United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Why Does Anarchy Make Everyone Fill Their Pants in Fear? By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=4435
Published: Sep 5, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-09-05 22:26:05 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1326
Comments: 19
Publisher’s Note: You can buy both of my books at Amazon. Just published the second volume on 24 August, the anniversary of the British burning down of the Offal Office, an appropriate date to launch on. -BB “But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. “The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.” Don’t hit and don’t steal. Absent these two things, no government on Earth could exist for an hour much less centuries. Once the state has secured the means to threaten or initiate violence, this prerogative becomes the exclusive preserve of the monopolistic state. Political science is not about elegant ways for humanity to co-exist an·ar·chy ÈanYrk/ noun noun: anarchy absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. The definition means that rulers don’t exist but rules do. This is not paradoxical but makes perfect sense. I am the first to admit I embrace a dystopic vision in which human society will be rife with failures, mistakes and foibles, we’re only human after all. And freedom will yield results not endorsed by everyone. But this barking mad idea of taking the worst of humanity and giving them the reigns of power over millions when they can’t even govern their own misbehavior. Th is is insanity. But the notion of anarchy scares the shit out of Americans across the fetid plain. The notion of not having legions of armed busybodies ready with the bat to apply the wood shampoo or worse at the behest of the ruler de jure makes most American men shiver in terror. I know the A-word makes most humans quiver in fear and loathing so I employ a less charged word – abolition. I am an abolitionist and opposed to all forms of human slavery whether it be chattel, bondage, indentured, taxation or regulatory. All of it. It’s a bit disconcerting to think that one would have to defend the notion of abolition in polite conversation but that is the American salon today. Quivering women of both sexes shaking in trepidation at the thought of not having a master across the political spectrum. Fortunately, I have no place on that spectrum since politician is a nice colloquialism for violence broker and I will not participate in selecting the latest psychotic kakocrat to parade into the Offal Office or its subsidiary satraps. Think about that. Absent he FAA, would corporations go out of their way to ensure that their aircraft plummet out of the sky to attract customers? So if government didn’t exist, no market actors would step in to build roads? Here’s a pop quiz for you: name one government-held paving company in the United States. Just one. So people would die of food poisoning because the state wouldn’t police restaurants? Food interests would go out of their way to drive customers from favorite brands by doing shoddy business? Every time private security is used instead of state police forces, violence goes down and individual liberty thrives. The sickening trend for all of this is the increasingly brutal and Third World nature of statist policing on US soil. The cops kill with impunity and sustain laws that have no victim save the state. Government roads and arterials are simply a locus for high-grade banditry where speedometer readings don’t happen to coincide with random numbers on signs leading to a pretext to further ensnare the populace in searches and seizures of possessions and freedom and even life. Those trillions of dollars wasted in the past, today and surely tomorrow never had to leave the pockets of a single human being to make the world more civilized. The government is nothing more than a criminal gang with flags and exceedingly bad music. There is not a single government enterprise that couldn’t be done better by the private sector and free market actors save one. War. But this is the exclusive province of the state because it is the primary vector for growth and strangulation of its host populations and the legions of victims abroad. Absent the Pentagram and the Department of Offense, America may be a peaceful player on the world stage instead of the barbarous bully that has plowed a blood-red path planet-wide since the first abortive and amateurish action in Korea in 1871. Unfortunately, this was merely the prelude to meddling around the Earth once the aboriginal problem had been solved per the interests in DC through the remainder of the 19th century. Many of the usual suspects mewl about the absence of government turning the world into chaos. Why, who would build the roads, who would feed the people, who would protect us from the bad people? Ironically, these same people happily assent to a mystical implied social contract and participate in the largest Stockholm Syndrome passion play in the history of mankind by voting for a new psychopath every few years to ensure that huge government apparatus remains in place with no accountability whatsoever demanded of the rulers but unlimited accountability demanded of the hapless ruled who consent to the nonsense through acceptance, acquiescence and fear. Fear mostly. For fear and obedience are the brick and mortar of the state and the collectivists and freedom assassins who run the government are the stonemasons. Absent obedience, how could any state function? The totality of the obedience baffles me but clearly many people are in a moral hazard. They are Helots in a tax jurisdiction that effectively taxes them in excess of 100 percent and use a fiat currently employing their unborn as implied collateral for the funded debt. Curiouser and curiouser. Imagine if you will that RedDR in the 1930s opines that food is so important the entire production apparatus must be nationalized to ensure that the food gets to the table. From farm to table, everything isn’t only regulated but owned lock, stock and barrel by the extraordinarily effective Federal government. Fast forward to today where the government farms as efficiently as Robert Mugabe’s agricultural geniuses, place the brilliance of government management into the whole process and you have a hybrid of the DMV and USPS in charge of distributing the food at government supermarkets (the horror!). The entire process is dragooned in a macabre variation of the US Postal Service marrying a Soviet-style collectivization process. Malnourished American kulaks would be grousing today about the opulent dining habits of government apparatchiks and the stupendous waste and abuse of a government cartel in food delivery. Imagine eating in a restaurant the government runs, not through contractors but genuine Government Service employees complete with incredibly high salaries, wealthy pension plans and the usual attitude for customer service one finds universally at government facilities. Some worthies propose that the free market may be able to better provision the entire food manufacturing and delivery process with possibly quaint names like Albertsons, Safeway or Publix. Liberals and so-called conservatives alike would clamor to defend the government program or at least just modestly reduce. Why, people would starve! The voluntaryists, anarchists and abolitionists would be accused of the cruelest conspiracies and roundly condemned for suggesting such a thing. The clamor and din would match that of the national ripostes to abolitionist conceit in the 19th century when the usual political hostages would exclaim in high and tender voices but who will pick the cotton? Who will build the roads? Who will take care of us? Millennia back the Greeks and Romans raised the same hue and cry whenever the rulers were questioned in their wisdom. You, dear reader, practice anarchy every day. You don’t murder or maim your friends and family because the law would bring you to justice but because your moral compass is far higher than that of the politician and their cronies. You rear your children, take up hobbies and work for your families not because of the lash but your own decency. If not, you should run for office, you’re a perfect fit. Otherwise, don’t hit and don’t steal, the government will resent you for it. Resist. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
A libertarian came and talked to us in high school. I thought he was an idiot. Still think the same. aws Now to your answer. Satanic Bible. Do as thou wild. Libertine or Libertarian. Do whatever you want. It is a valuless philisopy. When you don[t have values you exescuse evil.
I don't buy that. Libertarians just want to be left alone and enjoy life. I'm somewhere along the lines of libertarian/anarchist.
Libertarians just want to be left alone and enjoy life. That may be the case with some of them. That is fine. I agree with some of their points. It's just that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or don't care.
Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. Some choose the wrong way and libertarians ain't got a monopoly on that by any means. Criminals do.
Some choose the wrong way and libertarians ain't got a monopoly on that by any means. Criminals do. To me many of their positions are immoral. Not all but many.
If that were true Obama woul have received 0 votes.
They want to be left alone. The criticism I see most often is they are characterized as pot heads. Of my 20+ friends I can name 4 of them that don't do pot. The others are recreational types, not pot heads. What immoral things are you talking about? Please be specific.
Tpaine and probably Deckard are for legalizing not just pot but crack, Heroin etc. That is immoral.
I agree that those other drugs are bad news and hands off. My buddy today told me a few of the people I know are dabbling in them. Ticked me off because they are decent folks that could be on the road to destruction. I guess those types of drugs should be illegal because of their destructive effect to families, children and finances.
That is immoral. What's immoral is locking up or killing someone for using drugs. How is that drug war of yours working out by the way? Billions of dollars spent, countless innocents killed in your immoral war, and usage rates have remained the same. Not to mention the massive militarization of police departments and legalized highway robbery thanks to you and your ilk. Tell me how the government has the right to tell anyone what they may or may not ingest. Do they own you? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Why do you need government to tell you what's right or wrong? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much That has been my experience. Mention the word "anarchy" or "libertarian" and automatically they think your a pothead. The most basic right is the right to be left alone. Some seem to think that right and wrong can only be determined by the government. I reject that completely. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much That may be the case with some of them. That is fine. --- I agree with some of their points. ---- It's just that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or don't care. ---- A K A Stone No, in my opinion, it was immoral and unconstitutional to criminalize and prohibit objects like booze, drugs, and certain types of arms.. And you can trace the decline of freedom in this country directly from those infringements on our liberties.. Do you really think our govts have the constitutional power to prohibit? Why?
It's just that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or don't care. Seems like an emotional position you have there.
Sure, until they get in trouble. Then they want the rest of us to save them. Libertarians always talk about "freedom", knowing the rest of us will listen to that side of their philosophy. But the other side of the coin are the taxpayers who, through the force of government, provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care and cash to the freedom-loving parasites. How about this instead? How about if the libertarian/anarchists promote the discontinuance of all these taxpayer-funded social programs FIRST, thus demonstrating that people will be responsible when we switch to this utopian world they describe.
Meaning we would still have the DEA, asset forfeiture, no-knock drug raids, and prisons full of non-violent drug offenders (ie., drug dealers). In other words, the dreaded War on Drugs (minus marijuana) would continue. And that's OK with you because all you really cared about was your precious marijuana. This talk about the "freedon to put whatever I want into my body" was just that. Talk.
Libertarians want ALL recreational drugs to be legal. How would legalizing only one drug square with their philosophy? "What immoral things are you talking about? Please be specific." Libertarians want to legalize gambling, porn, prostitution, drugs and suicide. Specifically. And if the only rules are "Don’t hit and don’t steal", that opens up a wide range of immoral activity that any normal person woulf call rude, offensive, vulgar, inappropriate, indecent or obscene. As long as another person is not harmed, do what you want. Masturbate on public park bench while yelling obscene profanities at women and children. That "offends" you? Too bad. Then stay out of the park. They have freedoms too, and don't you dare impose your moral standards on them.
Simply not true. This is a rationalization, an excuse made by a majority rule communitarian to justify his support for the welfare state. Communitarian/ socialistic taxpayers, like misterwhite, are the ones that voted in the govt parasites who initiated the welfare state. Libertarians want to return to a constitutionally based system, which we had before the rise of the communitarian/welfare state, advocated by misterwhite...
Misterwhite, back in his robertpaulsen days at FR, had this strange obsession. He loved making accusations about public masturbation.. Whatta weirdo.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Libertine or Libertarian. Do whatever you want.
#3. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
I don't buy that.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#4)
Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong.
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#4)
Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
#8. To: Fred Mertz, Tpaine (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Tpaine and probably Deckard are for legalizing not just pot but crack, Heroin etc.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: A K A Stone (#3)
It's just that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or don't care.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#12. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
The criticism I see most often is they are characterized as pot heads. Of my 20+ friends I can name 4 of them that don't do pot. The others are recreational types, not pot heads.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#13. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#8)
Fred Mertz (#2) --- Libertarians just want to be left alone and enjoy life.
Tpaine and probably Deckard are for legalizing not just pot but crack, Heroin etc. --- That is immoral.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#15. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
"Libertarians just want to be left alone and enjoy life."
#16. To: Fred Mertz (#9)
"I guess those types of drugs should be illegal because of their destructive effect to families, children and finances."
#17. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
"The criticism I see most often is they are characterized as pot heads."
#18. To: misterwhite (#15)
Sure, until they get in trouble. Then they (libertarians) want the rest of us to save them.
Libertarians always talk about "freedom", knowing the rest of us will listen to that side of their philosophy. But the other side of the coin are the taxpayers who, through the force of government, provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care and cash to the freedom-loving parasites.
How about this instead? How about if the libertarian/anarchists promote the discontinuance of all these taxpayer-funded social programs FIRST, thus demonstrating that people will be responsible when we switch to this utopian world they describe.
#19. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#17)
Masturbate on public park bench while yelling obscene profanities at women and children.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]