Thursday, May 19, 2011

Statism Is Slavery

Ran across this video on the Daily News Blog:



Kind of makes the question, "Why do you want to destroy the government?" a little easier to answer.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Save Our Government

My brother, who does not share my philosophy, often comments that I wish to "destroy the government." This is not true. I wish to preserve the government, and I contend it is he who wishes to destroy it. 

To him, this would make no sense. But here's what I mean. To me, the purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. Human energy and the social order can overcome almost any obstacle, but for this social order to exist we must be physically secure from attackers, and we must have an orderly and reliable method of mediation disputes. 

It is to this end that government is instituted. Government is the organization that is responsible for protection and dispute resolution. Now, there are libertarian anarchists that claim that there is no need even for a government to do these things, that defense and dispute resolution can be voluntarily coordinated. Are they right? I'm not sure.

But if are going to have government, then a proper government must defend the life, liberty, and property of all citizens. This is the government I defend and that my brother wishes to destroy. He advocates any number of laws that would effectively destroy the ability of the government to protect everyone.

He is in favor of any laws that would actually have the government take the property it is supposed to be defending and hand that property over to others. Such a law would turn the government essentially into a plunderer who then turns around and bestows his loot on those he wishes to favor. So much for defending property.

He is in favor of laws that make citizens essentially into serfs, that tell us what we may eat, with whom we may trade, and under what circumstances, and what we are allowed to posses.

It is essential that we save our government from the people who would destroy it, who would enact laws that steal our liberty, steal the food from our children's mouths, and rob the fruits of our labor. What people often refer to as "big government" is not a form of government at all, but a form of tyranny, which is the opposite of government. It plunders rather than defends, kills rather than sustains. 

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Don't Boss People Around

I run across a lot of people who say things like, "I really want people to do X, but I'm afraid they won't do it on their own. Therefore I suggest we create a law that forces them to do X." Personally, I consider this immoral, which is why I am in favor of only those laws designed keep the peace and protect us from those who would break the peace. In other words, the law should protect us, not make us servants to others.


Thinking back over almost every political discussion I've ever had, I see them all following the same pattern. One person will be supporting a law that takes the liberty or property of others, while the other person will oppose this law. One person wants to loot or enslave other people, while the other opposes said looting or enslavement.


The proponents will provide many reasons why bossing others around is a good thing. These reasons often involve economic theories. But remember that fundamentally they are advocating using the law to boss others around. I will always come down on the side of opposing any law designed to advance someone's pet project at the cost of others' liberty.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Paperbugs

I was reading an article called Why Silver Is Still The Best Revenge « Across the Street, and I ran across a line that made me chuckle:
Draw your own conclusions regarding bubbliciousness. Still I can’t help but getting a little misty when I see the paperbug’s concern for the silverbugs. Thanks guys, but your sentiments are about as insane as people on the Titanic screaming to those already in life boats, “Come back!!! This ship is unsinkable and we’ve got technical analysis to PROVE it!” Sure you do, but methinks you’re just after our lifeboat.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Nature of the State

Does one man have the right to enslave another?  Does one man have the right to order another about?  If we are all created equal and have equal rights, I see no reason why one man should legitimately rule another.

Do numbers make a difference?  Do two men have the right to enslave another?  How about a million? 

Such questions have made me question the very idea of democracy itself.  Five men could vote to kill a sixth, and his single vote of opposition would do him no good.

I am coming around to see government less as an expression of the Lockean social contract but rather as Franz Oppenheimer described it.  Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the social contract theory of the state and propose a conquest theory of the state.  He describes the state as a institution forced by a victorious group of men upon a defeated group.  The purpose of the state is to regulate the dominion of the conquerors over the vanquished, and secure itself from revolt. 

Compared to the social contract  theory, Oppenheimer seems much closer to the heart of the matter.  The social contract theory seems to break down when we ask how each individual goes about agreeing to the contract.  Or how does an individual go about leaving the contract.  One soon runs up against the fact that the social contract is imposed on us without our choice and is impossible to exit short of fleeing our home. 

Much clarity is acquired when one dispenses with the notion that we have entered into some mutually beneficial voluntary compact.  If one instead realizes that we are operating under a system of rules established by a conquering class over the conquered class, questions of politics become not those of right and wrong but those of political power. 

The objective for liberty lovers then becomes not to theorize about the state, but to resist the state.

The Arctic Patriot sums it up nicely:
The Essence of the Matter...

We only have the rights we are willing to defend.
We only have the rights we are willing to kill and die for.

Government cannot grant rights.
Rights must be secured from tyrants and bought with blood.

Government cannot take away your rights.
You must choose to give them away.

If two men vote a third into slavery, he is justified in resistance.

If a thousand do likewise, the one may still resist.

If two hundred and thirty million voters consign one person to slavery, he is justified in resisting by any means available.

No matter what is legislated, no matter what voters decide, you are free.

Only you, through conscious choice, can change that.

Resist.

-Arctic Patriot

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Someone In Texas Is Upholding Their Oath

Their oath to support the Constitution, that is.

It seems that a bill has been introduced in the Texas legislature to nullify Obamacare. To wit:

FEDERAL ACT NOT AUTHORIZED.
The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the constitution's true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the constitution.

FEDERAL ACT INVALID. The federal Act:
  (1)  is invalid in this state;
  (2)  is not recognized by this state;
  (3)  is specifically rejected by this state; and
  (4)  is null and void and of no effect in this state.

DUTY OF LEGISLATURE. It is the duty of the legislature of this state to enact any measure necessary to prevent the enforcement of the federal Act within this state.
It will be interesting to see if this passes.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Politics is War

I ran across an interesting article, in fact I ran across an interesting blog called Debbie and Carl.  The article is called Government Fans the Flames of Prejudice.  In it, the author Debbie makes an interesting point:

The political process itself promotes “war” between the people of a nation. Political parties work to create and identify “enemies,” which leads to the idea that we are “fighting” and “at war” with our neighbors. Political parties have to create an enemy in the form of a group of people so that another group of people will be energized enough to go to “war” in the form of political activism and voting against the enemy.

This reminds me of a progressive forum I used to frequent.  They would often refer to business as being run according to "the law of the jungle", but I believe they had it exactly backwards.  Business is based on voluntary cooperation; it is politics that relies on the law of the jungle.  In politics, the strong rule the weak, which in a democracy translates into the majority rules the minority. 

Politics essentially boils down to one group waging war against another group.  Everyone seeks to use the power of government to beat their opponent into submission.  And the way I see it, progressives are waging an offensive war while those who support the freedom agenda are fighting a defensive war.  In military terms, progressives are the invader.  They are attempting to conquer other people and control them.  Others participate in the political process simply as a defensive measure.  They wish to elect leaders who will leave them alone.