PostHeaderIcon AR: Purpose

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

Alas, it is with great disappointment that I can see already that I am not going to be very helpful with this project. I had difficulty even picking a relevant stub for this comment. Thus, I will add this new one. What exactly is to be the purpose of America 2.0?

As I understood our mission, it was to design a workable replacement societal structure, for the rapidly collapsing America 1.0. I find I am not ready to concede the basic premise inherent in the descriptions of these stubs; namely that whatever their forms, there must again be a nation-state, with a hierarchy of ancillary governments to control the population.

Next to my life, my personal Liberty, and individual Sovereignty, are at the top of my hierarchy of values. I regard what is being referred to here as ‘limited government,’ as instead a ‘coercive’ entity, providing ‘limited Liberty’ and perhaps ‘limited Sovereignty,’ for the ‘altruistic’ benefit of the ‘collective,’ all of which are odious concepts to me.

As I have suggested, I think I have some workable ideas that do not require coercion, or empowering anyone to violate enlightened civilization’s fundamental non-aggression axiom. Before I can figure out how to incorporate them into these categories, I need the answer to the above question… what is to the fundamental purposes we are trying to achieve? If I could demonstrate how they might be achieved without government, will anyone be willing to entertain such ideas seriously? ◄Dave►

32 Responses to “AR: Purpose”

  • Troy says:

    Dave, I fail to see your problem. For instance, under the stub called Structure, if you think there should be no structure, simply say that. Same for all the other stubs — if you think them unnecessary for America 2.0, simply state same.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Does this mean my question regarding the purpose is irrelevant, and doesn’t deserve an answer?

      Sure, I could take the trouble to restate on every stub my disagreement with the necessity of the proposed changes to government; but of what help would that be?

      E.g., you and Chris are having a fine discussion over how best to change the method of taxation to fund the various levels of government you regard as necessary. I could chime in with my belief that coerced taxation is plunder and immoral, and anyone who would vote to empower government officials to do such a thing, is himself an immoral co-conspirator in the act of said plunder. How would that be helpful to the project at hand, unless I could offer a better idea, of how people could pay for the services they expect to receive, in return for their wealth being confiscated by the jackbooted government tax collectors?

      I do have such ideas, which naturally involve free enterprise, and contractual arrangements with competitive private service providers; but unless the basic services you are proposing to be funded by said taxation are identified, and perhaps debated as an essential government service deserving of taxpayer support, I wouldn’t know where to begin suggesting them.

      Will the new governments you are proposing be providing police; swat teams; firefighters; paramedics; social services; parks & recreation; public schools; water treatment; sewage plants; garbage removal; healthcare; retirement incomes; standing army; naval fleet; SAC; NASA; CIA; NSA; FBI; BATF; DOJ; courts; judges; prosecutors; public defenders; jails; prisons; etc; etc; etc? I submit that every one of these, and hundreds more typical government functions, are either unnecessary and unwanted by the average citizen, or exists only because government itself exists, or could be performed better and infinitely cheaper by private enterprise. ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    Dave, from the beginning of time there has been “government”. Family patriarchs. Tribal chiefs. Before “modern government” Those people were recognized through strength and wisdom. Organically selected if you will through age and battle survival against enemies both external and internal. For any society to exist as a cohesive structure that society must in some manner have a unified voice to the outside world and a system of justice within. We are free to debate what form this can take, how extensive it can or can’t be, but in the absence of any it can’t be denied that one will form. Whether it is based on a predetermined structure designed to protect all or organically grown “gangs or tribes” with no respect for anyone but their own can be debated but it will happen. I would suggest that segments of society that currently operate outside the structure of justice already have a leg up on such a system since the structure of justice doesn’t serve them.

    In short government is simply a compact among individuals to promote common interests. Of course to promote everyone’s common interest it has to be very limited because the only universal common interest would be life and property.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Chris, please do me a favor and reread the section of my old “Sovereign Rights” essay, under the heading “My World.” It was written nearly 10 years ago, long before I became an avowed anarchist/voluntarist; but it shows my clear understanding of what you are saying here, and perhaps presages my evolution to my current position, as an advocate of a Laissez Faire Stateless Society.

      I should try to clarify that position, which is by no means an attempt to deny you, or anyone else, the right to create or join any form of voluntary social compact on a local level. Frankly, how you folks on the East Coast choose to organize your society, is utterly immaterial to me, here 3K miles away on the West Coast. You can establish a voluntary Marxist Utopia, and hire Bernie Sanders to run its government, for all I care. It would be none of my business!

      What I do object to, and would violently resist if necessary, would be any attempt to expand the purview of such a government, to encompass my own personal domain. I shall always remain the undisputed sovereign of that domain. I do not, and will not, concede the slightest portion of my individual sovereignty, to any collective I do not voluntarily join.

      Thus, given the opportunity to redesign America, I naturally would desire to rewind history, back to the point where most of our Founders were only trying to form a mutual defense pact and free trade zone. They were not about creating a coercive government, empowered to interfere in the individual lives of its citizens, or confiscate their wealth, under any pretenses whatever, of what might be best for the collective.

      This is why I am trying to get us to start from scratch, by defining what we are trying to achieve. What is to be the purpose and justification for anything we propose? I hope it would be to build a better mousetrap; not just sand the rough edges off the old one, which demonstrably no longer functions as intended. ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Troy, I just had occasion to reread an essay you submitted here 4 years ago, during the last POTUS Primary election cycle. “Obligations Of Obedience” is well worth rereading, as are our comments to it at the time. We have both been frustrated with all of this for a very long time now… ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    Dave, I begin to take your point. I have reread what we have contributed so far and it is about as exciting as a bowl of warmed over spit.

    To answer to your question RE purpose, I suppose, at heart, what I would really like is to convince Atlas to shrug.

    We bemoan the fact that so many of our population seem to have worthlessness as their primary ambition. In a truly free world, it would be possible to let them achieve exactly that — but, without dragging down those who actually get it and are willing to make it happen.

    So, in a word, my real purpose is to free those who can and would be free and let the others go where they would.

    The best among us are better than ever and it is simply not fair to let them be smothered, indeed, enslaved, by the rabble.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Oops… it looks like I spoke too soon, Troy. You beat me to the submit button by 4 minutes. 🙂

      Thanks for your response, and I concur with your general assessment. I suspect that the phenomena that is the Trump Train, is a component of Atlas beginning to shrug. True, Trump is a seriously flawed character, and is no John Galt; but a great many of his supporters have given up on the system that no longer represents their core values.

      The only way we can be enslaved by the rabble, is to concede that they have the right to enslave us with a democratic government. It is we individual sovereigns, who need to shrug them off our backs and shoulders… ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Troy and Chris, perhaps it would be useful to reread my first post of the year,”Liberty or the State,” and our discussions afterward, to reacquaint ourselves with where I am coming from on this AR issue. 🙂 ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    Dave, I would love to believe that the Donald is the answer to all prayers. Still, despite my hopes, deep down I suspect he is a fraud.

    Sorry but many of his rallies look and sound suspiciously like Nuremberg in the 30’s. And, they produce the same hollow promises to make the fatherland great again without really saying how other than scapegoating some ethnic groups.

    The fact is that we (America) have a government that has grown beyond our ability to control and government means power. The power to threaten, even the power to kill its citizens. So long as such a government can maintain its power by stealing from the productive and giving it to the rabble, creating even more rabble in the process, what chance do we have?

    Improvement cannot begin until said government is rendered powerless and the only way I can see that happening is for the productive to simply refuse to produce, hopefully such that the rabble will then turn on the government and destroy it. This is my version of Atlas Shrugging.

    Troy

    • Troy Robinson says:

      I know that there is no literal Gault’s Gulch but it should be entirely possible for the best and brightest among us to start drifting away from the population centers, stop powering the giant engines of American commerce, and simply devote their minds and their energy to providing for themselves, and/or for small communities in mutual support of other like minded people. By using barter as a means of provisioning each other, they produce no revenue to attract the tax men.

      If this sounds a bit like the hippie communes of the 60’s then so be it although I would hope for higher standards among my pseudo-hippies.

      Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      LOL… We were typing at the same time again, Troy. Only this time it looks like I beat you to the submit button by a few seconds. 😀

      No, Trump is no savior, I was only referring to his success as a bellwether for the degree to which sheeple are getting fed up with the Federal government elites.

      OK, If the producer’s strike were to happen, and the rabble destroyed the government, what should be done to reorganize American society in the wake of such a revolution? Do we truly need a nation state of rulers to replace it? Or are you ready to at least seriously consider the possibility of establishing a laissez faire, stateless society instead? ◄Dave►

      • Troy Robinson says:

        OK, If the producer’s strike were to happen, and the rabble destroyed the government, what should be done to reorganize American society in the wake of such a revolution? Do we truly need a nation state of rulers to replace it? Or are you ready to at least seriously consider the possibility of establishing a laissez faire, stateless society instead?

        I readily admit that I cannot quite envision such. Like Madison said, if men were angels government would not be needed. But, as we all well know, many men are far from being angelic. Without some central authority, set in place by the people, what is the alternative for self protection than the law of the jungle. Please explain how you would deal with those who acknowledge no rules and no respect toward others?

        Troy

      • Troy Robinson says:

        During my tenure with IBM, one business unit I was in experimented with self-directed work teams. In theory, the members of the various teams met to determine how to manage themselves (without benefit of traditional IBM management) then went on to do superior work. In theory, it sounded quite democratic. In actual practice, it was a total failure. The teams spent almost all their time and resources in meeting after meeting, failing to reach consensus on anything of importance. And the actual work went by the wayside. If I never experience such again, it will be too soon.

        The fact is that most humans, while fairly decent if allowed to be, are NOT leaders and, instead, have every desire to be led. Well led that is.

        Ergo, my conclusion is that the secret to any cooperation among groups of humans is to install good leadership. The problem is that too many of the people are suckers for would-be leaders that promise them something for nothing and/or things impossible to attain.

        This is an aspect of human nature that the Founders, who were far wiser than us, could not quite figure out. However are we supposed to? Yet, if not us then who?

        Troy

      • Chris says:

        And so goes the saga of humanity. I’m glad to see “human nature” come into the discussion. As Troy (as well as Madison) said “if men were angels”. That is the only objection I have to the vision of “anarchy” you speak of often Dave. Human nature causes it to devolve to the more widely accepted meaning without fail. However I don’t think it completely eliminates a much more laissez faire economy without government intervention but that’s the easy part.

        This is an aspect of human nature that the Founders, who were far wiser than us, could not quite figure out.

        I dare say I don’t think the founders could have even seen the level of despotism common in the world today.

  • It appears we are again stuck in the endless rise and fall of great nations.

    The people go from bondage to spiritual faith
    From spiritual faith to great courage
    From courage to liberty
    From liberty to abundance
    From abundance to selfishness
    From selfishness to complacency
    From complacency to apathy
    From apathy to dependency
    From dependency back again into bondage

  • Chris says:

    Short and very relative but the premise echos true to the discussion: What Do We Owe the State?

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Excellent find, Chris; thanks for sharing it. Joseph Sobran was no lightweight, and I hope others participating here will read it. I particularly liked the conclusion:

      Legal forms, moral rhetoric, and propaganda may disguise force as something it is not. The idea of “democracy” has persuaded countless gullible people that they are somehow “consenting” when they are being coerced. The real triumph of the state occurs when its subjects refer to it as “we,” like football fans talking about the home team. That is the delusion of “self-government.” One might as well speak of “self-coercion” or “self-slavery.”

      No, the state, now grown to a monstrous magnitude, remains what Albert Jay Nock called it: “our enemy, the State.” Maybe Professor Hoppe is dreaming. Maybe anarchism could not be sustained. Maybe the evil of systematized force can never be eliminated in this fallen world. But why pretend such an evil is a positive good?

      I hope you and others also read his referenced column on Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, “Democracy — The God That Failed” at: The Myth of Limited Government. It concluded with:

      Hoppe goes so far as to say that democracy is positively “immoral,” because “it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C.” He argues that monarchy is actually preferable, because a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name Clinton may ring a bell here.)

      And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to “protect” children from their parents. By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.

      Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.

      Finally, for those interested, I found Professor Hoppe’s book in PDF format at: Democracy: The God That Failed

      Now, I have to go read it. 😀 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    The conclusion is most profound.

    Maybe the evil of systematized force can never be eliminated in this fallen world. But why pretend such an evil is a positive good?

    “If all men were angels”

  • Chris says:

    Glad you enjoyed it BTW.

  • Good articles Chris and Dave.

    I still like the sheepdog and sheep idea … I know you guys are probably laughing but I sort of like what the founders set up for us. It did indeed work until graft, corruption and greed took over.

    Think about it.
    What is the only job of the sheepdog. Keep its flock safe from the wolf. Otherwise the sheep are free to go about their business … laissez-faire … right.

    If the sheep decides to kick the traces and sneak to far from the sheepdog … then gets eaten by the wolf … oh my too bad.

    Call the group what you want, State, group, flock whatever … does the name matter? 😉

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Let’s extend your analogy, CT. Who employs the sheepdog, the sheep or the shepherd? Is the shepherd’s motive for hiring him truly altruistic? From the perspective of his boss, which is his most important duty? Protecting the sheep from wolves at night, or herding them during the day?

      The sheepdog is actually a domesticated wolf. He doesn’t eat the sheep, because he is being well-fed by the shepherd. If not leftover mutton stew, then probably lamb meal and rice dogfood, purchased with the proceeds from selling wool and/or lambs.

      It is the instinctual fear of canines that makes the sheepdog useful to the shepherd for herding his flock. Would the sheep be as vulnerable to actual wolf predation, were they not brainwashed to think of these jackbooted canines as reliable benevolent protectors, instead of their insidious controllers?

      Perhaps I am just foolish; but were I an enlightened sheep, I would still prefer to take the risks associated with Liberty, to the stifling security provided by the shepherd’s trained wolves, nipping at our heels every time we dared to step out of line, on the way to the pens for shearing or slaughter. ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        There ya go sucking the fun out of everything Dave. 😉 Here I had this vision of happy little lambs frolicking in the fields under the watchful eye of their noble and beloved protector. Now bought off for the price of a bowl of mutton stew.

      • LOL … Noooo…
        Sorry I thought I referenced this HUMANS being sheepdog (5%) Sheep (95%) earlier … 😉

        I liken humans to “the sheep” I believe most humans perhaps 95% prefer to be protected. (nothing scientific at all) … lol

        The “sheepdog” those humans who are ethical hired protectors.

        HUMAN Sheep make the rules and hire the HUMAN sheepdog and sheepdogs only duty is make sure the rules are intact and protect those in the flock.

        Human Wolves those predators the sheepdog handles.

        Pretty much how we were set up in the beginning … smaller and more fluid. Still free to be whatever individual sheep choose to be and free to move from flock to flock.

        I see no necessity for marked boundaries.

        Make more sense now?

        • OH MY GOSH … I have just described the old western town with a sheriff … where did we go wrong? 😉

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Gee, CT, now you are approaching my vision of a laissez faire stateless society. I have often referenced the ungoverned territories of the Old West as an example, where neighbors looked out for each other, and sometimes hired a sheriff or marshal to keep the peace. He was answerable only to the citizens who hired him, not a remote central government. He didn’t exactly enforce many rules. Beyond the universal basics of common law, few laws even existed. His tiny jail was primarily a place where rowdy drunks could sleep it off. In cases of serious crime, he would round up a posse of vigilantes, to bring dangerous outlaws to justice, one way or another. He was not a tax collector, nor an available threat a tax collector could call upon to gain compliance. Etc… ◄Dave►

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Make more sense now?

          Somewhat, CT. I guess I am too literal. I very often refer to thoughtless Americans as sheeple; but would not have concluded that they could also be sheepdogs. I will say that if 95% of them are willing sheeple by choice, all is lost and we are wasting our time wishing it were otherwise. 😉

          I still question which HUMAN Sheep get to make the rules? How are sheepdogs chosen, and how do we determine that they are not actually wolves? I have no grief with them protecting the flock that employs them; but how are they to enforce said rules without the threat of force, especially with those stubborn contumacious individuals, who do not recognize any authority over their lives… like me? 🙂 ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          Easy. Simple removal from the flock should do the trick. And nary a sheep in the flock would wonder where you went. Lamb stew anyone?

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Banishment works for me, Chris, although I would still question who gets to decide on this punishment, and which crimes warrant it. Would this include disrespecting ‘authority?’

            Speaking of Founder’s quotes, I am partial to one by Samuel Adams:

            If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

            And another by Benjamin Franklin:

            Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

            To me, Liberty is one of my highest values, for which I am quite willing to take significant risks to my safety. Your mileage may differ… 😉 ◄Dave►

        • I will say that if 95% of them are willing sheeple by choice, all is lost and we are wasting our time wishing it were otherwise.

          For now I agree.

          Until the mass IS FORCED into making change by some catastrophic situation … they will doddle, weeping, wailing and whimpering at how life sucks even if that is not really the case.

          It appears much of the world has lost its moral/ethical compass and until extreme hardship FOR THEM PERSONALLY arrives on their door step they WILL NOT ACT.

          My viewpoint is pretty hard line.
          Banishment works for me on the first go round … on the second? … daylight through the hole between a unibrow is what is called for next IMO.

          It is a disengaged American public that allowed us to veer off the path of our founders. The reasons are far too many to enumerate here now.

          Personally I support Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association or (CSPOA).

          Mack landed on my radar sometime around 2008 or 9.

          Back then I was still getting a lot of email from people who knew of a political action group I had formed and ran for about 7 years … I opted out of that leadership role somewhere after 2005. I was tired of dealing with pea brained progressives (both in the group and in government).

          As I recall brewing a bit before that radar landing (can not remember how long) there was scuttlebutt about another activist group growing … it eventually ended up formally being the Oath Keepers.

          I paid attention to Mack for a bit and finally decided he was what I considered legit so I jetted off to those on my activists “email list” a note and my opinion about Mack.

          One of my cohorts and I use to laugh about how a list of a little over 10,000 could span the globe in 10 to 30 minutes. Back then it seemed to take a heck of a lot longer to send than to get a response back.
          Ahhh the wonderful advancement of technology … LOL

          I thought I was out of all this political crap and along came Barack Obama.

          I actually was stupid enough to think the voting public was not dumb enough to vote this twit into office.

          Then a second time?

          Today I simply romp and play among the sheeple realizing they deserve what they get.

          One can only prepare so much for when it hits the fan. I believe we are a hairs breath away from that … but one can still hope.

          For whatever reason I believe in Trump or Trump believing in himself.
          I am not sure exactly why.

          Perhaps it is my poker playing intuition where you must size up all players if you have any hope of beating them and the game odds … the game odds are ALWAYS stacked against you. 😉

  • Troy Robinson says:

    It appears much of the world has lost its moral/ethical compass and until extreme hardship FOR THEM PERSONALLY arrives on their door step they WILL NOT ACT.

    Exactly right.

    Personally I support Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association or (CSPOA).

    Me too. As a matter of fact, I have met Sheriff Mack several times and had the honor of introducing him as keynote speaker at a Tea Party-related function a couple of years ago.

    Troy

  • ◄Dave► says:

    For whatever reason I believe in Trump or Trump believing in himself.
    I am not sure exactly why.

    CT, you continue to surprise and delight me. Sheriff Mack has been on my radar since the mid ’90s, after Ruby Ridge and Waco, when I was involved in the militia movement. Mack challenged the Brady Act, won in the Supreme Court, and instantly joined the ranks of our heroes with characters like Bo Gritz, et al.

    I too dropped out of politics when I moved to the Coast and got involved in Montessori in ’96. I did follow the Clinton scandals, of course; but wasn’t particularly interested in Bush 43’s first election, until the Florida recount saga. When 9/11 happened, I got caught up in the surge of flag waving patriotism, and started researching Islam to figure out what that was all about. Naturally, the “War on Terror” captured my attention, and I supported the invasion of Iraq.

    I did get very involved in Bush’s reelection campaign. I thought he had earned his spurs after 9/11 and deserved another term. Much more importantly, I had despised Kerry with a white-hot passion, ever since his treasonous behavior after Vietnam. I got very involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website, etc.

    Once Kerry was defeated, my interest in politics waned again until Hillary’s PUMA group of supporters raised the NBC issue with the Obamessiah. As I have already explained, as soon as I heard his father was not an American Citizen, I knew he was ineligible. I didn’t have much use for McCain, until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. I have been smitten with her ever since her first speech!

    Like you, I just couldn’t believe that Obama beat her and then even won reelection. Of course, Romney and his boy wonder running mate, both straight out of central casting, weren’t very inspiring; but come on sheeple…

    I encountered Stewart Rhodes when he first formed Oath Keepers. I emailed him a copy of my “Gun Collecting” essay, and he replied with his phone number, asking me to call. We had a long chat, and I volunteered to help him with his website and writing chores; but he wasn’t interested in publishing my essay. He was afraid that it was too threatening to the establishment. Actually challenging the authorities, was not the message he was intent on communicating at the time. So, I backed off, and have just observed his efforts from a distance ever since.

    I understand your belief in Trump. At first, he only bemused me, and I enjoyed the discomfort he was causing the GOPe. I had no real stake in the horse-race, since I have stopped voting. I am just glad he finally managed to knock the insufferable Canadian Born Lawyer out of the running. The longer I study Trump, however, the more I become convinced that he is genuine, and actually does believe he is a patriot on a mission, to do something positive for his country. His strategy, tactics, and techniques for doing so seem brilliant. They tickle me to no end, and I wish him well. 😀 ◄Dave►

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►