Why Governments are bad.

Just thinking here.  The first order of business of any organization, and i might add, the most important, is to raise money so that the organization can operate.  If they earn this money, they're generally honest, hard working, reliable, and dependable.  If not, people wouldn't voluntarily give them their money, no matter how good the deal sounded.  Now, if you got your money at the point of a gun, then none of the above would necessarily apply.  You can see why psychopaths would do well in the latter scenario.

All organizations that earn their money need to justify their existence on a daily basis.  Good morel priciples play a big part.  They golden rule would fit into the organization very well.

All organization the take by force their operating money, do not have ot earn it and good morel principles need to be turned inside out to work.

Concentrated benefits with diffused cost.

Concentrated benefits and diffused cost:  This is why we have so little control over government.  The people, hundreds or thousands, that receives the benefits are relativity few, and their benefits are high. The cost then, are diffused among millions and  therefore seemingly low.  The high benefits greatly motivates the receivers to keep these benefits and the very cost are diffused to many payers, therefore, the people paying the seemingly low cost, are little motivated to fight these costs.

Ego Card

The Ego Card replaces government. A blend of Equifax, Ebay, and Facebook, the Ego Card. If you lie, cheat, or steal, you would suffer because it will show up on the Ego Card. If you truthtell, be honest, and productive, it will show up on the Ego Card. Your social contacts will treat you how you deserve to be treated. No need for government and their monopolistic force. No Taxes, all motivation to do good.


The key is that there is no external force that is using a gun to tell the individual what they can or cannot do. The power of the Ego card is an internal force (self jreservation) that is within all of us, naturally.

The Philosophy of Liberty

YouTube Video Box on FacebPublish Postook

The slavery of politics

The slavery of politics

There are few things more frustrating than engaging in a discussion with a Constitutionalist. It is a very depressing spectacle to observe people who are often very rational descend into the most vulgar style of starry-eyed hero worship when discussing the Founding Fathers and their divine governing document.  http://www.strike-the-root.com/slavery-of-politics

 

Lysander Spooner effectively eviscerated the Constitution in 1870. When engaging in discussions with Constitutionalists, I will often quote Spooner's statement that the Constitution "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." This is a simple yet powerful indictment. The logic here is unassailable, and indeed Constitutionalists typically do not even attempt to refute Spooner‘s logic. Instead, they fall back on the argument that the problem lies not in the Constitution but in the people who have been elected to administer and uphold it.

 

This argument highlights a very interesting parallel between Constitutionalists and communists. While members of both groups would likely be loath to admit it, Constitutionalists and communists are united by a shared delusion: the belief that their preferred system would work wonderfully if only "the right people" were in charge.

 

The problem is that within the confines of any system of domination and exploitation, “the right people” simply do not exist.

 

Domination in a Democratic Society

 

Human beings, like other social animals, have a natural tendency to form dominance hierarchies. As a species capable of high levels of cognition, humans have developed some rather ingenious ways of dominating each other.

 

With respect to various forms of social organization, a type of path dependence seems to exist. The way in which a society chooses its leaders will determine the type of people who rise to the top of that society. A society that chooses its rulers based on the principle of “might makes right” will come to be dominated by the most physically strong members of society. A hereditary monarchy will be dominated by members of the royal family.

 

Many libertarian-minded individuals have written insightfully about the types of leaders who rise to the top in democratic societies. Since democratic leaders acquire power by convincing a majority of voters to support them, they must find some way to cobble together a coalition large enough to win an election. This is most easily done by appealing to people’s worst instincts. As F.A. Hayek wrote, “If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail.”

 

Hans Hoppe was even more explicit when he wrote, “The selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it practically impossible that any good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues.”

 

While Lord Acton was certainly correct when he observed that power corrupts, that is really only part of the story. It is equally true that corrupt people tend to be the ones who seek power in the first place. The siren song of the State is irresistible to someone with an overdevelopedlibido dominandi. Thus, there is an inverse relationship between how much an individual wants power and how much he can be trusted to exercise his power in a prudent and responsible manner.

 

(Note: Lest Constitutionalists object that America is a republic and not a democracy, I hasten to add that these observations also apply to the leaders in a representative republic.)

 

No one would be surprised if a society organized around the principle of “might makes right” came to be dominated by the most physically strong members of society. Similarly, no one would be surprised to find that political power in a hereditary monarchy always seems to be wielded by members of the same family.

 

Why, then, are people surprised when societies in which leaders are chosen by democratic elections come to be dominated by liars, demagogues, and sociopaths? Why do so many people, from Constitutionalists to progressives to some libertarians, seem to think all of their problems can be solved by “throwing out the bums” and electing “the right people”?

The answer, I think, lies in another characteristic of democracy: its ingenious system of propaganda.

 

Democratic Propaganda

 

Democracy is somewhat unique among systems of domination and control in that it often successfully convinces the victims of domination to be enthusiastically complicit in their own enslavement. Convincing average people to become invested in the political process is perhaps the most ingenious mode of control ever developed by the ruling class. Under feudalism and monarchism, the ruling class was generally only able to control people's physical bodies. Democratic propaganda, by convincing people that they are the government, gives the ruling class a way to control people's minds.

 

The ruling class wants people to think that voting, civic engagement, political activism, and all of that other claptrap are very important. This is why cable news pundits, ruling class propagandists that they are, spend the vast majority of their time to covering politics. This is why presidential elections now last for two years. That is why nearly every news story, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with politics, is endlessly analyzed for its political implications. As many people have noted, one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian society is the politicization of everything.

 

As people devote more and more of their time to politics, people begin to believe that they have a vested interest in preserving the existing architecture of power and exploitation. People begin to falsely believe that their fates are inextricably intertwined with the fates of their rulers. And that is precisely what the rulers want.

 

Democratic propagandists try to get the members of the exploited class to sanction the sociopathy of the ruling class by, in essence, trying to turn the members of the exploited class into sociopaths.

 

People cannot free themselves if they do not believe they are enslaved. People need to stop trying to free themselves through politics and start trying to free themselves from politics.

anonymous

"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

"The Gun Is  Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year  old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more  civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a  firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's  potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the  argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a  bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not  the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be  forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It  doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by  force.  It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj.  L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) So the greatest  civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Facebook

Facebook