8 months ago
33 in government


What I have to say today is not news. Most of it has been said before – by
prehistoric philosophers, and more recently by Lysander Spooner, Benedict de
Spinoza, Henry David Thoreau, Frederique Bastiat, John David Garcia, Robert
McGee, Larken Rose, and many others. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of human
history is the fact that the writings of these thinkers has yet to permeate and inform
the awareness of the general public. It is for this purpose that I add my voice to the
list, in hopes that I can further simplify the core message contained in what might
be called the philosophy of government, so that everyone with even half a brain can
understand it and apply it to their own lives.

In the same sense in which Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion can be thought of as
“classical”, the ideas that I share in this writing are likewise “classical”. Newton
didn't have adequate observational instruments to anticipate the development of
Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics – so he couldn't even attempt to describe
the physics of very fast moving objects or very small objects. In his time, the laws
of motion that he accurately described mathematically were totally adequate for the
world he was able to observe.

In similar fashion, I'm limiting my discussion to the practical and the obvious, and
beg the forbearance of the deep thinkers who recognize that my logic is incomplete.
Were I to attempt a deeper analysis of government, I'd be writing a book rather than
an article – and it would be a very long book indeed.

To whet your appetite for what follows, here are a few conclusions that will be
explained in what follows:
• Government only exists in the mind. It has no factual existence whatever. It is
accurate to describe it as a hallucination hypnotically implanted in your mind
by those who would control you in order to plunder your wealth and render
you subservient.
• Everything else you believe about government is a lie.
◦ It is neither of, by, nor for “the people”.
◦ It is not a “necessary evil”. It's just evil.
◦ The only obligation you have to obey government is that which you impose
upon yourself.◦ Taxation is a form of slavery...literally.
◦ The concept of a tacit “social contract” was invented for the sole purpose of
manipulating and plundering you.
◦ The purpose of police agencies isn't to “serve and protect” you – it is to rob
and control you.
◦ Government “gives away” nothing that it hasn't stolen from you and others
like you.
◦ There is nothing that government “provides” that could not better be
provided without government. And furthermore:

• You have an absolute moral “right” to defend yourself against government –
including the right to:
◦ Refuse to vote,
◦ Ignore laws forbidding victimless “crimes”,
◦ Evade taxes of every kind,
◦ Engage in ethical private contracts,
◦ Communicate using strong encryption,
◦ Travel freely anywhere on the planet,
◦ Sell your services without obtaining licenses or permits,
◦ Homestead unused land,
◦ Perform any ethical act without anyone's permission, permits, or licenses,
◦ Do anything you wish to your own body – including taking drugs, aborting
a fetus, or committing suicide,
◦ Inform potential jurors of their legal right to nullify unjust laws,
◦ Own weaponry equal to that used by law enforcers – including machine
guns, grenades, and rocket launchers, and finally:

• Once you understand that there is no “crime” so trivial that law enforcers will
not kill to enforce it, it becomes evident that you can be murdered by them for
jay-walking, holding a cell phone, walking your dog, taking pictures, selling a
cigarette, having your hands in your pockets, taking a shower, walking under
the influence of colored skin, driving with a broken taillight, or just crossing
their path. This is just a small sample of actions for which people have
actually been killed by our most violent criminal class.

Police have often claimed, in recent years, that the public is at war with the
police. If this were actually true, we'd all be better off; but in fact it is not true.There is no war on police. The assertion is a classical “projection” - attributing to others an attitude actually held by the person making the assertion. The cops are emphatically not the victims. They are in fact the terrorists of whom
we've all been warned – for it is the government that makes war on the rest of

A Few Pertinent Facts

• In parts of South and Central America, there have been instances in which
ordinary folks have observed local cops beating up people who have been
guilty only of “contempt of cop”. Not infrequently when this happens, the
witnesses band together and kill the offending cop. Then they hike down to
the local police station, kill the cops they find there, and burn the building to
the ground. Now that's making war on cops who abuse their “authority”. If
people in this country made war on cops, it would probably only last for a day
or two...and then there would be no more cops.

• It is an established fact that all of the ordinary criminals in this country, the
muggers, burglars, robbers, etc., have collectively stolen less money from the
public than the cops have stolen under the legal umbrella of “civil asset
forfeiture”. But even this phenomenon pales in comparison with the resources
stolen from us by the courts, the politicians, and the ultra-wealthy who own
the whole system – including the politicians. Their plunder of the public can
only be measured in trillions of dollars annually.

• It is also a well documented fact that in the last century governments around
the world have slaughtered almost 300,000,000 of their own citizens – a
number that doesn't even count the ones killed in wars by the minions of
foreign governments.

• Seen objectively, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government are
criminal gangs. The men in black dresses who preside over courtrooms are
their low-level managers. The suited nobility who call themselves politicians
or legislators are the mid-level managers. And the owners of the central banks,
like the Federal Reserve, are the modern-day royal families who claim to own
the whole system.

• It is a valid principle of ethics that the individual most responsible for an act (a
crime for example) is the one who had the last opportunity to prevent the act. In fact, Buffy Sainte Marie pointed this out back in the sixties, when she wrote, “The Universal Soldier”, a song exhorting soldiers worldwide to stop
pulling triggers.

From this it follows that it isn't the royalty who are most responsible. It's the
low-life servants who pull the triggers, apply the handcuffs, pilot the drones,
wield the clubs, or otherwise enact the actual violence who are the biggest
villains today. And they wouldn't engage in those acts if doing so was really
dangerous to themselves. They are inherently cowardly, and would stop in a
heartbeat if they seriously thought they wouldn't make it home or live to get
their next paycheck.

What if.......?

The following scenario could be the basis of a work of fiction...because, realistic or
not, it is totally plausible.
• In the course of 2016 a worldwide network of small ethical cells is formed for
the purpose of defending the public against the violent atrocities of
governments everywhere. The members of this network agree that at midnight
on December the 31st the current violent dominance by government will end
on a basis of ethical self defense.

• A few wealthy entrepreneurs, who recognize the opportunities and advantages
to be gained thereby, fund a massive PR effort that takes many forms, not the
least of which is the distribution of millions of free books, like “Freedom”,
“The Most Dangerous Superstition”, “Justifiable Homicide”,
“FLOURISH!”, “Swarmwise”, and the works of Lysander Spooner, Murray
Rothbard, Frederique Bastiat, H.D. Thoreau, and John David Garcia.

• Over the course of the year, the culprits, whose depredations are to be stopped,
are personally identified and located...their daily habits mapped...and their
vulnerabilities assessed.

• On the 4 th of July (or another suitable date) all of the targeted culprits are
notified that they must stop their depredations voluntarily or they will be
stopped involuntarily.

• At the same time every individual involved in collecting taxes is told to stop.
Every IRS agent, every license bureau, every property tax collector, every retail clerk who charges sales taxes is warned.

• The network also creates organizations that will provide the public with all of
the essential services over which governments have traditionally held a
monopoly, and offers them to the public at rates that cost less than the taxes
that the public has been paying and without penalties for opting out.

• On the date agreed (April the 15 th , 2017?), all of the activists, self-defenders,
and ethical warriors take action – everywhere, at the same time. The forces of
evil are destroyed and the plundering stops.

• And finally, when the defending forces are no longer needed, everyone goes
home. This story does not end with the formation of a new government.
Instead it ends with an ethical system of self-governance that yields peace,
prosperity, and freedom for all. (see - automatic!)

In Conclusion

The story outline above is obviously incomplete. There are vast numbers of details
and decision-points to be filled in. These are left as “an exercise for the student”. It
is ultimately up to you, the reader, to actually write the story. I believe in you. Go
for it!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
Join our amazing community to comment and reward others.
Sort Order:  trending
  ·  8 months ago

Welcome to Steemit Bob! Excellent first post! Looking forward to more exciting content from you here. It's going to make a big difference!

  ·  8 months ago

"Prehistoric philosophers"? That's a good trick.

  ·  8 months ago

That was a wonderful post. The last part was exciting and provocative. I would add one small but important thing in regard to replacing the government monopoly. Freedom will not exist without a free market provision of services. I'm not sure where you stand there, as the proposed solution to the government monopoly was a bit vague or imcomplete . What is your position on that particular element? Anyway, that was really good. Thanks.

  ·  8 months ago

Great idea Cronius. I'm with you all the way. As you probably know I have spend some time trying to come up with a system of transition and doing it without violence. My opinion is that as long as government maintains it's role as the final arbiter is suites of justice, the people will always remain subservient to their often times corrupt decision. If you will note throughout history, when it comes to taxes and confiscatory activities, the Judges always seem to rule in the governments favor, despite how clearly delineated the right(s) was noted in our Constitution. An example; just how many guns have been confiscated by the police despite the clearly worded 2nd amendment. The list of other examples would be to long to list here.

So how do we get public sentiment on the side of the majority, to no longer accept the corrupt decisions of our alleged "Supreme Court". By creating a privately managed Supreme Court Review Board that will "undoubtedly" write better and more just decisions.

There is not better way to prove private enterprise works better than government, they to show an actually working model/system. A private court system. We will need one anyways so we might as well get started before some attorney(s) end up being involved, Lol. I've written a number of my ideas down on Repairing The Scales of Justice. Obviously such a system is not set in stone nor is it completed. More like a detailed outline for participants to continue development.

It all centers around people representing others, not through some government controlled voting system, but through local individuals using affidavits to nominate those they want representing them on the Supreme Court Review Board. I've been thinking of around 30 to 50 people being the required number of affidavits to become a SCRB member. This allows for less knowledgeable people to nominate more knowledgeable to the SCRB. Has not that always been one of the fears of a direct democracy. A poorly informed electorate, as we have now. Of course, a person can withdraw their support of their nominee at any time, thus requiring the ex-SCRB member to seek another individual to maintain his active status. The ultimate form of term limits.

For each legal case, a computer would randomly select the desired number of SCRB members that would be reviewing the case. Remember, we're talking about a system of transition. The government SCOTUS is obviously still in place. The function of the SCRB is to make them look like the corrupt moronic despots they are.

As an example, the case "We The People vs United Stated" where the Supreme Court refused to hear the 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances in early 2008. We could both publish the proper decisions for the case but also what Judges were in on the corruption at the lower levels, showing just how poor written and illogical their decisions were.

Like Bob's Idea, the real fight is in the courtroom of public opinion. I am willing to remove it from my website and place it elsewhere if necessary.