The 4 roles

John Locke, summed up the only 4 reasons a people might have to accept a government. Protection of:

  1. Life,
  2. Health,
  3. Property
  4. and liberty.

1 & 3. Given that these protections are funded through taxation (theft) and governments are the main killers of citizens (I refer you to Vincent Bugliosi’s book on charging GWB with murder: 100,000 Iraqis were killed, and several tens of thousands of US citizens-turned-soldiers died in that unjustifiable war.) That still leaves out the many Texans governor Bush signed off to be executed. And the many deaths that resulted from actions by/against IS (founded in an American POW camp in Iraq)
Apart from executions, there are many that are locked up for victimless crimes. That is just in the free west alone: communists had/still have a regrettable tendency to shoot at people trying to escape from the worker’s paradise. The eastern block was one big open-air prison.
2. Agricultural subsidies are not only paid for with stolen money, but also harmful to the population – it has long been established (listen to Vinnie Tortorich’s podcast America’s Angriest Trainer for more information) that Sugar and Grains are not that good for you: fat is a better source of energy. And modified foods are even worse.
4.Since protection of popular liberty would harm the interests of government, which considers itself a biological entity in and of itself, having rights such as no citizen ever had, it is not a role government is in any way able (willing to try) to perform.

So, there are no reasons left. Regrettable, statists.

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?

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!

Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

An arising strand of philosophy

I’m disconcerted by/about the arising of a strand of philosophy that claims that lacking a (fictional) social contract, coercion of the population is acceptable.
Such activists presumably feel that neither the French in 1792, nor the Russians in 1917/the 1990s, had a right to overthrow their oppresive, exploitative governments.
Such people clearly lack both perspective and a functioning moral compass. The solution/refutation is so simple: all governments are capable of, is:

  1. Lying
  2. Deceiving
  3. Destroying
  4. Killing
  5. And to finance all that: Stealing.

    (Fits nicely on the digits of one hand!)

    The people are the only ones actually capable of producing.
    So: are people better off with or without a government?
    And what would be the implied order of priority Seems to me that people outrank government. So the only acceptable coercion is of politicians., by civillians. Since that’s never gonna happen, because politicians have to volunteer for the job and they only volunteer for jobs when they can have some fun in them, thesloution is staring us in the face, government is entirely unworkable/unacceptable/ even downright impossible.
    So: time for an overthrowing (of academia & of government).

    Het Aha-moment

    #Asielzoekers hebben het Aha- (#Asielhomo-) moment ontdekt. Als het een niet werkt, dan het andere wel, zal de gedachte zijn. Dit is te voorkomen door te begrijpen dat asiel-opvang geen #overheidstaak is. Laat dat door individuën doen! Mocht het iemand te heet onder de voeten worden in eigen land, gaan ze lekker op #vakantie naar een ander land! Waar slaat het concept van #asiel eigenlijk op?
    Als linkse #politici zo graag roepen dat #asielzoekers zo zielig zijn, laten ze hen dan zelf in eigen huis nemen. Op eigen kosten. Als ze niet meer #AZC’s (voor 1000 asielzoekers) kunnen opdringen aan keine gemeenten van 800 inwoners, maar zèlf de gevolgen van hun schoonpraterij moeten voelen, gaan ze wel anders piepen. O, stel je toch eens voor, als de overheid het goede voorbeeld zou gaan geven; wat zou de samenleving opknappen! Zo’n aha-moment zal vast niet in Den Haag plaatsvinden.
    Dan maar dit: Als de overheid zich met minder zou bemoeien, ipv zo totalitair te zijn als nu, dan zouden minder mensen stijgeren over #instroom van asielzoekers, die gaan meeprofiteren van alle #duurbetaalde (#onbetaalbare) voorzieningen. De samenleving zou veel #humaner worden.

    The roles of government, ep. 3: education

    It would befuddle the time-traveller from the middle-ages to find that the modern state feels obliged to interfere with education. Surely, that is a matter for the parents and the children?
    “But if the state would not manage education, how could it ensure that enough of certain classes of workers came about?”
    Ah, good question. If only because it exposes a political fallacy: the country (the population thereof) only serves their own / eachother’s purposes. The abstract, fantastical entity called the country (identifiable on maps, by flags & army-uniforms, and Olympic team-jerseys) has no interests in certain types of workers, that learn to be obedient little factory-workers, just like herr Bismarck envisioned it. The modern education system was merely designed for the factories supporting his warfaring nation.
    It’s the same question, asked long ago by someone on social media who felylt that the nation needed centrallized control. Proposing anarchism to them, and that was refuted your argument by asking: “When there’s no government, who would run the country?”
    Replying that in statelesness (anarchism) there is no country to run, and why bother with running a place where people live, breathe, eat, drink, work and entertain themselves, are born and eventually die: it’s not a corporation run for profit like a business. What if it were: for who’s profit would it be run? The people? (When do we, as share-holders get a share of the profits?) If we’re not the share-holders, who would that be, then?
    Results in stupefied silence.