Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
So now your saying government is ok as long as it’s on your terms. It’s just the size and scope that you find offensive. We can debate that all day which is pretty much where we started off. 🙂
OK, fair enough; in my various attempts to express and defend my still evolving thoughts, on the avoidable misfortune of mankind being forcefully subjugated to the will of often impetuous rulers, I have occasionally used imprecise language. When I have used the term ‘government,’ I have generally meant the Federal government, or ‘state’ known as the USA, headquartered in Washington, DC. Reviewing several dictionaries, I find anywhere from six to nine different definitions for the term ‘government,’ and an astonishing 126 different terms for various forms of government. Those employing words like ‘control’; ‘rule’; ‘authority’; and ‘state’ I would steadfastly oppose outright. Yet, I suppose it is not entirely unfair to apply the generic term ‘government,’ to the chief and/or council of a tribal village, or some other forms of voluntary social compacts, which do not entail rulers and/or coercion. Read the rest of this entry »
In my continuing research into what I refer to as a Laissez Faire Stateless Society, I have encountered a lot of new terms attempting to redefine anarchy, which has such a negative connotation in the minds of sheeple. One of them is ‘Voluntaryist.’ I have discovered an interesting and informative website, with the simple URL of voluntaryist.com. Friday evening, I was perusing a section of it entitled, “How I Became a Voluntaryist,” which consists of personal testimonials. While reading Ben Speers’ biographical, “Conscience of a “Former” Conservative,” I encountered:
This idea, that people should be free to do whatever they want apart from initiating violence, crystallized in my mind. Soon I realized that there could be no ethical justifications for exceptions to this rule. This immediately led me to a conclusion that shocked me to the core, for I had never considered it before. The conclusion that I came to was that there was no moral justification for any violence-based government, which is to say any government at all based on the popular definition of government. Logically, the only road left to me was anarchism.
Bingo… welcome to my world! Read the rest of this entry »
As you may have noticed, I have had little to say on this topic lately. That is because it did not seem worth the effort. Then it dawned on me why… I have been focused on what SHOULD be done when the real question is, what CAN be done.
Said another way, what might a few people like ourselves actually suggest that would motivate others to get involved? A list of my initial suggestions follows:
That’s about all I have. Sorry.
Troy L Robinson
Like a great many, I couldn’t resist watching this. In case you missed it:
Personally, I rather enjoyed it. I reckon they both scored… 😀 ◄Dave►
Recently, in objections to my interest in exploring anarchy, or what I prefer to call a laissez faire stateless society, James Madison’s famous quip that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary” has been mentioned a few times. The implication being that since we are not angels, we absolutely require rulers and a coercive state to make us behave, or society would quickly devolve into total chaos.
I decided to pen a rebuttal to this common belief, and did a quick search to find Madison’s exact quote, and the precise context in which he made it. It was in “The Federalist No. 51,” where he was expounding on the necessity of the separation of powers, with checks and balances, in the Constitution:
“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Thus, the context speaks for itself. Madison was far more concerned with mechanisms to limit and control the government, than how best to control the people. Read the rest of this entry »
The so-called Two Party System has been revealed as a sham for decades. Libertarians were referring to it as either the Demopublicans or Republocrats since at least the ’70s. Eight years ago, I added the mutual interest of maintaining incumbency to their cabal, with the neologism ‘Incumbrepublocrat Party.’ Recently, I have increasingly been seeing it referred to as the “UniParty.” I don’t much care what it is labeled, if the sheeple will just wake up to the reality that it is a Kabuki Theater of the absurd, designed to keep them at each others’ throats, instead of the oligarchs. Now, Sundance in “The Fallacy of False Choice: Why Bill Kristol Keeps Talking Up Another Option….,” suggests evidence that many are:
There is a new awakening amid the electorate; one that has been a long time coming, but it is finally here. More Americans are aware of the UniParty than ever before.
FACT: When both teams in the Super Bowl are owned by the same person, the Lombardi Trophy is destined to end up the same cabinet regardless of who wins.
There is only one party in Washington DC, the UniParty. They are funded by the same ownership, Wall Street; and their legislative victories end up with the same benefactors. The candidacy of Donald Trump represents a second party option for the first time in two decades.
He then goes into the mountain of empirical evidence, showing that the Republican Congress might as well have been Democrats for the past 8 years. Read the rest of this entry »
I have long lamented never having something worth voting for. Pat thoughtfully disagrees:
…that certainly puts a different spin on it; but I still reckon that voting either way, only legitimizes the bureaucratic Leviathan, which always wins every election. 🙁 ◄Dave►
Just when the Trump show was becoming boring… This is probably the best campaign ad I have ever seen:
Sarah Palin has endorsed him and has said she will help ‘Cantor’ Ryan in any way she can. I sure hope Trump’s organization manages to donate a few million bucks to his campaign. Trump should mention the possibility in his meeting with Ryan this week. Imagine how the term ‘Cantor-Ryan Retirement Party’ could modify GOPe behavior in the future! 😀 ◄Dave►
Robert Ringer’s just released article, “The Arrogance of the Prom King,” is another masterpiece. It brilliantly makes the point I was recently trying to make in a comment to Troy, that Trump’s success is a bellwether of a real revolution happening in America:
Just when you think you’ve heard and seen it all in the Republican campaignathon, along comes prom king Paul Ryan displaying an arrogance that makes Donald Trump look like the Dalai Lama by comparison. Millions of American jaws must have dropped in unison when chameleon Ryan casually told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he’s “just not ready” to support Trump.
Really? Where do I even begin to address such a remarkable display of unflinching arrogance? How about just stating the obvious — that the litmus-test conservative crowd still doesn’t get it.
That’s right, hard as it is to believe, after ten months of watching Trump swat every political fly who’s annoyed him, the pathetic “Never Trump” crowd really and truly still does not understand what’s taking place in America.
Specifically, what they don’t get is that this is a genuine revolution. And it’s not a revolution about Trump. It’s a revolution about the corruption and arrogance of the leadership of the Republican Party — and, on a broader scale, the entire Washington political establishment.
That’s right, it’s taken eight long and destructive years, but the Republican Party’s base is now in full revolt against the Ryans, the McConnells, the McCains, the Grahams, et al. You’d have to be blind, deaf, and stupid — or totally delusional — not to have figured that out by now. Nevertheless, the guys who have run things for decades have chosen to stubbornly remain in a state of denial.
State of denial, indeed… Do go read and enjoy the whole thing. 😀 ◄Dave►
Is this just a spoof of Beck, or is this fool serious? I just don’t get it. This is not my image of Alex Jones:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Can there actually be two conspiracy-minded, talk show host, religious nuts, who like to cry on camera? Please, God, deliver us from your evil preachers! Sheesh… ◄Dave►
With both Cruz and Kasich now out of the game, it is Hillary’s turn in Trump’s sights for his wild politician destruction derby. It should be even more entertaining than the preliminary rounds. It appears that “Anonymous” is ready to help with an outline for the opposition research:
How many of those scandals had you forgotten? How many have young voters never even heard of? What are the chances that they soon will? This is going to be continuously amusing to watch, especially the dilemma of the #NeverTrump cabal, as he systematically rips the bark off her, on the way to his overwhelming victory in November… 😀 ◄Dave►
[Note: Posts with titles that begin with “AR:“ are stubs for the project described at “America 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►
Dave and I have suggested a series of articles addressing the subject: What Should The New America Look Like?
This is based on the collective analysis in this blog that the current America is essentially an historical artifact that will soon degenerate into total chaos unless some new, possibly radical approaches are tried. Said another way, there is no viable path back to what we once were – and were intended to be, ergo there is no rationality in wasting the time and effort trying to do so.
Since only two of us currently have editorial privileges here, and, so that we can have multiple threads so that the discussions remain navigable, I propose to post a series of topical “stubs” to which all participants can equally contribute. What I need you folks to do is suggest a starting list of topical stubs to get the conversation started.
This is very well put:
Yeah, the negative choice of the lesser of two evils… Please just Stop Voting; it only legitimizes and encourages the insufferable bastards. What would happen if they held an election, and nobody came? 🙁 ◄Dave►
I had never even heard of this program or its host, when I stumbled across this video; but these two guys are so good:
…and hilarious, that I couldn’t stop watching it! They sure have the voices and mannerisms down pat. 😀 ◄Dave►
Robert Ringer has republished an article I had already read the other day entitled, “2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged,” which included:
What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
Ahh, the illusion of choice. Sure, in reality there are third party candidates who should be given a fair shake, but in our mainstream media-augmented reality, third parties do not exist. They aren’t mentioned. They aren’t even included in presidential debates. This is another way the media stifles healthy debate, stamps out dissenting opinions, and preserves the status-quo.
“We The People” don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is a rigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact. Now, however, millions of Americans are becoming aware of it thanks to the populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. America’s elections are controlled by a big club, but unfortunately, “you ain’t in it!”
Carlin had this figured out long before I ever got around to seriously thinking about it. So, once again I ask, why do we legitimize their rule over us by voting in their sham elections? ◄Dave►
I have stumbled across a profound and thought-provoking academic essay, which effectively slays most common arguments that governments are necessary for a modern peaceful society to exist. A downloadable PDF, it is entitled, “The Obviousness of Anarchy,” by John Hasnas, Associate Law Professor, Georgetown University, J.D., Ph.D, LL.M. Those familiar with my Montessori education background, will understand why my antenna went up when I read:
“The author wishes to thank … Annette Hasnas of the Montessori School of Northern Virginia for a real world illustration of how rules evolve in the absence of centralized authority.”
My reaction was, well of course, a Montessori classroom of 3 to 5-year-old children, is a perfect example of spontaneous order and a smoothly functioning laissez faire society. How had it not occurred to me before to use that analogy? I certainly shall develop it in the future.
The essay begins:
The Obviousness of Anarchy
by John Hasnas
“You see, but you do not observe.”
Sherlock Holmes to Dr. John Watson in A Scandal in Bohemia
In this article, I have been asked to present an argument for anarchy. This is an absurdly easy thing to do. In fact, it is a task that can be discharged in two words–look around. However, because most of us, like Dr. Watson, see without observing the significance of what we see, some commentary is required.
Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government actions are really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.
The identification of anarchy with disorder is not a trivial matter. The power of our conceptions to blind us to the facts of the world around us cannot be gainsaid. I myself have had the experience of eating lunch just outside Temple University’s law school in North Philadelphia with a brilliant law professor who was declaiming upon the absolute necessity of the state provision of police services. He did this just as one of Temple’s uniformed private armed guards passed by us escorting a female student to the Metro stop in this crime-ridden neighborhood that is vastly underserved by the Philadelphia police force.
A wise man once told me that the best way to prove that something is possible is to show that it exists. That is the strategy I shall adopt in this article. I intend to show that a stable, successful society without government can exist by showing that it has, and to a large extent, still does.
The way he casually unpacked the Orwellian corruption of the term ‘anarchy’ was masterful. I tend to get frustrated at the callous abuse of the English language, and am not as artful as he, at explaining how and why I am using a venerable word in its original sense.
Abstain From Beans
by Robert LeFevre (1911-1986)
In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: “Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.
To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other person’s selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.
When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.
But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.
In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.
~ +++ ~
Note: This classic article was obviously written sometime prior to 1986. It is reprinted all over the net, and I was unable to locate the original digital source, so I have taken the liberty of memorializing its profound sagacity here as well. Since it is a rather cogent explanation of my own oft expressed motto: “Don’t Vote – It Just Encourages the Bastards,” I look forward to any discussions of it. Particularly, any reasonable arguments against it. ◄Dave►