Respect

“The surest way to get respect for the #law, is making the law respectable” as the great French political economist F├ęderic #Bastiat wrote, several centuries ago.
This means that government’s laws will never be respected. The consequences for breaking them may be feared, but any seeming respect for the law that follows on the heels of such fear, is merely superficial, and a further cause for irritation at #government. Which enthousiastically keeps undermining it’s justification.

The only way to create respectable laws is to make it clear what purpose they serve. (Forsake the simple blanket commandments). This is why #anarchy is legitimate #order: the owner of a product (say, your #Uber taxi) has strict rules: no vommitting in my car, because that’s a nasty mess that repels future customers.
Fall-down drunks have no qualms about vomiting on the street, but they will try to avoid vomiting in a shop, because that’s private property.

Plus, people don’t respect politicians. If a person voluntarily attempts to gain dominion and exercise power over you, it’s hard to respect them. It would take considerable suspension of disbelief to respect them., after all they did.

2 Stans

The “Two Stans” offer definite proof that humans are not suited to living in political arrangements. They are two notorious psychological experiments:

  • Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to authority” (the one where subjects were to fake-electrocute other people)
  • Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford #Prison experiment.

Milgram’s electrocution experiment:
Tested how far people were willing to go, applying electric shocks (potentially lethal pain), to innocent people, when instructed to do so, by an authority-figure (Milgram himself, in a lab coat), over some flimsy excuse.
It found that disconcertingly many people were willing to administer extreme amounts of pain/danger, so people are not suitable for following orders, due to a tendency to actually do so, without consideration for the results on their fellow human beings.

Zimbardo’s Stanford University prison experiment:
Tested how people behaved when equipped with power over other flesh and blood beings. The results where quite disconcerting. It’s as if a switch got flipped: the students rabdomly assigned the role of prison guard, showed a proclivity for quite sadistic behavior toward their fellow students, randomly assigned the role of prisoner.
So, people shouldn’t be made to have power over others, because Lord Acton was right: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The best #politicians are parasites

This may come as a shock to some people, but it is true: stuff (#healthcare, the #economy) works best when politicians don’t touch it. Sure, they may lean back, looking at how nice the country runs, but the reason the #country runs so smoothly is, that you didn’t touch it. So, during elections they may boast about their “wise #management” of the economy, but the only wise thing they did to it, was: nothing. So any boasting about that, is at best empty. Meaning that they try to leach (claim as their own) on the smart behaviours of others (merchants), that they had no part in. In that way, parasitism is the best the people could hope for in government policy. A #government that just sits there, consuning tax #loot and not contributing the least to anything, is the best government. What does that tell you?

Secret police

Think about it: the concept of #SecretPolice has no place in a country. It is such a nasty concept, that governments deny its existence – up to a point (hence the name “secret” police): of course, when people start disappearing, eventually, news gets out.
Such organisations police the population, protecting the state against the only thing that enables the state to exist: the people (note that I did not write that “the people legitimize the state”). But surely, if the people allow something to exist, they can revoke that permission? Especially when the thing develops harmful intentions toward them.

“Statelesness ain’t anarchy”

The popular vernacular equates “#anarchy” to “#chaos” (Now I get why Bob Murphy called his brilliant booklet “Chaos Theory https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory”)

To the contrary, Anarchy means “legitimate law” (if you get what I mean) aka “legitimate order”.
Since the owners merely wish to protect their #investment, they impose some rules/restrictions on their use. This not only prevents them from getting damaged, but als prevents users from chasing away other #customers, and thus damaging the owner’s #financial #interests.

A thought on the Grenfell tower disaster

In a #Iibertarian or #anarchocapitalist society (not what #London has, atm), it would not have occurred. Why not? Because: when, in spite of continuous writings by inhabitants, the building isn’t fireproofed to their satisfaction, that may be considered a form of #aggression (risking fatal consequences). This would have been much more costly than using proper fire-proof materials, in the first place, or replacing the dodgy materials with proper ones.

Also, the people would have had much more choice in housing than the #government lets them have, so if one (very expensive!) housing structure remains unused, the owners wil go #bankrupt. Becsuse the owners couldn’t simply raise raxes to cover the cost of their mistake. Meaning all the housing space will be used at capacity, and no more than that will be built; this way #capitalism / the market reduces waste: because whatever’s left of Grenfell tower will now not be reused: all the materials & energy that went into it, have gone up in smoke; so #statism, is an ideology of (violent) waste.

The people could have moved out, without contractual consequences, because the building is (and remains) unsafe to live in. Thus costing the owners money.

Who will hand out IDs?

Since it’s none of the state’s business who I am, or where I go to/have been to, the state has nothing to do with handing out proof-of-Identification. To be able to enter my own home, unless I built a lock into my door, that worked that way.
Basically, every lock does, but carrying a mechanical or electrical key is enough evidence of identity for the vast majority of people, or typing a code into a key pad is.
So why would I not be allowed anywhere near my own home without a piece of paper or plastic with my photo+name on it? And why are those passports designed so dumbly? Because the old design for a passport, did not have a rigid plastic card built into them, so they were too easy to forge.
So nowadays, the owner (assuming that’s the person who’s picture+name is on it, not the government) can not reliably travel to another country with a passport.
Because the brittle plastic card in it (used to display your photo, name, date of birth, etc.) has a tendency to break when you sit on it, or whatever, making it harder for you to leave or get home, and since that is supposed to be the purpose of a passport, that is something the government fails at again, and this time, it isn’t even one of their permissable roles; it’s just an annoyance/hindrance, that serves no real purpose.

“But if you let just anybody into the country,”

Then what? Would you get upset if you lived in, say, Amsterdam, and the house next to yours got bought & inhabited by someone from the city of Deventer? Different city, different province, even! But because its the same country you suddenly don’t mind. But if those people moved out of the city of Bottrop, Germany, suddenly it is an issue worth getting upset about. Germany is a country immediately next to the Netherlands, they actually share a border. How is moving out of Germany different from moving out of Overijssel (the province where the city of Deventer is located)? Of course, people get really upset if it’s people from, say, Arabia or Africa, those are even worse than Germany (or Belgium, France, the UK – they Brexited the EU, proof they don’t even want to be our friends anymore!)

“They would use all sorts of government (taxpayer funded) services.”

So? Just abolish government / remove those services from the claws of government, where they don’t belong, anyway.

“Well, people from Overijssel pay the same taxes as we do.”
So, shared #victimhood is your criterion for acceptance? So Stockholm of you, dude!
I would get upset, if they started paying taxes here: more loot for the evil institution, that is against my interests.

What is the only legitimate purpose of an ID? Proof of identity when signing a contract, you don’t need a government registration for that!