Warren v. District of Columbia; reality v police

At around 12:09 you’ll see a piece of this ruling:

A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide… police protection to any individual citizen.

Warren v District of Columbia
(444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct of Ap., 1981))

Makes me wonder why not every cop in the country resigned in protest: “I only joined the force to help people, but now that it the court has ruled that that’s not my job, I don’t want to know what my actual job is, then. So I quit!”

Actually, I have an idea why: cops are America’s fastest growing class of millionaires

Also makes me wonder what on earth the reason is, that any single citizen still accepts the existence of the nation, since its purpose is not to defend the people – that make up the only reason for the existence of the nation

But the people are forced (at gunpoint, if necessary) to pay for the cowardly, powermad leaches. That is why a stateless society: no business could get away with that; they’d go bankrupt, because nobody would pay them; no income, yet high expenses means:

the end.


Legitimate order v. State-imposed order

I frequently say, that anarchism (ancapism: anarcho capitalism instead of anarcho communism or ancomism) is not chaos, but legitimate order. The literal definition of legitimate is “imposed by (government) law”, which is why order imposed by the state is not legitimate (in the vernacular sense) and is thus not orderly; it depends on fear for reprisal; if people think they can get away with something, fear of reprisal melts away. And disorder (unlawfulness) follows on its heels.

In ancapistan and its close relative, minarchia (a minarchical state; with minimal government), which are societies based on private ownership, the private owner may allow access to the property (esp. smart if we’re talking about private roads, or hotels/convention halls, etc.), so long as one obeys certain rules, if one finds the rules unacceptable, one does not enter that property. Instead one attempts to find some other property where the rules are more to one’s liking. Possible due to the decentrallized nature of governance.

The vernacular sense
This is why ancap societies, are more legitimate (legit) in the vernacular sense of “feeling justifiable.”

Minarchy to anarchy

IMHO the only (best) way to move forward is by participating & subverting, because it’ll be such a big change, too hard & abrupt for most. First step: use popular culture to get folk acquainted with themselves, with their own responsability.

I see only one risk with the minarchist route, people might say: since the minarchy works so well, why go to anarchy? (Because eg the USSA started out as a minarchy as well, now look at it; the new socialist utopia.)
OTOH, the entrenched power hungry humanoids (politicians) will do whatever they can, in order to protect their positions, so perhaps a sudden revolution is what we need.. Such a revolution may fit into day to day life, after the collapse of the economy, because that will be chaos anyway, the power (willingness) of the junta to defend the interests of the people will by then already be diminished (certainly the pretense cannot be maintained anymore)


When the leaders aren’t so glorious

Take the famous (notorious) example of Obama. Who has publicly stated belief in what Pastor Gore said in the church of UN, has no doubt contributed to the ongoing rise of CO2, since ± Kyoto, by way of his 7 wars in 8 years of being president (1 Nobel peace prize, 0 days of peace), given that wars these days consume more energy than in the era of the knight in shining armor on horseback. Because back then, there were no tanks, aircraft (, drones), no Echelon computers spying on the people (and listening in on cell phone conversations of leaders of allied countries – Angela Merckel), and consuming so yonking much energy that Michael Boldin of the http://www.tenthamendentcenter.com proposed getting Utah to stop supplying the 17 million gallons of water the stasi needs to cool the computers. The enormous energy saving would reduce energy consumption and thus CO2 output considerably.
Globally less well known is how the Dutch politicians make every effort to maximize CO2 levels by having spent almost every week since 1966 (by now over half a century! 52 years) campaigning to prevent solving the traffic jams on the highways. (And the local juntas did their bit by programming the stop lights in such a way that they halted traffic so much, that emissions increased needlessly much, and caused countless frustrations in the population).
Oh, there’s the bit where both Obama and Dutch politicians have repeatedly publicly announced believe in the whole debunked http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4/pdf political hypothesis of dangerous CO2. Either:

  • they didn’t believe CO2 was risky, (in which case they’re lying their rear ends off for political gain at the expense of the people, that are a prerequisite for politics to exist in the first place)
  • Or they do (in which case they tried to kill al live on the planet by deliberately changing the climate).

Any which way, they should be prevented in the future.


Quote from H.L. Mencken

I believe in liberty, but not enough to force it on people

I disagree with the stalemate Mencken recognized: if people wish to live in a dictatorial regime, where they have zero say in anything that happens, #libertarians can simply force freedom upon them; which is exactly what they want: have changes forced upon them.

Likewise, freedom (#libertarianism) e.g. in the form of anarchocapitalism, or even minarchism/libertarianism is far more desirable than socialism/communism, which requires absolute statist homogeneity.

Because in ancapistan it is possible to purchase a patch of land, put a fence round it (barbed wire or not), then build some houses there and let people live there, according to your rule. That rule may be: only public/communal property allowed. (Typically this applies to everyone else, because obviously: you’re needed to enforce the rule) in ancapistan that’s ok, because you bought the property, so you set the rules, and people that voluntarily choose to live there, agree to abide with those rules. In (socialist) states, it is impossible to have a capitalist commune in a (socialist/communist) state, because all land is publicly owned (ergo, by the state; not by any member of the public) and the state determines the rules on all its land.


Socialism is egotism

Socialists (like the Dutch politician Emile Roemer and the American Bernie Sanders) enjoy stoking the bullshite fire about pharmamaffia driving up prices for medication. Particularly nasty, because government requires all medication undergoes extensive (and very costly) testing before being allowed onto the market.

“But that’s a good thing, because I want my medication to be safe.”

Fair enough, but don’t you dare complain about high prices. Because you asked for the high costs, but you want someone else to pay them. That is why socialists are anti-social and egotistical.

BTW, there are better ways to ensure safety of medication. Ways that do not keep medication off the market, because the incredibly high costs make medication for rare illnesses too much of a financial loss, because the junta-mandated expenses can not be recovered. It’s better to have full transparency, without the government’s ominous shadow obscuring matters. Then the reputation of pharmaceutical companies will see to it, that they continue to attempt to provide high-quality medication. There is no institution of magical authority that they can hide behind, or can rope into doing their bidding, to hide any wrongs from the people. This way the people, in a proper democracy (self-rule) can protect themselves/eachother.
For without such the malicious example given by government, society will become much more social.


A common mental illness

This post is a (very) rough translation of the Dutch post https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/veel-voorkomende-geestesziekten/
More specifically, I’d like to talk about Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Or as I like to call it (slightly more accurately): howler monkeyism, is sadly a very common affliction on the left I’d even venture to call it a defining feature. The howler monkey (simia belzebub) is genetically preprogrammed to make hellish noises.
Munchhausen Syndrome (without proxy) is sometimes erroneously called “hospital addiction”. The variant with proxy is likewise explained as child abuse.
I disagree with both explanations, because they’re just expressions of an underlying illness: namely an overwhelming yearning to have attention, some channel this desire by learning how to compose and perform music, or become actors on film or stage, or become famous for being famous. Society may benefit from that, or simply ignore them, hopefully for them, they then either learn to cope with the failure, or keep deluding themselves that they do matter. Either way, those are not a huge problem for society as a whole. It’s the ones that have identified politics as the new rock arena, that pose a problem.

  • They invent illnesses for society, calling it racist for not being sufficiently anti-caucasian (it’s such an invented isdue, that they have to take it to such extremes to be able to make a fuss)
  • Or they invent an environmental illness, e.g. claim that the climate is in danger. And feign upset when not enough people fall for it, so make a second film, dispatch with the scientific pretense (they get the scientific bits entirely wrong anyway) and make the second monstrosity even more about themself (in so far as possible.)

How could society deal with that illness?

Prisons are unjust, and not a durable solution: similar to the #4thReich occupying Iraq: by killing one insurgent, they create ten more. Likewise: if you lock up one politician, you create ten more: because aggression breeds aggression.
Instead, disable (don’t enable) them, remove the platform they use to draw attention to themselves: remove centrally led politics.

In an anarchist society the problem of howler monkeyism will be handled fairly elegantly: people may choose to not do business with them, unless they (pseudo-voluntarily) seek treatment. This means they won’t be able to acquire food or buy sewage services etc.
This is beneficial for everyone, and a perfectly smooth, and unobtrusive way to deal with what in a statist world would lead to disaster.