A historical lesson politicians won’t learn

Government is by definition not democratic. Even with a parliament (congress), of self-proclaimed “representatives” of the people. It’s still a minority ruling over a majority: #minorityRule is also called #oligarchy. And the people, not being able to exert any influence, resent being exploited and victimized. That’s why, when the allies defeated the Nazi-forces, and occupied Germany, they did not encounter any local terrorist activities. The German people were quite relieved at bring liberated from the jerk that had seized and abused power, and had thrust the world into war. “The people” had voted him in power, on account of the continued economic victimizationresulting from the treaty of Versailles, so they can’t really blamed for the consequences resulting from what they had no influence on (WW1), leading to something nobody asked permission for (WW2).
In short, in nation ststes, the people are victims of their overlords. Any party attacking that overlord, will be (initially) welcomed. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, after all, leading to a present-day sentiment of: “Vladimir, darling, how are you?”


The root of it vs desperate patching


Via http://contrakrugman.com/103

Basically, what Paul Krugman is saying in that column, is, that it’s silly to rely on government for social services for the elderly. But instead of yanking the problem out by the root, and letting citizens arrange their own entitlements, Krugman calls for desperate patching of the demographic problems, by inviting more people into the country. I’m not opposed to people moving into an area (even if that area is in a different city, or even country), but Krugman’s approach is just to push the problem forward, causing future generations to having to handle their own (much worse?) demographic issues. This demonstrates the problem innate to Krugman’s economical theory: Keynesianism, which does the exqct same thing, but not with people, but with the economy (so: yes, with people).

Surely, there’s an easy argument to be made for curing the problem right now and removing government from this equation (statelessness would be ideal, but simply banning government from this role will perform miracles)

Communism needn’t have been evil

As contemporary ancoms (anarcho-communists) are keen to emphasize, there has never been a real communist state. Since communism is supposed to be anarchistic, the centrally-led dictatorships we’ve come to know as communist, were only supposed to be half-way solutions to full-fledged communist anarchism/anarcho-communism.
That it turned out that communism was the worst political system to live under, with horrible totalitarian oppression and high death tolls following a meager existence at low living standards, reflects poorly on the ideology, the fact that it attracted such despots speaks poorly for Soviet-era communists and even (perhaps especially so) for today’s socialists who’ve had so much more time to experience different kinds of state-organisation than the followers of Lenin and Stalin had.
Anarchism (the supposed end state of communism) makes oppression impossible, because there is no state to wield its magical authority to force people into a particular mold. The fact that many of today’s socialists are such power-hungry despots, reveals much more about them than it does about socialism. Which of course had enough to complain about, even without all the failed attempts to run states (no more than systems for the care of the inhabitants). The failed state is a system which presumes that the citizen is to serve the state, or one where the state abuses the citizen.
Chairman Mao Zedong wrote in The Little Red Book: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
that quote speaks volumes for the mindset of those who adopt communism.
Again, my ranking of importance, with justification:
The citizen (since the emergence of bipedal life on earth for the longest time it has existed without state a.k.a. leadership)
The state (politics can’t exist/is nothing without citizens, think of an Afdolf orating in the bathroom, to his toilet bowl for lack of attendance at Nuremburg).

Order out of disorder

George Orwell would approve of the conflation of #anarchy with #chaos. However, it is likely that anarchy (rulerlessness) would lead to more, and more stable order than “we” have now, for the simple reason that that the state is so used to having its comandments obeyed blindly, that they callously issue ridiculous commandments, like “always having to stop for a red stoplight”, even when there is no other traffic for miles around (thus forcing people to emit more CO2). To quote Fr├ęderic Bastiat’s The Law:

the safest way to make the law respected, is to make the law respectable.

Followed by:

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

I beg to disagree with the esteemed Mr. #Bastiat here: my moral sense is more important than some preposterous law concocted by power mad politicians (given some time: they’ll all become power mad, if they’re not already)
This means that laws that depend entirely on the magical authority of the state, undermine that authority.

Compare this to stateless societies:
Any laws the average person encounters will be rules of conduct instated by the owner of the property they’re on intended to keep the propety intact and reusable by other persons (thus keeping the income from that property, to the owner, intact). So long as rules are not ridiculous or unreasonable, reasonable persons shall be willing to respect those rules,
It’s when people experience unreason & wanton regulation for its own sake, that they dig their heels in the sand and become disrespectful for the laws.

To speak in biological terms: anarchism is #Darwinism, #statism is #Creationism: the presence of an almighty, mythical being (though in the statist’s case: it’s the devil, not god) that rules over all, and is needed to make the world go round.

Where the state is dependent on force to get people in line, a voluntary society does not use force, and so does not incur the opsychological backlash of the,statist solutionn

Why it’s #COUNTER-terrorism

…when #muslims do it, but when western regimes initiate activities against hapless Arabs it’s #terrorism (#imperialism, #colonialism, whichever). Unless anyone would care to argue that Saddam Hussayn was really an OK kind of guy and deserving of the US’s support (both #financial and #military (their #WMDs (yes, those!) were fired at #Iran, with the help of #American satellite data)), then really my position will go uncontested, and even if someone would like to try, it will…
#Rumsfeld (the war-hawk), shook hands with Hussayn when meeting to hand over a pile of US tax-victim dollars.
“But if Rumsfeld had met him, he’s the one to know first-hand that Saddam, was dangerous and he’d be right to want to eliminate him.” The statist position becomes more and more desperate.

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics


One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

– Plato

And that is why politics (rulerdom) is bad:
It forces you to choose between wasting your time, or having your time wasted.
It allows the inferior to reach way more power than is desirable.