Charging Al Gore with attempted democide

Why hasn’t Al #Gore yet been charged with attempted democide? For his deliberately high #carbon #footprint, (limo to be driven to his private jet, owning several mansions), his only possible defense would be to claim he never believed in global #warming. No judge worth his salt would believe a word of that (given Gore’s track record as the main consistent champion of the Big Lie), and would sentence him to a fine of $1, to be paid to each one of the American people, meaning a total fine of $320mln, which he can surely afford after having coerced/bribed every government in the world to buy products/services from the companies he bought cheap stock in.

Sentencing him to a 6000 year prison sentence seems a bit pointless, because:

he’ll have died of natural causes after having served only a fraction of the time,

It only serves to enable him recommence his evil lying from behind bars, martyring him, which will lead to rioting on the streets by leftist bastards, vandalizing whatever they can, to vent their frustration with their plans having been thwarted.

He’ll once again live at the expense of the tax payer – in what way is that justice?

Any way you look at it: the Gore is gonna have to pay up: either for deceiving so many of the world’s leaders, or for attempting to murder every single one of us. (Or for financially profitting from the suffering of the world’s population).

I’m being generous here: limit the fine to each of the 320mln Americans. There’s no need to pay each one of the 7 bln world citizens, given that paying a mere $0.01 to each of his worldwide victims would cost him $70mln, which is beyond his capacity to pay. Unlike prison sentences, this would deter him from re-engaging in his hideous practices, since he’d not have the money to do that.

In the style of Vincent Bugliosi’s “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”.

That oughtta teach the bastards a lesson, and hopefully inspire people around the world to press charges against their national politicians, thus purging the system’s evil components (which, given the nature of government, would likely empty the entire system.)

Because: I don’t know about you, but I’m quite scared of governments which have turned against the people, not just the officially communist ones, but all of them (including the unofficially #communist ones). According to professor Paul Gottfried, one aspect of Mussolini’s fascist government was, that they considered the state as a sentient being. which is really what they all do, and they all did (going back at least as far as the USSR’s #Gulag, but really any despot that introduced a secret police, to fight anyone of the citizens that thought government should serve them, instead of vice versa). I won’t expect #AntiFa to protest against that.


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

Flat-out outlawing something doesn’t work

As proven by the size of the #prison population: prisons are filled with people that broke laws (bar the sparse few innocents that have been wrongly convicted), so laws don’t magically make everything all right and stop people from braking them.

If laws worked, whenever a #law (a #ban) was passed, the amount of prison cells could be reduced. Instead the number has to increase, to house the extra people braking the law.

So why bother with the childishly simple notion of “we’ll force people to behave the way we want them to and it’ll be all right”, why not work with the people, lead by example, etc?

Sounds too wishy-washy? Perhaps, but since the age-old approach of forcing people apparently has never worked anywhere on earth, if one is so presumptouous as to take the job of politician, one had better come up with a approach that might work.

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.

“Statelesness ain’t anarchy”

The popular vernacular equates “#anarchy” to “#chaos” (Now I get why Bob Murphy called his brilliant booklet “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.