PostHeaderIcon Liberty or the State

Liberty or the State

Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.

What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.

For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”

Now, surprising even to me, an appreciation of my individual sovereignty and a profound love of Liberty, have brought me nearer and nearer over the years, to outright endorsing anarchy. I sincerely believe it would be preferable, to the increasingly tyrannical government calling itself, ‘The United States of America,’ which I no longer have any interest in supporting or defending. Frankly, it would bother me little, if Washington D.C. suddenly slid into the Atlantic Ocean, drowning the entire population of tax spending parasites therein.

I can’t see how I would miss it, or why I should ever again give a damn about what happens on the East Coast of North America, from my perch here on the West Coast. There are more than enough ambitious politicians, churlish bureaucrats, and surly cops around here to ignore and dodge, without needing to concern myself with those living two or three thousand miles away.


Upon serious contemplation, it only takes a modicum of common sense to realize that government, by its very nature, is the antithesis of Liberty. The State cannot be the source or provider of freedom, nor in any way its guarantor. It is axiomatic that the stronger the government, the less Liberty an individual under its claimed jurisdiction enjoys. It could not be otherwise.

The “rule of law?” The coercively subjugated individual is being ‘ruled,’ which is quite the opposite of ‘free,’ whether by law, potentates, or both. We are the descendants of once proud freemen, who fought and died for the cause of individual sovereignty and Liberty. How did we ever allow ourselves to be brainwashed into somehow believing we had a moral obligation to dutifully obey the diktats of so-called ‘authorities?’

I reckon it is for the same reason most Americans consider themselves Christians, without ever actually thinking through their blind faith, regarding some pretty implausible dogma. It is simply the way we were raised, combined with a natural desire to fit in and be thought tolerable by our neighbors. Rationally thinking aloud about such matters is taboo. To challenge, or even just examine, the underpinning mysticism, is considered rude, blasphemous, and flirting with the ‘devil.’

The common belief that the US Government is a necessary and benevolent entity, for which we should be thankful, was inculcated in our nascent minds, long before we had the chance to develop any critical thinking skills with which to evaluate the proposition. We were taught to think of the nice policeman as our friend, there to protect us from criminals. We bought the big lie that our system of government is a ‘democracy,’ of, by, and for ‘voluntary’ taxpayers. In the immortal words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

By the involuntary act of being born in the land of our fathers, we somehow implicitly agree to be bound by ‘the will of the people,’ under an ever-changing compact signed by a few representatives of our ancestors, over two centuries ago. If we wish to continue exercising our birthright to live here, we are expected to dutifully obey all the laws, rules, and regulations enacted by self-serving politicians and bureaucrats ever since, and support this now obscenely bloated government, with whatever level of taxes they demand.

Or, as so often thoughtlessly expressed by well-meaning Patriots, “America, love it or leave it.” By which they mean, all residents are expected to love, support, and obey the U.S. Government, which they unfortunately conflate with their revered flag and country. If one does not like a law, one is expected to work through the political system to get it repealed. Until it is, one is obligated to obey it, however onerous, or risk what little remains of one’s Liberty in jail.

Sorry, folks, I love my country; but I despise its government. I owe no fealty whatever to said government, however much I once loved the ‘idea’ of America, embodied in our Founding documents. I owe no respect whatsoever to any employee of said government, including those who were ostensibly ‘elected’ to their office by a democratic process.

Civil disobedience is not treason. I reserve the right to ignore all victimless crimes, rules, and regulations, as unnecessarily onerous or downright silly for a supposedly free people to endure. I am the boss of me, acknowledge no ‘leaders,’ and don’t ever want any. Anyone claiming authority to be my leader can go pound sand.

As an ex-peace officer, I especially have zero respect for those petty robotic functionaries finding it necessary to openly arm themselves to the teeth, to perform their law enforcement and tax collecting duties. Fifty years ago we managed to keep the peace with only a six-shot revolver, which was rarely ever drawn, and occasionally a nightstick. This is primarily because we earned and maintained the respect of most citizens.

I have nothing but disgust for those in SWAT teams, who wear masks and dress like jackbooted thugs (or ISIS Jihadists), to accost and intimidate American civilians (with or without reasonable cause) without allowing themselves to be identified or remembered. Why do we permit this tyrannical outrage on American soil? Those cowards too afraid or ashamed to show their face on the job like a man, need to find another line of work. The average American is becoming so turned off by these Rambo wannabes, that I am finding it increasingly embarrassing to admit I was ever one of those friendly policemen, which mothers once taught their kids to respect.


I think it is time for serious thinkers to openly and forthrightly consider anarchy as a viable alternative to nation states and rulers, especially our own. Yes, most dismiss the notion outright as preposterous, which is precisely what the statists want us to do. The connotation for anarchy is usually taken as a chaotic situation where, absent a government supplied police force with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, violent gangs and thugs would reign supreme. Their easy prey would be unarmed and helpless cowards, cowering in their hovels, afraid to go outside and risk a confrontation. We have seen the plot in countless cowboy movies.

Yet, the proper definition of anarchy is simply “the absence of any formal system of government in a society.” It doesn’t describe social conditions, chaotic or otherwise, only the total lack of organization or control. When one thinks about it, this was the natural condition of civilization for the vast majority of human history. The centralized government of the nation state is a relatively recent development. While a potentate’s army might defend his land from foreign invasion, a medieval serf lacked a 911 system to call for the cops. He was required to defend himself, his family, and his property, with no more help than he could get from friends and family.

Similar conditions obtained in our 19th century Wild West, when adventurous settlers homesteaded unoccupied land out on the frontier, beyond any civil government’s effective control or ability to impose law and order. Sure there were wild Indians, a few outlaws, and even some ruthless gangs that occasionally terrorized the settlers and small towns that sprang up, in these effectively lawless territories.

This necessitated that good neighbors form posses, and sometimes administer vigilante justice; but most survived the anarchy just fine, and civilization flourished. Personally, I would gladly accept their stark circumstances, in lieu of those now prevailing in places like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, or most any other metropolitan ghetto today.

Talk about looting and marauding savages, treacherous outlaws, and ruthless gangs… and a case can be made that the primary effect of the government supplied, jackbooted, hooded, and heavily armed police departments of these dreadful modern hellholes, is to protect the bad guys from the wrath of the good guys. I can’t even imagine living in one of them; but if for some reason I had to, I would remain armed at all times, whether some foolish Progressive mayor liked it or not.

I would organize an effective, well-armed, neighborhood watch committee, which routinely studied Bronson vigilante movies as training films. Thuggery, rioting, arson, looting, and such would simply not be tolerated in our neighborhood. Perpetrators would be shot in the act, before they ever had a chance to call their lawyers and whine about their disadvantaged victim-hood. I can think of all manner of reasons why not having to wait for, or count on, government ‘authorities’ for self-defense, would make anarchy more attractive than statism.

For those preferring to hire others to protect them and their property, private security firms offer better services at rates usually far below government taxation. When available in a given locale, the Mafia will guarantee far more effective protection for only 10%. The government takes at least half, whether they actually perform or not. A Mafioso doesn’t need SWAT gear to intimidate uncooperative individuals; usually a baseball bat will suffice, and they don’t need masks. If they do have to act, they usually want to be well-remembered, to discourage repeat offenders.

The only disadvantage I could see in hiring the Mafia to keep the peace, is that they are often rather intolerant of those attempting to evade paying for their services. But, if the Government only asked for 10%, ceased incessantly trying to protect me from myself and over-regulate my every move, and was as effective as the Mafia in protecting their clients, I wouldn’t mind paying my taxes to them either.


Politics now consists of petty squabbling over how much taxes to collect from current and future taxpayers, and where best to spend them to buy votes for incumbents, not the size, scope, and legitimate purpose of the government itself. Our venerable Constitution, brilliantly crafted to limit its size and power, is now effectively a dead letter. All three branches of government routinely disregard the intended restraints on their power found therein, and violate the sovereign rights of individual citizens with impunity.

Those with the temerity to speak up in protest at all the mayhem done to our Constitution, are considered kooks, and ‘conspiracy nuts.’ They are labeled dangerous, enemies of the state, potential ‘domestic terrorists,’ and placed on government ‘watch lists.’ The simple truth is that the once severely limited Federal government designed by our Founders, which most Patriots erroneously conflate with their love of country, no longer exists.

It hasn’t for at least a century, and those still of the mind that all we need to do to get it back, is to educate more sheeple to elect more R’s than D’s in the next election, are fooling themselves. The real power and control in the Federal government, rests with unelected bureaucrats who can’t be fired, and lobbyists who finance the mostly ineffectual politicians. After the Congressional political disasters of 2015, anyone looking forward to the election of 2016 to somehow right the Ship of State, is naïve beyond hope.

Go ahead and campaign and vote for your favorite ego. It is exceedingly unlikely that your rather insignificant single vote will make one bit of difference to the future of America, one way or the other, no matter who you vote for. Voting will never work; it will take another Revolution or Civil War (same thing) to regain any semblance of individual sovereignty and Liberty in this land.

When all else fails, as alas it must, and it comes time to get serious about throwing off our shackles once again, give me a call. I’ll gladly make muster to reprise the Declaration of Independence. Until then, forget about me legitimizing Incumbrepublocrat rule on these shores, by participating in their sham elections. Instead, I will continue to ignore, bob, and weave to elude any and all avoidable contact with the insufferable bastards.

Please consider joining me in dropping out, or at least debating whether we even need another government to replace it, when this one finally collapses… whatever finally triggers that long overdue event. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

6 Responses to “Liberty or the State”

  • I have also added this as a separate page entry in the Essays list for future reference. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Troy says:

    Excellent essay and a good start for the New Year!

    As I have said before, we are assured that we enjoy “government by the consent of the governed”.

    I simply no longer consent.


    • Thanks, Troy. Yes, I intend to do more thoughtful writing this year, which hopefully will stir thoughtful discussions.

      I simply no longer consent.

      Well put. The question is, now that we have awakened, is there any reason we should ever again consent. Of what real value to the individual is a legal system and the vaunted “rule of law?” As I pointed out ten years ago in my Civil Disobedience essay:

      As rational beings, awash in a sea of ridiculous and often contradictory laws, the fact that something is “against the law” is frankly irrelevant. To function normally in this overregulated society, we each must choose for ourselves which laws we will obey, and which we will ignore. Whether we realize it or not, when we encounter an inconvenient “law,” intended to prevent us from engaging in a desired activity, we summarily run it through rational filters to decide whether to abide or disregard it:

      First, is it against our morals? If so, the law is redundant, but if not: What are the chances of getting caught? Although we often fool ourselves, Americans are pretty good at assessing the odds and looking over our shoulders. One or two traffic stops a year isn’t bad odds for speeding every day of our lives.

      Next, what is the price we must pay if we do get caught? Inconvenience, insurance rates, shame, fine, jail, etc. – compared with the benefit we expect to derive at this moment for flouting it.

      Finally, can we afford the price, and are we willing to pay it? It is that simple, and we each go through it subconsciously countless times every day.

      So, the principle effect of codifying desired behavior into laws, is to make everyone a criminal. This not only depreciates any respect for the law as such, it gives the so-called ‘authorities’ an excuse to accost and/or arrest anyone daring to challenge them. Why wouldn’t anarchy be a better deal all around? â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    As usual Dave your thoughts are as timely as can be. I reference the current “occupation/standoff/protest going on in Oregon. I wasn’t much on the side of the “Bundy ranch standoff” last year. They were allowed the appearance of a win. I’m betting it still isn’t over. Legally anyway. But all I can say of this latest development is WRONG TIME WRONG TACTIC. The media without fail stresses the point that these protesters are armed. That comes without any consideration that Oregon is a shall issue and open carry state. They could say the same thing about customers in a supermarket. This on the eve of Obama promising executive action on gun control. Something stinks. I don’t trust the Bundy brothers running this. Anyone would take their win and sit tight. I smell a rat. We have heard nothing about them since their cattle issue. Haven’t heard whether they have paid their back grazing fees and fines. Haven’t heard they have been back to court. NOTHING. Can you tell me that if you best the government they are going to just forget about it? Something as big as that was doesn’t just go away……Unless you can be convinced to help someone out to make a million or so in land use fees and fines go away.

    I will say I have no evidence of any of this outside a gut feeling. I can almost guarantee it won’t end well and one way or another will be used to further restrict one right or another.

    Already the BLM people are screaming white privilege because the police aren’t moving in. Never mind that nothing has been looted burned or raped. It won’t matter. The anarchists are even going after the anarchists because their anarchy is treated different.

    We won’t make another year of this. Alex Jones is warning of a “false flag” coming out of this. One of the few times I have to agree with him.

    • Thanks for the interesting comment, Chris. Now, watch me take it in a direction you probably didn’t intend. 🙂

      First, neither of your references to ‘anarchists’ and anarchy use the terms in the sense that I meant in the essay. In my opinion, neither group are really anarchists. Reformers or protesters, engaged in civil disobedience, yes. Even rebellious, revolutionaries, and/or insurrectionists; but not anarchists. By my lights, true anarchists wish to eliminate government entirely, not reform it, put it back in its place, or replace it with one more amenable to their worldview.

      That is not to say their ultimate cause is unworthy. Over twenty years ago, their boots would have fit me just fine. It is just not an example of anarchy, or even wannabe anarchy. I should think that a committed anarchist would be looking for more subtle ways to undermine respect for authority in his own environs, rather than driving across country to involve himself in a rather hopeless armed standoff, where average sheeple would be inclined to side with the ‘authorities,’ and even demand that they suppress the rebellion, by these dastardly ‘domestic terrorists.’

      Thus, I concur completely with your “WRONG TIME WRONG TACTIC” assessment, even though I have not researched what it is really all about. The suggestion that it has the putrid aroma of a Federal ‘false flag’ operation, to discredit the militia and perhaps provide an excuse for even more tedious DHS regulations and Second Amendment violations, is certainly plausible. Call me a ‘conspiracy nut’ if necessary; but I remain convinced that such clandestine operations against the citizenry, by various Federal government agencies, have become a fairly frequent occurrence in America. The anecdotal evidence is often just too compelling to ignore.

      Let’s get to the heart of the matter, from the perspective of my essay… So what? Burns Oregon is over 600 miles away from me here in California, and over 3,000 miles away from you there in New York. One of the reasons I haven’t yet delved into the details of the Oregon story, is that it really doesn’t concern me.

      The details aren’t all that important, because however it ends, once it is over it will soon be forgotten by average sheeple, as they are presented with the next new shiny object, to distract them from matters actually worth contemplating. The question of Federal control over Western State lands has been hotly contested all my life. BLM control only gets stronger, over more and more land, as time goes on.

      The Bundys were by no means the first ranchers to run afoul of them, and the Hammonds will certainly not be the last. Beyond the obvious curiosity and human interest attraction to the story, I don’t perceive any compelling reason to waste much of my valuable time, or any of my freedom, on it. How about you? 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links