Government = Evil (No Joke)

in government •  3 years ago  (edited)

How’s that for an emotional, irrational, extreme title for an article? Well, if it looks like some accusation or complaint that someone would just blurt out in anger and frustration, possibly while waving a Bible in the air, please read on. Because I am completely serious when I make that statement, although I don’t mean it in an occult or religious sense (I’m not religious). I do mean it in a moral and logical sense.

To be more precise, I could have phrased the statement thusly: "The belief in authority is fundamentally evil." These days the belief in "authority" usually takes the form of an advocacy of "government." Most people no longer think that religious "authorities" have the right to forcibly rule the world, so that particular manifestation of authoritarianism has been reduced to a relatively minor threat to humanity, which is why "government" is primarily what I focus on now.

To be clear, I am not just saying that "government" can sometimes do evil stuff. That can be true of anyone. Nor am I just saying that "government" can be corrupted into something evil. I am saying that, by its very nature, "government" is inherently and unavoidably anti-human, immoral, and horribly destructive to human society. It can never be otherwise. It can never be legitimate; it can never be good.

In order to prove that "government" is inherently evil and anti-human, I should first explain what I think is good and “pro-human.” Whatever made me—God, Mother Nature, aliens, blind luck, whatever—gave me a conscience, and the ability to think. (I’m not pretending that either of those qualities are perfected in me, or in anyone else.) When I see someone violently victimizing innocents, I do not need any religious text or any government legislation to tell me that that is wrong; my own conscience tells me that that is wrong, that that is something that should not happen.

I think it’s fair to say that a person’s conscience, his ability to feel empathy, and his ability to judge right from wrong (and to act accordingly) is a measure of his "goodness" as a human being. If that is the case, what would be "anti-goodness"? It would be something that makes an individual set aside his empathy and ignore his own conscience—something that makes him disregard his own moral judgment, and surrender his free will in exchange for unquestioning obedience to something else, thereby essentially transforming himself from a human being into a robot.

And that is exactly and precisely what the belief in "authority" is: the insane notion that it can be good to NOT use your own brain and heart to figure out how to behave, but to instead blindly defer to someone or something else. And you don’t have to look far (any history book will do) to see the real-world results of that belief.

There are countless examples in history of otherwise decent people bowing to, and enforcing the will of, a supposed "authority," leading to mass oppression, torture, extortion and murder. That is what happens when good people are taught that obedience to “authority” is a virtue: they enable EVIL because they were taught that it is GOOD to "follow the rules" and "do as you’re told."

Incidentally, while I’m not Christian, and don’t believe in the Christian god or in the Devil, there is a lot about the description of Satan—the "Great Deceiver"—that perfectly matches the myth of "authority": it lies, it pretends it is good, it drags you away from true morality, it corrupts and hardens hearts, it steals your soul, it creates hatred and conflict. Sound familiar?

Of course, what statists hope the belief in "authority" will do is make nasty people behave properly. But reality doesn’t work that way. Here it’s important to distinguish between two things: 1) the fear of reprisal, and; 2) the feeling of an obligation to obey. If some thug is trying to break into someone’s house to steal their stuff, and suddenly finds himself staring down the barrel of a 12-gauge, that can create a deterrent effect, and can make him decide to change his ways. This is true regardless of whether the person on the other side of the shotgun has a badge or not, and regardless of what some "law" somewhere has to say about it.

In cases like that, what can prevent crime is NOT respect for "authority"; instead, what prevents crime is simply fear of pain and/or death. The thug doesn’t suddenly grow a conscience or acquire a pure heart. He simply backs off because of his own instinct toward self-preservation. So in that case, belief in "authority" accomplished nothing, even if it was a cop holding the gun. The threat of defensive force—which requires no badge and no special authority—was what stopped the bad guy.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but thugs and sociopaths don’t care about being good. They’re not trying to be nice to their fellow man. As a result, they don’t feel any moral obligation to "obey the law." It is only people who are trying to be good who make an effort to respect and obey authority, and that’s only because they’ve been misled into thinking that subservience to "government" makes them a good person.

And that brings us to the most dangerous, destructive aspect of statism. It doesn’t take long for crooks and psychopaths to figure out that, if decent people think it’s virtuous to submit to political "authority," then all the crooks and psychopaths have to do is BECOME that political "authority," and they are set for life. Acquire a position of political power, call your thievery "taxation," call your thuggery "law," call disobedience to you "crime," and your victims will feel morally obligated to be victimized. They will take pride in being robbed and abused, and will even help you (the evil bastard) to enslave and oppress others, condemning any who resist tyranny as criminals, rebels and terrorists.

That is the true evil of the belief in "authority," and it can be seen throughout most of human history.

In summary, the only effect the belief in "authority" has on BAD people is to give them a means by which they can drastically increase their ability to victimize good people, and the only effect it has on GOOD people is to make them passively submit to injustice and cooperate with evil.

In other words, the belief in "authority" always endangers the good and empowers the evil.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Isn't evil necessary to define good? Isn't non-aggression based on the observation of aggression? Isn't decentralization based on observing centralization? We are too quick to believe just about anything and disregard the value of things not in accordance with our beliefs.

To define what a right is you apophatically look at what a right is not, but the act of committing a wrong is not necessary for that. You don't need someone to bash someone’s skull in with no reason, to understand that that's a wrong.

What's right or wrong depends on the choice of morality. This is not an absolute like you are pointing out. I personally prefer to choose a probabilistic logic together with a case by case approach when it comes to dealing with human interactions, instead of a Boolean logic and axioms of behavior.

There is such thing as objective right and wrong. Moral relativism is satanism.
Try treating others poorly and see how your life turns out, you'll soon discover natural law.

Evil is necessary to define good in the realm of ideas, not in the real world.

Please PM me your address so I can come to your house and punch you on the nose. This will be of benefit to you as , thereby, you will gain a greater appreciation of not being punched in the nose. I will only charge you £100 for this service.

"We are too quick to believe just about anything..."? Are you saying people are easily persuaded but they "disregard" what they don't already believe? Think about your statement. It is contradictory.

I guess I didn't elaborate much. We believe things just through repetition; giving it little thought usually. Once the belief, neural pathway, is established we disregard all else. So with the word "quick" I mean "with little thought". Then the oposite (or alternative) becomes something easily disregarded. But it doesn't mean we can't quickly take new beliefs on different issues.

Since early childhood we are trained (told verbally & physically) to obey authority by parents & teachers (public school). This discourages thought. It encourages following authorities. When confronted by a problem, the first question is: "What have I been told to do? Or, what would an authority figure want me to do?", not "How do I solve this?" or "How do I get the info that will allow me to figure this out?" Principles of thought are NOT taught to the young. That would make them independent, and eventually free thinkers. That is the opposite of the world wide control system's (governments) goal. Thinkers can't be ruled. But they make good rulers, and that is why rulers send their children to elite schools.

The state is, indeed, quite evil. It's caused more harm to people throughout the millennia than any other organization, by far. It's bent on becoming the god of the world and enslaving all to its own ends.

"...bent on becoming..."? It is. It does enslave, with "the sanction of the victim", as Ayn Rand put it. The rulers have gained control, crippling humanity's thought process by spreading their self serving superstition of authoritarianism.

Good people need to discover the power of their local sheriff, what type of person the sheriff is, back the good ones, vote out the bad ones and then worry about the maggots on top.

I'll offer a couple of thoughts in response to this and in light of @caborandy and @joybran's comments.
While it's absolutely true that any LEO who enforces unjust laws is committing aggression against the people s/he's sworn to protect, it's also true that the sheriff is the only LEO who is elected. It's also true that nobody has more authority to protect the citizenry in a given county than the sheriff.
Federal and state LEO have no jurisdiction within a given county without the sheriff's permission. Many sheriff's have made it clear that any federal agent who enters their county to investigate, enforce laws or arrest anyone there without first seeking the sheriff's approval will be locked up. This is clearly not the norm, but it is happening. We've also seen huge swaths of sheriffs state that they will not enforce gun laws, including all but one Utah sheriff sighing a statement to Obama making this point very clear.
I bring this up because the sheriff is there to protect the people, ostensibly. His oath is to the protect their constitutional rights. He is not bound to enforce any unconstitutional laws. His position is supposed to be a true representative and protector of the people, and it comes with all the legal teeth to do so.
Marshall law cannot be declared in a county that has established order. The only time it can be enforced is when the sheriff cannot maintain order.
Unfortunately, most just tow the line and become part of a draconian state bent on extortion and destruction of liberty. But, if you're stuck in the US and you are aware of these things, at least you know that you should be able to approach your local sheriff and discuss these things openly. You might be surprised how many of them agree with you and would be willing to take steps accordingly. Of course, chances are that in any given county you won't be surprised. But it wouldn't hurt to find out.
Interestingly, I come from the country of Sheriff Mack, known for standing against federal tyranny. He's stood on the court steps drinking raw milk and has worked hard to educate sheriffs across the country about their responsibility and opportunity.
It's really in our best interests to find out where the sheriff stands on freedom. If he has a libertarian mindset, then we can get behind his efforts and help possibly make change on a local level. If he's a sellout and will not stand for the freedom of the people he's sworn to protect, then find someone who has some integrity and backbone.
@ricov has a great point. Don't miss it because of hatred for the state. IMO, it's the one possible ray of light in the whole LEO nightmare in the US, as tenuous as it is.

Well said, @anotherjoe you clarified my statement eloquently, Thank You.

You and ricov have missed Larken's clearly stated case against political authority (PP). Did you see R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"? That is fantasy based on human psychology. PP corrupts. The greater the power, the greater the corruption. If you can't conceive of a world without it, because of your fear of social chaos, I submit for your edification (change of mindset) the astounding success of "The Detroit Threat Management Center". It's remarkable because it is a spontaneous, community solution for providing local security, in a humane, moral, non-violent manner. Violence is an option, just not without accountability and as a last resort. If humanity is to have a future, this must be it.

Thanks @onevoluntarist,
Actually, I didn't really miss it at all. You can see from my other comment to this article, and the articles I have written, that I'm in agreement. But @ricov was dismissed without real understanding of his point or any reasonable consideration given to the merit of what he said.
Nobody in the US lives outside of imposed authority, i.e. some form of slavery. Even @larkenrose will have to admit that, as much as we all hate it and see it for the evil that it is.
However much we'd love to live without rulers, and given that we can to some extent marginalize them, their effects on our lives are real. As much as we don't believe in imposed authority, their shackles are real and a cell will hold you no matter how unjust it is. It is more than highly unlikely that you will ever realize a society without statist tyranny. It would be nice, and it's the ideal, but US Inc has over a century of perfecting coercion and manipulation under its belt, backed by almost limitless resources and force.
We can only do what we can do with what we have. And we have choices that include attempting to work with someone locally, attempting to ignore it and go our own way, leaving the country or doing what they did in Detroit. All of these can be pursued with a desire for the elimination of imposed authority.
Of course, what happened in Detroit was great, because it filled the corrupt void left when LEO could not longer continue to extort and otherwise impose upon the locals, with a strong community of organization against real criminal activity. It's an awesome example. On the other hand, the tyranny of imposed authority is still rampant in Detroit. Nobody would call it utopia.
Reading what I said in light of my acknowledgement of the evil nature of the state and desire for a anarchist society should help clarify the intent of my post in the eyes of fellow voluntaryists.
Please see @dwinblood's comment in this thread as well. He "gets" it, even though it clearly is not his ideal either.

That is a short term solution in our current world. It is not a long term solution as the Sheriff is still a human and has the ability to force/enforce their beliefs upon others. A sheriff in many governments does have far more power than people realize if they would exercise it. They are also different from a police department. A Sheriff is elected, a police department is hired. Many people do not know that.

This in the long term does not make the sheriff a good thing and solve anything that @larkenrose wrote about it is still a human given authority that they had no right to have over other humans. Good intentions do not prevent a thing from being evil. In the short term world we live in right now if you want to look at things you CAN do right now, a sheriff is indeed something to consider. Nothing says a sheriff couldn't be an anarchist that is simply fighting the short term goals in reality today in hopes of leading to the future where there is no state.

It really depends on what you are discussing. What you can do RIGHT NOW? Or what you want the future to be like and what is the ultimate goal we are fighting/educating to make happen?

@larkenrose tends to focus on the long term goal from everything I have seen of him. There are people fighting and trying to make things happen right now, and they can't just suddenly ignore the system and hope to accomplish things.

Well stated, and totally complementary to what I noted. Thanks @dwinblood.

Anyone who seeks the power to initiate violence against other people is by definition bad, so there aren't any good sheriffs. There are undoubtedly some who are delusional and actually believe they can use their power to protect rather than violate other people, but they may be even more dangerous because they are incapable of using their own hearts and minds to judge right and wrong. They have already surrendered their humanity to the delusion.

If the Sheriff swore an oath to uphold all laws and many laws are manifestly unjust or evil, the sheriff (all law enforcers) has sworn an oath to uphold evil as long as it is legal. (Slavery for example). So then, show me a 'good' sheriff.....or a good Nazi SS Officer.......or a good burglar .....or good car jacker. If your 'job' is immoral because it fosters or enforces evil laws and you've sworn to do your duty upholding all laws, then 'just don't your job' is participating in evil. Again, show me a 'good' sheriff who ONLY enforces the laws he considers in his own mind to be good and just and ignores enforcing the laws he personally believes are unjust or evil.

Orrrrrr motion to abolish statism and or privatize security, or, "police".

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

"I was just following orders..." such a sad statement... so much wrong with the conditioning and education that even makes such an excuse possible...

A great book is the end of all evil by Jeremy Locke, you can google it with pdf behind it and read it from that or find a physical copy to buy.

Never heard of this, and I love getting book recommendations on the web. So thank you for this. :)

you're welcome.. I got the recommendation for this from Mark Passio, i believe it was in his natural law seminar (which i also recommend by the way, but he could've made the recommendation in another presentation, but i think it was this one) where he said that if every book in the world would get destroyed the 2 books he would rescue were The end of all evil by Jeremy Locke and The most dangerous superstition by Larken Rose.

Society's inability, or unwillingness, to see patterns has astonished me since I was a teenager. The next president will turn the country around because the old one that we used to love is now a Nazi and all powerful authority figures are pristine and honorable because they only want what's best for us. ~sigh~

Are "good people" justified in inflicting their superstition on all, at the point of a gun? Does their faith in the initiation of force by an elite give them the right to violate the rights of those who do not share their belief? Can the "good people" still call themselves "good" in so doing?

They would claim they are in the right because they are creating "the common good", if not the good of individuals. I would argue that no collective good can come from violating the rights of individuals, because it is individuals that make up the collective.

I would leave the people who see themselves as rulers or ruled to themselves, but they will not leave me in peace. And that is wrong. That makes them immoral, not good, despite their self deception of the contrary.

This is exactly why we all need to focus on taking action towards limiting the ability of government to have leverage in our lives.

Try to make cash. Try not to pay taxes. Try not to buy things you can't afford to buy with cash. Avoid doctors and hospitals except for emergencies. Avoid banking & mortgages. Avoid student loans and teach yourself a skill. Work online. Work remotely from a different country and leverage the exchange rates. Pack a pistol and DO NOT apply for their bullshit "weapons permit". Eat healthy and grow some (or all) of your own food. Avoid public education. Do not vote. If you break "laws", due it cleverly and don't let yourself get sucked into the court system.

The more of these things you can do, the less power the system has over you. There is no value in saying you're an anarchist if you're not creating anarchy in your life by limiting your involvement in the system. If you want to be free, you have to cut the cord that's strangling you. I'm not recommending everyone bugs out to the woods, but there's a serious need to re-think our lifestyles.

Great post as always.

Many people are already doing what you suggest here. It may satisfy you but does nothing for life in general. The only way to stop evil is to actually "ADDRESS" THE EVIL. One man, woman and child at a time if we each have to. I have done what you suggest personally and now live in a worst kind of prison having to be on guard every day in every way, because while I am completely out of the system my life is now highly restricted due to the remaining thriving evil all around me and in every aspect of life. We need to take back control of our finances, resources and claim each of our natural born inheritance.... so as to create prosperity for all not more struggle and poverty suggesting there is some sort of redemption in changing our lifestyles.

"If a million people do it, and ten million other people HEAR about it, then 11 million people will be doing it" Larken Rose 2008

Government equals force equals evil

not force. The initiation of force, aka "violence". Force is also what you use to defend yourself, so saying force is evil is saying self defense is evil.

I stand corrected. Thank you

To be even more nitpickery It's just violence and when you defend yourself it's defensive force, while force itself is used for every single action you take.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

That is because resolution of evil can only come from non-defensiveness. Defending ourselves against evil only fans its flames. All evil actions are based on "threat" so the only way to defuse the evil is to 'reproach" the actor. Also we must stop referring to evil calling it things like jurisdiction, legal, rules, policies, government and so on. When we speak of a problem or address a problem it must be from a perspective of dealing with the man, woman, or child who is present with you, in the moment. Man to man, face to face correction of wrongs. If even a few did this in each of our local communities evil would disappear seemingly over night. Since we all know you cannot be a little bit evil, or a little bit honest or good we all should know it is not the so called 'government" that is the problem as much as to much pointing fingers, or analyzing, rationalizing , justifying and making excuses for all of this crazy and damaging conduct. Consider this aspect of what you were taught to do when someone harmed you in school. We all were taught to take the 'problem" to someone else....the teacher, principle, priest, or nun. Did anyone ever address the problem? And even if they did ....did it solve the problem for 'you?" I think most of us can agree it did not back then, nor does it today. This one "teaching" has created a mass population of 'irresponsible' people and is the root cause of thriving evil. Not one of us can claim "exemption?" Why? Because no one ever gets to heaven or has peace in their life through confessing someone else's sins. All so called 'government" offices were 'vacated" in 1933 means 'evil" minded people took over. So knowing this do we not think it is time now to 'vacate" all of our offices and replace each man, woman and youth with honourable people and to give those who have been and are being forced to do harm under the guise of 'service and protection" an opportunity to 'redeem" themselves or vacate their postilions?

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

A monopoly forcing its customers to pay is evil. I find a voluntarist government possible. Without the internet, I doubt voluntarist governments could ever be bigger than a small town. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations have made voluntary government entirely plausible. Just because most all authority is illegitimate in your eyes, does not mean legitimate authority over a plot of land is impossible.

Government is not evil, authority is not equivalent to evil. The root cause is a layer deeper. Evil is the widespread belief that violence solves systemic problems. Instead, violence causes victims to inauthentically pretend to obey just to avoid pain, and does not increase honesty, love or compassion. It does not matter if you are spanking your kid or trying to genocide everyone with a certain belief, violence always makes the root cause of a problem worse in the long run. Every spank, every bomb creates more rebels.

For us to see real change in the minds of people, we need to do at least two things, turn off the TV and remove our children from the government indoctrination camps. The public school system. The "programming" is so severe, it effects us for years.

You are absolutely correct! Perhaps why they have such a problem with homeschoolers.

Why not remove the so called educators from our 'system" and provide real educators and education? We have to stop pretending with them....just business as usual.

To date, of everyone I know or have read (Larken is both a good friend AND someone I look up to), Larken has been the most philosophically/logically clear, concise, and CONSISTENT.

On this point, I came to the same conclusion all on my own, once I managed to undo the bad wiring of my mind built by the American Schooling system and dumbed down cultural propaganda.

Once my brain understood HOW to think, and ignored what everyone was demanding I SHOULD think, I could see the territory so clearly I needed no map to find my way.

Yes! Public schools exist to dictate what we think, which is precisely why basic market economics will never be taught in primary and secondary schools.

Why not? They are our schools, our children and education is a necessity. It is the people and the useless information they are teaching that must be REMOVED and not just removed BURN THE DAMN GARBAGE.


Is loud music an act of aggression and do I have the right to kill to stop it?

How come Hillary in her dictator suit isn't among the tyrants pictured?

It doesn’t take long for crooks and psychopaths to figure out that, if decent people think it’s virtuous to submit to political "authority," then all the crooks and psychopaths have to do is BECOME that political "authority," and they are set for life.

Exactly. Brings to mind "Why the Worst Get on Top" in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. But government also gives authority to lots of people we might not think of as our leaders, like the regulators and staffers in any number of corrupt government agencies. But they have great power over us.

So many people miss the threat of government in general because they believe if they can just get "their guy" or "their womyn" in that position of power, everything will be great. But even if you did get a really great figurehead in there, the corrupt agency regulators would continue their power plays.

There is no such thing as a "great leader" anyway.....only fools fall for being above people or below them...this is the true meaning of 'hell on earth'....ask anyone who tries it if you dare? There are none who suffer on earth more than he who claims power he does not have given to him by people with no power to live life themselves.

That's why there is Steemit. The force to fight the state.

I agree with you. Government = egregious evil. They are not what not produce but only consume our taxes for the war at home and a yacht. Just coming up with laws that don't work.

I was told story - when two robbers got to the host. and he shot at them and wounded. Robbers called the police. And now the host pays them treatment and compensation by a court decision.

We definitely need less red tape.

Ya think? ..time to get in the drivers seat peeps a lot less talk and a little more action.

HARDCORE. True as always from you dear role model.

I agree that there should be no government and only voluntary trade.

Here is a voluntary trade option for you:

New to Steemit? HERE IS A DEAL FOR YOU: Vote for Vote and Follower for Follower.

New to Steemit? HERE IS A DEAL FOR YOU: Vote for Vote and Follower for Follower.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

So you're saying that giving a group of people an exemption to morality, and a monopoly on violence in addition to other sevices, all funded by extortion, isn't the best plan of action for individualism and or true freedom to prevail?


Yes so is it any wonder why the black hole of force and fighting is a bottomless pit? lol

That is so true

As an agent of the State myself, the information is accurate and tries a person to the core. Submission of morals are on the alter of efficiency and collectivism along with ignorance by the majority. This article reminds me of an older book that is called The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil . Don't let the title scare you. It has some religious tone, but explains what Larken Rose is talking about. They correlate very well.

I don't think we need to learn anymore of who the "Devil" is about reading a book called ....Living Beyond the Level of Charles Swindol or A Return to Love by Marianne Williamson.?

It's nice to see that you are on steemit. This platform is getting more and more exciting.

Government are run by politicians who are players of devils playground and the devil's playground is the politics.

So I'm going to use the United States as an example because it's where I live and the governing system I know most about. Right now, Obama goes on TV and says "I am abolishing the government. We're leaving the whitehouse and all federal employees, and through an agreement I've made with the states, all state employees are done. We are all quitting work at this very moment. No military, no fbi, No foodstamps, no wellfair benefits, no unemployment insurance, no medicair, no Medicaid, no social security, no mint, no public schools, no state, city or local police, no firefighters, no FDA, no EPA, if you want these services, you will have to build them from the ground up.
My question to you is what do you think would happen? This is not a trick question, but its one I need an answer to if you are talking about more than theory.

It wouldn't be "if you want these services, you will have to build them from the ground up".. It would be, "if you want these services you will have to pay for them yourself", but why anyone want to pay for those ponzi schemes you are listing as services.

Oh, if only. But wait. Here's what would happen. Mass protests by special interest groups, and statists with no particular interest. Then a quick re-instatement of govt. As long as the worship of coercion is a popular superstition, there will be mass self enslavement, and the few who resist will be involuntary victims. People who call themselves "voluntarists" will act against their conscience, under duress, with the ultimate threat of death. Two groups of victims will suffer. One innocent, one guilty of self deception and violation of the rights of the innocent. This is the state of the world.

Only a grass roots movement which discredits the use of violence to inflict superstition on all will save humanity.

@onevoluntaryist you didn't answer my question. What I'm saying is that right now, the government provides certain services, however imperfect they are. Statists will say these services are the intended function of government. Things like the FBI, but also local police departments which have a mandate from the people to investigate crimes and arrest people, otherwise they would be hanging from streetlights. What I am trying to ask you or anyone who wants to answer is how would a volunterist society ensure a fair distribution of services. I am not claiming the government is perfect, but as it stands I don't have to pay the police to investigate my mothers murder, and if I'm hit by a car in the street and my leg is broken, the nearest hospital will prevent me from dying regardless of my ability to pay. I am trying to figure out if all this talk about anarchism and voluntarism is supposed to exist outside of a theoretical framework, so I'm saying the entire government is stripped away, what happens. What's the alternative. What does the new society look like? How big is it in square miles? Is there a war between two small towns over resources? What happens if someone tries to grab power ina newly created voluntarist utopia? For the record, I'm not setting out to troll you, I don't share your opinion but I'm trying to get some clarification on what it is you actually believe.

In Somalia the central govt. collapsed. War lords filled the gap. Some say that is what the voluntarist society would look like. But consider that in Somalia no grass roots movement against govt. caused the central govt. to fall. No change in society occurred. Without popular support no social system can exist. The greater the support, the more homogenous the population, the stronger the belief system. But belief does not create reality. The "belief" was almost 100% in Nazi Germany. That didn't save them. Their system was inhuman, irrational, and therefore unsustainable, even if they had won the war. Our system is the same.

So don't ask me to predict the future voluntarist society. Or give guarantees. I can predict this system will fail. I can predict a new paradigm is necessary and it is a non-violent, voluntarist one. The exact way it will manifest is anyone's guess.

This is fairly similar to what the communists said.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Same thing that happened when the soviet union stopped providing food. When a government ends its monopoly on food it does not mean there is "no food". No monopoly on education does not mean "no schools". All it takes for these services to continue is demand and supply. While demand and supply are unstoppable, rapid economic changes can cause temporary shortages.

A gigantic list of monopolies simultaneously stopping services like you describe would be quite tumultuous providing the free market had no warning time to prepare.

Even if the free market had time to prepare to avoid widespread shortages, for every one of the services provided, the population has likely forgotten or never known the value of many things. Value assessment and return on investment decisions will require constant adjustment, "Am I being ripped off for this tomato?", "Is it worth taking the shitty pothole filled road to work to save on tolls?", "Would paying for armed guards reduce the looting in my store enough to be worth it?", "Is it worthwhile to continue testing this new drug, or should we risk going out of business by causing negligent deaths that ruin our reputation?"

A question for you. Is slavery right/wrong mostly because of its effects/consequences on society, or because of moral theory? What is the primary thing that decides morality for you? Would you let 5 people die, or would you murder an innocent to save them? Should people use principals, or should they imagine what their own idea of good is, and do whatever it takes to cause that good?

Weed is still illegal, so that's all you need to know.

@larkenrose much true "In other words, the belief in "authority" always endangers the good and empowers the evil"

Its not the belief in "authority" that is not knowing WHO is the "authority" hence giving away YOUR POWER your "poverty mindedness."

Government is insane.
Sometimes the insane act in an evil manner.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about linkback bot v0.3

Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise. Built by @ontofractal