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)
I’m an #anarchist, because I’m sure that it’s the most moral & practical system there is. But, to ditch the evil institutions (all over the world) in one go, just like that – apart from being almost impossible – would lead to chaos, so it’s best to let the junta abolish itself gradually, teach the people independence via a minarchist phase. This would help maintain order.
There are positives and negatives to the Trump administration:
On the upside:
he has cut large amounts of regulations (not all equally impressive)
On the downside:
The economic boost that came from cutting regulation may not be enough compensate:
- either the grave effects of the trade war he started.
- or the spending on death and dedtruction; his foreign policy (wars) is just as bad as Obama’s. And thus makes America (& Europe) less safe and defendable.
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.
Mr/Ms/Mrs secretary of Defense, if you are sincere about defending the people in the country, stop sending them out to nonsense wars, because a veteran shoots him-/herself dead at an average of once per minute. These veterans (citizens) were not defended from violent death! So the title Department of Defense is a grand misnomer.
In fact I believe that the majority of gun deaths in the US, is a suicide, whether veteran or not. I do not know what drives the other suicices, but let’s assume that economic woes play a not inconsiderable role. If anything destroys economies, it’s killfare, so the offensive wars of choice probably contribute to those other suicides as well and are the exact opposite of defense.
All offensive wars cause grudges (the only “happy” exception perhaps being Vietnam), and those grudges may result in a violent response, a returned military attack.
Or terrorizing the world may result in counter terrorist responses (9/11).
The only way to defend you, the nation (the political construct) is making the people feel you deserve it, and then hoping that they will come to your defense, when a hostile-army is at the gates, so they think that, under a new regime, they will be worse off.
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.
The next time people expect that an oath will suffice to make the people in power not abuse those powers. I’m sure the people responsible for what happened to Rodney King took an oath to protect people like him, and George W Nush, when he got sworn in as president, took an oath to defend and uphold the condtitution,which h then wiped his ass with, by signing the Patriot Act, much to the detriment of someone like mostafa (see the film “Washington, you’re fired”, linked below, at around the 12:00 mark in particular)
Oaths don’t mean shite to the people taking them, so please world, abolish them. Having people take an oath before them entering some office, or commencing duty in some official capacity is a sign of weakness.
Since the blind faith of the oath does not guarantee there will be no sbuses, stronger measures to keep those in power, in check (whether physical measures or not) are needed. The tale of Damocles offers inspiration. It’s either that, or abolition of the whole office.