialist or whatever, so we do.
The American population is an intellectually lazy lot. The majority views itself as big time players who's boat just hasn't come in yet, hence their undying ability to vote against their own economic interests time and time again, while making life even easier for their owners.
It seems you have a real problem with Marxists, but you can bet the Corporatists would use Marx or anything else they could find if it helped them get richer. There are more basic problems at play here.
You don't go far enough. The Corporatists and Marxists are married at the hip.
You are correct. Obama's mentor, what's-his-face, and the rest of the cultural marxists have wreaked untold damage, but don't start thinking that tens of millions of American patriots, gun owners, active-duty military, veterans, reservists, police, federal marshalls, and so on are powerless and inconsequential. They are not.
BRILLIANT!
"Democracy" is indeed mob rule. At least Michael Savage got one thing right, politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
Yes, let’s give up all attempts to be honest people and to have honest governments and intuitions.
A return to warlord tribalism, leadership by the strongest, is nature's way. The burdensome infrastructure of civilization can be simplified.
Peace? As we'll be busy defending the borders of the territory our warlord has claimed, there won't be any opportunity for big wars.
There is a chance, however, that some warlord will make an alliance with a neighbor and organize in a quasi-governmental way; you know cooperation for a greater community, to increase security and stability.
The warlord might also arrange for succession order to perpetuate the tribal community.
Bloodlines might not work, so some method of leadership selection might be created.
Damned evolution!
The unfunded mandate of life, where survival and security is only accomplished by virtue of the "community motive," leads to a need for community organization for stability and security.
At some point, there is an environment for the "profit motive" to operate.
Sadly, tribalism is looking better and better. However, I think I would prefer the term Urban Land Pirates... Arrgh!
We did have common community motive called the Rule of Law, aka, the Constitution. Theoretically, the only unlimited authority within our system remains the authority of the masses. The evil genius of the usurpers is to convince us real sovereigns that only the hired help in DC get a set of keys to the kiingdom.
The good cop/bad cop routine pitting the people against each other is purposeful to distract us from the coup taking place. We have the legal authority to make it stop, not that the law matters to them, but it is important to remind ourselves of that periodically. They can only kill us all once.
A return to warlord triablism, leadership by the strongest, is nature's way.
Bullshit, that's the Hobbseian way, and it is false.
Released from the state, most people behave quite well. Perfectly? No. But are you REALLY going to deny that the state produces horrific results?
How many hundreds of millions need to die before you consider something aside from the state as the untouchable model of superior human life? How many more wars do you need? IIs there any number, or is questioning the state eternally forbidden?
Released from traffic signals, most cars and drivers behave quite well. Everybody knows there are less accidents and less severe accidents at intersections not controlled by traffic lights. Between Zeitgeist Moving Forward and the Drake interview, I cannot fathom why more people cannot comprehend that the state goes or we all go.
We tried to limit government by separating the powers and strictly limiting it's role by law and through competition among the branches. It was a brilliant attempt, but the walls have been breached for some time. Rothschild was right, doesn't matter who is making the laws as long as the bankers control the currency. Gotta end the FED.
...and they're lucky they haven't been tied to the back of a truck...
The STATE is a fantasy. It's a mental construct. The people that claim to represent the "State of X" collude when describing the worse possible scenerio as anarchy. They do this because it excludes them from power.
When a DA says "I represent the State of X" what does he mean FACTUALLY? He doesn't know.
http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20120721.html
You all should check out the latest broadcast of the No-State project every Saturday 4PM Est on the internet at LRN.FM. There are also satelite and terretrial FM radio feeds.
The corporate state, as a juridical person, has taken over the public trust known as government.
The state as we know it (mental construct or otherwise) will be going the way of the dinosaur after the MASS ARRESTS, the dissolution of the FED, and the return of real money and the Constitution. This link is set to start at the 2nd hour of the Drake interview, but you may want to listen from the beginning in this case... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/
"The results are always the same. Politicians pretend to be saving the people from cold-natured capitalism while politically-connected businessmen and bankers act as if their commercial success is completely of their own doing. The hidden truth is both act in tandem to fleece the average taxpayer."
Oh ......I see......in other words....
FASCISM
You all Get it, we live in fachism light or hard, give it what ever window dressing you like. And when somebody tell you a society has fallen into anarchy, tell them NO, you can not fall into Anachy, only into feudalistic tyranny. A society can evolve into anarchy, but it has yet to happen.
Just musing. Aren't "leaks" just the truth escaping?
fabulous essay....feinstein is a nazi and would be perfectly comfortable with adolph hitler as president. there is no palpable difference between the two....they are both corrupt, murderous, criminal thugs who seek to glorify themselves with ill gotten gain and power...
the mindset will not change....every institution in society works in concert to mass produce sheople....military, school, corpocracy, church, government, home owner's associations, all seek to produce obedient slaves....and with all of these useless leeches aging, they will trade in anything for "security"
Ref:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Dianne-Feinstein-Stil... POS!
Note: Pelosi's husband and sweetheart land deals on taxpayers dime! POS!!
great read, Mr. Miller
That article is gone... poof!
Anyone remembers the last episode of 'Fantasy Island', Tatoo is that you 'de plane, de plane."
jarvis - "cunts are still running the world".
I thought Vaginaphobe Barney Frank said that.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Dianne-Feinstein-Stil...
I'm really in need for a new set of spectacles
Pay people not to work and they stop working. Take stuff from people who are still working and they'll stop, too. The only people that benefit from such a system are the government/banker moneychangers.
Government is a scam. When the perpetrators of the scam get too greedy, they take so much that there's not enough left to maintain the illusion. This is how empires collapse.
No time to debate, but a quote from Jesse:
"The corporations, in one form or another, own the housing, pay the wages, charge what they will for the food and medicine, and essentially own the company store in a pernicious monopoly whose sole goal is to sustain and maximize itself as its own end.
...
The crony capitalist system is rigged, and it exploits the poor, and that is what makes most of them poor, and keeps their children the same way unless they are both incredibly bright and incredibly lucky. A few may make it, but most do not. And sometimes those who make it are among the worst, because they wish to forget who they are and where they have been."
Not saying the government isn't owned, but its the corporate masters who are pulling the strings. Throw away the government and we lose even the possibility of trying to contain the globalization of worker units. Mises needs some new material.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/07/about-poor-and-taxes.html
Government once sanctioned chattel slavery, now it sanctions corporate slavery.
See the problem?
As Washington's Blog posted, corrupt government officials should be put in jail alongside corrupt banksters. Crony capitalism is the problem, which points at both public and private corruption.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/corrupt-government-officials-should-be-in-jail-alongside-corrupt-banksters.html
Human life is too short to apply Austrian economics at the top of the greatest 'wealth ponzi bubble' in known history. The resulting "burning pits of diesel' and 'Mad Max sceneario' would be an understatement. If this was 1972, that could be entirely a different set of circumstances.
Jesse's blog should get Mother Teresa's award for its altruism, unselfishness and contribution that it makes in the field of economic journalism.
The global economy itself is a fantasy as it is built essentially on money.
This is a process. Governments have spent themselves into near bankruptcy. Companies will feel the pain when cuts or eventual government defaults occur.
And when the momentum turns down, people, moreso politicians, may start to wake up to what they have really created.
"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ..." Posterity refers to our future, specifically our children. Oh how we have forgotten.
Here in blighty(UK) none of us ever realised that every pound we ever earned was a lottery ticket that we never understood the odds of getting its value back. One way of decreasing the odds of getting it back was putting it in a bank this made it increasingly unlikely you would get your money back. then our gubberment encouraged the use of pension plans giving huge tax relief and assistance to anyone willing to place their lottery tickets in one of these schemes. People will be amazed how few of their tickets will return the money paid for them even if you have millions the shock will be bigger.
Precious Metals(money) versus Lottery ticket the choice is ours....