My Blog List

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Question Authority: Always and Forever Hereafter

Zero Gov
by Bill Buppert





Publisher’s Note: I published this almost two years ago and it still rings true.  I was asked at the Freedom Summit in 2010 after my speech during questions what was the most important tool or consideration for surviving the coming bad times.  Most expect me to expound on G3 (Gold, Guns and Groceries) but I responded that critical thinking was, first and foremost, the most important and vital weapon in the armory.  Nothing even comes close.  Much like the overweening importance of prioritizing skills over equipment, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.  Your lack of skepticism toward the powers that be is what enabled the very walls to be erected in these tax jurisdictions shaped like penitentiaries called nation-states.

You live in a civilization whose entire rationalization is based on a few brutal misconceptions among which is that the state must have the power to fine, cage, maim and kill anyone it wishes at will and all your friends, family and neighbors are YOUR property.  If that were not the case, how could the state possibly enable the massive theft of time, resources and property on a daily basis to feed the groaning leviathan that provides all those vital goods and services the government/media complex trumpets triumphantly about daily to include America’s largest export, killing recalcitrant brown people who refuse to submit?   Through the proxy of the state, you have personally signed on to an evil compact that permits, nay compels , the government to act in the beastly and ghastly way it does every day.  All of your socialist and neoconservative friends won’t admit it but you are THEIR property otherwise how would they fund the beasts in DC and its political subsidiaries in the states?  They even have the wherewithal to commit you and your progeny to obligate to pay down future debt leveraged against their future; even though the dimmest economists know it will all collapse in the end (except Paul Krugman whose statist bloodlust knows no bounds).

Accept nothing at face value and your life will be richer.  This has nothing to do with formal education or a philosophy degree or allowing others to think for you because they are smarter than you.  No one is smarter than you in your own world because they aren’t…you.

Think outside the box and question all authority outside your family.  Your life and the bright future of your children depends on your ability to do the intellectual heavy lifting and figure out that most everything you were taught in the government schools was a lie and that practically anything claimed by the government has one raison d’être: to compel your unquestioning obedience and servitude to the state and to ensure that its existence will always trump yours. -BB



Human progress is furthered, not by conformity, but by aberration.
~ H.L. Mencken


For some time, I have been trying to figure out why the nation and we as individuals are in the fix we are in now. Many reasons manifest themselves. We labor under a government of such monstrous reach and epic incompetence that it makes the Soviets now look like a paragon of efficiency and probity. We suffer under a ruling class that has not simply been a gangster government under Obamunism but has been this way since the defeat of the original Constitution in 1865. With each illegitimate war since 1898, the power of the Federal government has increased exponentially. With each manufactured crisis, liberties and freedoms have withered and died. This is simply the latest and greatest improvement in the ongoing process of our overseers to find emerging ways to increase the output of our slavery.

I have alluded before that we live in the country and have occasion to run across orphaned animals. We have horses and chickens and other assorted animals on the Circle A Ranch. My wife happens to be a fantastic gardener and the reincarnation of Dr. Doolittle. We discovered by following the horrid cacophony of rabbit screams three orphaned cottontails, two of which promptly died. My wife is now nursing the survivor and hoping to brighten his life expectancy in this mortal coil.

As is her wont, she is an inveterate researcher and proceeded to go on the ‘net and search out advice on care and feeding of a rabbit which is not one of our areas of husbandry expertise. What struck her were the countless admonitions to seek government assistance and report it to wildlife “authorities” or the zoo. I look around and converse with colleagues and associates to find my fellow Americans increasingly frightened or unfamiliar with doing anything without someone’s permission. Whether at work or play, we:
  • obey speed limits that have nothing do with safety and simply provide revenue to our rulers
  • pay property taxes which inevitably increase the yoke around our necks locally and pay for the intellectual suicide pact call government schooling
  • pay extraordinary sales taxes on local and state purchases to subsidize the countless layers of bureaucracy that choke citizen and business productivity everyday
  • stop locally at a US Border Patrol checkpoint nearly twenty miles north of the Mexican border to be asked if we are American citizens and a visual check of the interior of our vehicles
  • sit idly by while the various levels of government erect observation devices at traffic intersections to increase revenue streams
  • receive property tax bills on our real estate which increase in assessment while market prices decrease
  • are required to have permission from the US Forest Circus or National Park Service to hunt, play or work on lands expropriated by our betters in government
I have discovered the silver bullet and it is from the University of the Intuitively Obvious: question authority and maintain a skeptical attitude about all facets of government and governance. That’s it…simple. Even those of us who have invested considerable intellectual heavy-lifting in discerning why the government in all its consistent brutality and blood-raged destruction commands such a loyal and slavish quality in men are baffled by the absence of this simple epistemological tool to ask why on a consistent basis from stem to stern. If enough vigilance is maintained at the outset and embryonic stages of so much government mischief, much of the madness could be strangled in its statist cradle through peaceful discourse, non-compliance, shunning and development of innovative strategies to sabotage the government’s machinations. Most government programs start out with promises of nirvana and positive outcomes but the history of man shows that this is essentially iatrogenic and hubristic. The state is a violent actor by necessity to preserve its power and expand it, so inevitably the promises dissolve into a nightmarish brew of incompetence, lethality and baleful societal consequences and we are stuck with the myriad Frankenstein monsters shambling about with the vague promises of eternal goodness and heaven on earth.


One may say that the horse is out of the barn and we are truly stuck with the state of affairs and no amount of reform will fix DC and its loyal minions at this stage of their maturation and dominance and you would be correct. The rub is this: the FEDGOD will fall and it will be in the next 12—24 months and much like the USSR, it will perish of its own internal Marxoid contradictions. Foreign wars, self-induced economic calamity and sheer naked arrogance will force it to fold and dissolve as a ruling elite. This is a window that rarely opens and the opportunities will be tremendous — for both sides. The furloughed politicos will spread their contagion when they flee the ruins of the DC power structure and seek to encourage the usual suspects among government workers and gullible subjects to help resurrect this monstrosity that has been astride our necks like a decomposing albatross.

Truth serum will be necessary and that all starts with the kind of skepticism and incredulity that seems to characterize most everything we do except our attitude toward our rulers. Cross-examination is the engine of truth. Question every bit of alleged government authority which emerges from the ashes. This is one reason Thomas Jefferson was agitating for constant revolt for the tree of liberty. Government is a fungal growth that cannot be checked without constantly striking the root and taking whatever measures are necessary to curb its growth.

You won’t find this kind of critical thinking taught in the universities or any facet of the school systems because skepticism and clear thinking will be the end of them and the whole rotting mold growth choking American civilization called government. When was the last time you saw a government sponsored university study which called for the reduction and/or elimination of a statist rule or department? You don’t have to be a philosophy major or graduate to realize that Socratic drilling works. This is simply the process where you repeatedly ask why to a set of explanations until either you are satisfied the meritorious answer has been given or the shoddy intellectual construction is bared for all to see. It bears repeating: the entire artifice of the state is based on the threat or employment of violence to meet its ends, so it is morally illegitimate and reprehensible from the starting blocks. You have the moral high ground because all government for the most part is an elaborate shell game to develop proxy relationships with servant classes who obey at the urging of a lash or worse for the material and power benefit of the ruling class. Wake up, helots!


This is the chance we have. A dozen, fifty or hundreds of resistance and secessionist entities are going to move into the vacuum left by the great sucking abyss of the FEDGOD collapse. Hundreds of laboratories will emerge to test every variant of political collective and ordered enterprise imaginable. I have little hope for the subjects and somnambulant mental zombies that stumble around the cities of the Left Coast and the Northeast (Vermont and New Hampshire excepted) will do anymore other than instantly resurrect facsimiles of DC patterns of rule and other processes of national socialism but between the Marxist coastlines; the life and times of ordinary Americans will take extraordinary turns to develop from scratch freedom-oriented communities and spasms of spontaneous order. People may finally awaken and look at their neighbors and try to do the right thing. They may seek a system that asks, persuades and cooperates instead of bullies, collectivizes and forces through violent means the shape and texture of human relationships. They will be the vanguard of the men and women who finally awaken from the five millennia fever-dream of enabling various strangers the power of life and death over thousands and millions simply because they have surrendered the most basic right of all; leave us the hell alone.


Turn off the television, grab a book(s) and have conversations with family and like-minded friends. Go out and do things. Start a garden, fix your fencing, move to the country and reach out to the community you live in. Open your mind to the possibilities before us. Most of all, question every aspect of your relationship with authority. Does it derive from fear or respect? Does it emanate from first-hand experience or second-hand knowledge? How many times have you truly asked why a certain bureaucratic edict must be followed? More importantly, what is your line in the sand where your servitude stops and your resistance begins? Just say no to big government. Once a man establishes his limitations for tolerance of interference in his life and adopts a resolute stand against the forces buffeting him against his will, the world will change.

If you are still reading this, you are the Resistance.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
~ George Orwell

 

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Government is a Death Cult

Zero Gov.com

July 15th, 2011
 by Bill Buppert


“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”
- Joseph Stalin

Government is a death cult. It is the most profound mechanism outside of planetary extinction events to rid the globe of human beings.  There have certainly been disease vectors like the plague in medieval times that wiped out significant parts of Europe but even that can be attributed to human volition to a certain extent.

Since the first agricultural communities attracted the government predator’s eye thousands of years ago and led to the tax accountancy records Charles Adams first pointed out to us.  Hunter gatherer communities were quite a bit more difficult to pin down and cage within the confines of a tax jurisdiction.  Tax jurisdictions are the center of gravity for governments to germinate and expand their nefarious enterprises.

Whether the murderous paroxysms of violence in the endless wars created by tax jurisdictions dressed in fancy bunting and flags in ancient times or today have more advanced killing machines, the mission is the same.  Peter McCandless is fond of saying that a government will ultimately kill you for non-compliance of a seatbelt violation if your lack of obedience and insistence on resistance continues and escalates.

The more extreme examples of bureaucratized slaughter and mayhem visited on populations by governments are illustrative of the potential of every government to do the same. That is the genius of government, not only to elevate the absolute worst psychopaths to positions of power because they seek to rule others by default but it industrializes murder machines.  How else can one explain the killing fields in Kampuchea, the bone yards in the former USSR and the mass starvation campaigns either inadvertently or intentionally launched against subject populations?  From Rwanda to Armenia under the Turks to the North American aboriginal destruction in 18th and 19th century America, governments kill.  That is their ultimate failsafe mechanism.  If their power is threatened in any fashion, the cage and the sword and the grave are essential tools of governance.

Beria's Death Warrant for 20,000 Polish Officers 

During the War to Save Josef Stalin

Let’s travel down memory lane:


Many thanks to Dr. Rummel for the research he has pioneered in this effort.

The Russian attempts to starve significant parts of the Ukraine under Stalin’s reign:
Conquest quotes the later testimony of an activist:

“I heard the children…choking, coughing with screams. It was excruciating to see and hear all this. And even worse to take part in it…. And I persuaded myself, explained to myself. I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity…. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining grain for the socialist fatherland….

Our great goal was the universal triumph of Communism, and for the sake of that goal anything was permissible — to lie, to cheat, to steal, to destroy hundreds of thousands and even millions of people….

This was how I had reasoned, and everyone like me, even when…I saw what “total collectivization” meant — how they “kulakized” and “dekulakized,” how they mercilessly stripped the peasants in the winter of 1932—3. I took part in this myself, scouring the countryside, searching for hidden grain…. With the others, I emptied out the old folks’ storage chests, stopping my ears to the children’s crying and the women’s wails. For I was convinced that I was accomplishing the great and necessary transformation of the countryside; that in the days to come the people who lived there would be better off for it….

In the terrible spring of 1933 I saw people dying from hunger. I saw women and children with distended bellies, turning blue, still breathing but with vacant, lifeless eyes…. I [did not] lose my faith. As before, I believed because I wanted to believe.”

You will note here on this page that delineates anthropogenic killing globally that it wasn’t simply the bad communists (although they get the gold medal in sheer numbers) but the UK was responsible for 4 million Indian dead in Bengal during Churchill’s little known escapades raping India during WWII in 1943 (a passing mention of the possible 20 million dead during the Indian famines of 1876-78 and 1899-1900)  or the 1.5 million dead during the Irish potato famine[s] in the 19th century.

The Black War (1828-32) in Australia against the aboriginals is especially terrifying because they almost managed to exterminate every man, woman and child.

I mention these western holocausts to illustrate that history’s traditional mass murderers, the Communists and Socialists, aren’t the only authors of such barbaric behavior.  Mind you, plenty of this behavior took place outside of acknowledged warfare such as Stalin and Mao’s efforts to kill the non-compliant and disobedient.

In the end, ALL governments seek to maim and kill the non-compliant because obedience is the signal contribution of ANY citizen in a tax jurisdiction yesterday, today and tomorrow.

In America, absent the overwhelming presence of armed bureaucrats, how many of even the most brain-dead subjects in America would comply with a fraction of thousands of intrusive and destructive laws on the books?

Your collaboration with a system that practices such barbaric behavior on a mass and industrial basis is the key to government’s legitimacy and its very ability to have fractional elements of tens of thousands of “law enforcers” cow millions of shambling sheep to be disposed of as the government wishes; especially the recalcitrant and rebellious black sheep who no longer desire the fetters and are increasingly losing their fear of the noose.  Why do you think that “officer safety” happens to prize the value of the cop’s life higher than any mere citizen or subject?

One recalls that scene in Braveheart where the King’s aristocrat declares that an assault on the King’s men is an assault on the King himself.  How romantic.  As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:   “Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”  Initiated violence is the government’s bread and butter and any active defense against its depredations is always received by the rulers rather dimly.

The only reason you are not yet dead is because the government has not found a sufficient reason or lacks the wherewithal to kill you. Yet.

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
— Vladimir Lenin


Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

Friday, August 12, 2011

Police and Terrorism: One and the Same

Cop Block
by Bill Ruppert

“I said to (Haynes) that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process.”
“At which point, his eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? . . . We’ve got to have convictions.’”

- Morris Davis to William J. Haynes II (Former General Counsel for Department of Defense) on Guantanamo trials of detainees during the War on Terror.  kelly thomas Police and Terrorism: One and the Same by Bill Ruppert

The current War on Terror inaugurated in 2001 by Bush II ushered in an era when the US government made torture its official policy as I wrote here.  It also started a broad fusillade against every basic liberty of every human living within the borders of the American tax jurisdiction.  While ostensibly a full scale assault on “terrorists”, it has provided an object lesson in how one becomes what one hunts.

I will state my desire up front:  I don’t want the police to be reformed, watched, video-recorded, monitored, disarmed, watch-dogged, controlled, quality checked, investigated, punished, prosecuted or anything else.  I simply want them gone.  I want their current employment  to cease and desist.  From the FLEAs (Federal Law Enforcement Agents) all the way to the local constabulary, all must be permanently furloughed and asked to find more productive work like mowing lawns, bagging groceries or playing video-games.  It could be somewhat cathartic to have apology tours across the nation by every cop employed or retired through the communities they “served”.  We could provide them with a by-name list of anyone they have harassed, fined, kidnapped, caged or maimed to map out their respective apology tours.  Those murdered by departments could have their graves identified for the appropriate visit by the acknowledged killer (who most likely served nothing more than a paid administrative “leave”) in the thin “black and blue” line.

I have made a comprehensive case for the reduction and elimination of police forces already and will not make the case here.
All department buildings, vehicles, uniforms and the miscellany of appropriated goods can be sold at auction to include all asset forfeiture and seizure “property”. The proceeds would be disbursed to all the arrested and caged victims of consensual and non-violent crime enforcement.

A free society would not require the tattooing or branding of these former officers to readily identify them as a threat to polite society but a shunning campaign could be instituted for the more egregious bullies in their ranks.
Before the 20th century, cops were few and far between in these united States, yet today most of the populace mewl in fear when one proposes the cops simply go away…forever.

What are they afraid of?  The police have no duty to protect individuals from harm in society.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled numerous times since 1856 that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto “protect and serve”.
Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1856 (South v. Maryland) and the most recent in 2005 (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales).[69]

Their charter is clear and always has been:  they enforce the laws of our rulers no matter how unjust, silly, murderous or just plain stupid.

They constantly and insipidly insist that they are simply doing their jobs, much like the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg.  Their behavior is much more like an occupation force than a community peace officer operation.  From the Drug War to the Raw Food raids, they are the enablers of all the bad laws people constantly and incessantly bellyache about yet the government-media complex has done an extraordinary job of hanging bunting and patriotic gore on the image of the armed tax-eater as a hero and pillar of the community; such a worthy protector that his safety will always trump that of a mundane citizen.

If the object of policing is creating a safe and stable community for people to work and play in, then that is certainly not the effect.  Cops are historians when it comes to real crimes, especially those perpetrated against individuals, for they respond to crimes in progress or well after the fact and rarely seem to resolve violent situations without leaving a trail of blood and tears behind them.

I would love to find the documented evidence of how many innocents are run down or petty criminals shot by cops annually.  As a matter of fact, when the bagpipes are playing at a funeral for a cop, there is a greater than fifty percent chance they died in a traffic accident and the numbers are minuscule per capita (56 died by gunfire in 2010 and no percentage identified of how many were the result of fratricide):  nearly one million sworn “officers” and on average approximately 125 die every year in the line of duty.  Nearly three times that number perish annually by their own hand.  There are 17,000 police departments in these united States and zero reliable data available on the number of people maimed and killed by the police but simply from the news and anecdotal reports, the numbers are certainly higher than cop fatalities.

I am going to make a banal but obvious correlation between police forces and terrorism.  They are one and the same.  I have a natural Rothbardian revulsion toward any initiated violence and find that in the lion’s share of police confrontations in America, the police inevitably draw first blood and participate, under color of law and authority, in the most sadistic andvicious behavior humans can outside of the CIA “Black Sites” although the behavior inside police stations may rival that.  Caleb Carr has stated in his brilliant tome, The Lessons of Terror, that terrorism is simply “politically motivated violence against non-combatants and innocents”.

What political component?  By their own admission, police officers are law enforcers and the political process  is how laws are divined; so, cops are by their very nature the Praetorian Guard for the ruling class at all levels.  How many times has one heard the tired old saw by police that they are simply “upholding the law”?  One can dither about the employment of the term unlawful but in America that has as much definitional weight as unconstitutional.  If you suppose this is making too fine a point then why would America turn its back so abruptly on the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture to quite literally bureaucratize and institutionalize torture and cruelty in the global military campaign  to eradicate a tactic e.g., terrorism?  Can one adduce that the American police culture increasingly mimics the military in dress and behavior?  Can you think of a more natural seedbed for cruelty and torture than the video evidence that piles up day after day of police abuse of the citizenry?  These are not isolated incidents.  The modern police demand instant obedience or they will beat, electrocute or shoot you for the mere act of resistance or defiance.  Let that sink in:  the government sanctions the initiated savaging of innocent civilians (presumption of innocence) who don’t grovel and scrape and obsequiously comply with the orders of the armed agents of big government.  America, indeed.

Let’s use the government’s own definitions to make the case for a healthy petard hoisting.  One finds that the straightforward and simple US National Counterterrorism Center definition dovetails nicely with Carr.

US National Counterterrorism Center

The US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as: “…premeditated; perpetrated by a sub national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target.” [57]

Other agencies propose the following variations:
United States Code (U.S.C.)

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
“Definitions … the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents;”[53]

US Code of Federal Regulations

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

US national security strategy

In September 2002 the US national security strategy defined terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents”.[55] This definition did not exclude actions by the United States government and it was qualified some months later with “premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents”.[56]

United States Department of Defense

The United States Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010) the Department of Defense defines it as “the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.”

The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism (“usually political”). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.  The sly use of the term lawful and unlawful allows the DoD to give soldiers a “get out of jail free” card for what appears to be terroristic behavior; a standard that has been suborned into the corpus of the American constabulary.

USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”

Quite simply, no War on Terror is complete without a total dismantling and salting of the earth of all government sponsored police organizations and their concomitant support apparatus.  One could make a robust case that our various “police actions” around the world and especially in the Middle East prompted the attack on America in the first place.  One can make an even more convincing case that none of our freedoms would be extinct or disappearing absent the presence of police.

The War on Terror truly begins at home.  The terror mindset emulates the TSA’s mantra of “Dominate. Intimidate. Control” which saturates police training across the fruited plain and is the sine qua non of cop behavior in the most benign encounters.  This nicely complements the illogical and cowardly“officer safety” mantra that literally gives them a license to initiate violence and get away with it. Until Americans finally realize that police are not their friends but their masters, no freedom is possible.  They are not there to protect the citizenry; they are the armed bulwark for big and small government, the tip of the spear thrust into every notion of decency, liberty and freedom. Most likely, few of the crimes policed are malum in se such as crimes against property or person and most are crimes the government created out of whole cloth such as drug use, DUI, prostitution and the myriad  federal regulations that ensnare unwitting citizens. 

Essentially, crimes with no victims except the unfortunates fined and caged by the police.

We have all seen and read the horrific accounts of the police savagingand mauling of women and children.  This is not only what they are capable of, this is what they do.  Every day.

The police are just as legitimate as the rulers and masters who walk their leashes.  The odd political tensions between alleged Left and Right differences mean that, quite literally, you agree to the rightness and moral superiority of every law.  Good luck with that.

The next time you watch one of the legions of police brutality videos on the internet, ask yourself: who really hates you for your freedoms (what few are left)?

-  On June 8, 1978, Solzhenitzyn, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1970 for his book “The Gulag Archipelago,” was addressing an audience at Harvard University: ”

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

 Police and Terrorism: One and the Same by Bill Ruppert

Sunday, August 7, 2011

A Progressive View on Gun Rights: 2A All the Way

Practical Populism

April 19, 2009

By Rady Ananda

pink_ak ArmedFemalesOfAmericaApril 19, 2009




I am a progressive populist. As a progressive, I value, work toward, and believe in an ever-expanding recognition of equality for all peoples. I have no tolerance for intolerance. Owning personal firearms levels the playing field somewhat for those most vulnerable to abuse: women, the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped.  I’m a populist because I feel no allegiance to or from elites. Instead, I fear the vast expansion of governmental power over the past decade, at the expense of the Rule of Law, and at the expense of basic human rights — particularly the 800-year-old Magna Carta provision for habeas corpus. 2A advocacy is an egalitarian issue.

Photo courtesy Armed Females of America.


“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
 To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”  George Mason, author of the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights 
The great object is that every (adult) be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”  Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution
 Waiting periods are only a step.  Registration is only a step.  The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”  Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993 
Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”  Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York,  1994
 Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.”  Dianne Feinstein, US Senator, 1993 (who carries)
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”  Adolf Hitler
 One man with a gun can control 100 without one…. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”  Vladimir I. Lenin
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants…” Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment by criminologist Cesare Beccaria
 Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46 at 243-244
An armed society is a polite society.”  Robert Heinlein


Gun rights are neither liberal nor conservative, feminist nor patriarchal, Democrat nor Republican, Left nor Right. Gun rights are populist at their core, in defense against government tyranny at their widest application, and in self-defense at their most personal application.  
The debate over gun rights is vast and well-documented. The basic arguments for an armed citizenry are:
  • To maintain political order and prevent tyranny;
  • To protect community from outside invasion;
  • Personal defense and crime prevention; and
  • Sport and hunting.
The basic arguments against an armed populace ignore history or adopt a Pollyanna view toward government. Plenty of folks, on the Right and on the Left, and those in-between, recognize the value of preventive armament. We recognize that bipartisan-passed legislation over the past nine years strips US citizens of their sovereignty and destroys the Bill of Rights. (All this legislation, because it’s unconstitutional, is void, according to the US Supreme Court*.) 


Some history – Jews and Other Genocides

In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first U.S. city to ban the possession of firearms. Next came Evanston, Illinois, which passed a similar ordinance without controversy.  But when the measure was proposed in nearby Skokie, it was soundly defeated.  Skokie, populated by Holocaust survivors, knew the merits of personal armament and the dangers of its lack. (Alderman and Kennedy)  

Some researchers took this argument on a survey of seven nations that committed genocide in the 20th century, determining that in each instance, citizens were legislatively disarmed prior to their mass extermination by their government. In Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide, the authors demonstrated that these nations that perpetrated genocide had chosen a victim population which was disarmed.  If the intended victims were not already gun-free, then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they began the killing. 
GunControlLeadsToGenocide (600 x 507)

Dave Kopel reviewed Lethal Laws (New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 15, pages 355-398), noting:
“[D]isarmament upsets the proper relationship between the master (the people) and the servant (the government) by making the people accustomed to dependence on the government. Machiavelli observed that:
‘[A]mong other ills which ensue from being disarmed is contempt . . . . There can be no proper relation between one who is armed and one who is not; nor is it reasonable to expect that one who is armed will voluntarily obey one who is not, or that the latter will feel secure among servants who are armed.’ 
 “To the generation that drafted the Second Amendment, possessing arms to deter a government (or a mob which might be inspired by the government) that might contemplate mass murder was an uncontroversial moral imperative. The fact that the same message in the 20th-century book Lethal Lawsmay be considered so radical as to be not even worth discussing is perhaps one reason why genocide has become the great pandemic of the twentieth century.”

Feminists for Firearms

Feminists debate gun rights as hotly as any other group. Inge Anna Larish published “Why Annie Can’t Get Her Gun: A Feminist Perspective on the Second Amendment” in the University of Illinois Law Review (467, 1996). She points out that the most vulnerable members of society are most harmed by disarmament:
“Control rhetoric generally ignores the evidence that crime against the physically weaker members of society (women, children, the elderly, or the disabled) increases where guns are less available….
 “The exclusion of women’s concerns in the gun control debate ignores that women are most in need of guns for self-defense.  All else being held equal, women are physically weaker than men and will continue to be victimized by men whether or not men have guns.  
Moreover, unlike men, women use guns primarily for defensive purposes – most often as a last resort…. guns not only equalize the differences between men, but also eliminate the disparity in physical power between the sexes….
“Analysts repeatedly find that guns are the surest and safest method of protection for those who are most vulnerable to ‘vicious male predators.’”
Licensing and carry laws discriminate against women and the poor because “need” is most often based on economic or social status, “while denying permits to working-class individuals who must operate in crime-ridden areas as part of their daily job.” Need is most often based on property protection over physical protection. Larish points out:
“Major metropolitan and urban areas which have the greatest proportion of violent crime against women, as well as the greatest likelihood of woman-headed households, also have the most restrictive gun control measures….”
An important note on disinformation: ‘assault’ weapons is a misnomer. Semi-automatic firearms are not automatic assault weapons, as shown in this video report by San Jose police officer, Leroy Pyle:



As the banksters steal more homes and impoverish more citizens, as the multinational food-control corporations increase hunger, as computerized voting renders elections meaningless, as wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer families, civil unrest is likely to grow.  Annie, get your gun. Self-defense is inherently a natural human right.

Sources and Further Reading:

Alderman, Ellen, and Caroline Kennedy. In Our Defense. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1991. 93-103.
Armed Females of America.
Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog repost of MSM coverage of gun self defense news items
Cornered Cat.
Larish, Inge Anna. Why Annie Can’t Get Her Gun: A Feminist Perspective on the Second Amendment. University of Illinois Law Review, 467 (1996). Rpt. in Gun Control & Gun Rights: A Reader & a Guide.  Eds. Andrew J. McCurg, David B. Kopel, Brannon P. Denning. New York University Press, 2002.  258-267.
United States Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1982.
Simkin, Jay, Aaron Zelmann, and Alan M. Rice. Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 1992.
*U.S. Supreme Court:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.  
 Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
 [emphasis added]
Hat tip to Marti Oakley for this discussion on Constitutional Law.
(Last updated August 11, 2009)

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Monsanto Nation: Taking Down Goliath

Health Freedom Alliance
 Submitted by Lois Rain on August 2, 2011
 

What is the slingshot that will bring the mighty Goliath down? What is Monsanto’s Achilles heel; the two things it does not possess that will allow us to fight back in the war against GMOs?
Our readers ask, how do we take down Monsanto? This rousing call by Ronnie Cummins outlays in military strategic style how to march forward, and from what terrain, to make those biotechnocrats retreat!
We cannot coexist with the likes of Monstrosity – it’s time for a plan.
~Health Freedoms


“If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” – Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

After two decades of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans, it’s time to move beyond defensive measures and go on the offensive.  With organic farming, climate stability, and public health under the gun of the gene engineers and their partners in crime, it’s time to do more than complain. With over 1/3 of U.S. cropland already contaminated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), with mounting scientific evidence that GMOs cause cancer, birth defects, and serious food allergies  and with new biotech mutants like alfalfa, lawn grass, ethanol-ready corn, 2,4 D-resistant crops, and genetically engineered trees and animals in the pipeline, time is running out.

Living in Monsanto Nation there can be no such thing as “coexistence.” It is impossible to coexist with a reckless industry that endangers public health, bribes public officials, corrupts scientists, manipulates the media, destroys biodiversity, kills the soil, pollutes the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically enslaves the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. It’s time to take down the Biotech Behemoth, before the living web of biodiversity is terminated.

But, to bring down Goliath and build an organic future, we need to be strategic, as well as bold. We must take the time to carefully analyze our strengths and weaknesses and critique our previous efforts. Then we must prepare to concentrate our forces where our adversary is weak, like a chess master, moving the field of battle from Monsanto’s currently impregnable territory into more favorable terrain.

Given the near-dictatorial control of Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association over the Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, and state legislators, we have no choice in the present moment but to revert to “asymmetrical” guerrilla tactics, to seek out the Achilles heel or fundamental weakness of the biotech industry.

Consumers’ Right to Know: Monsanto’s Achilles Heel

The Achilles heel of Monsanto and the biotech industry is consumers’ right to know. If GE-tainted foods are labeled in supermarkets and natural food stores, a massive rejection of chemical and GMO foods will take place, transforming the marketplace and supercharging the organic and local foods revolution. The biotech industry has been aware of their tremendous vulnerability in the United States ever since Monsanto forced their controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone on the market in February 1994.  In the wake of nationwide “Frankenfood” protests and milk dumps, industry made sure that no federal labeling or safety testing would be required. As the biotechnocrats understand full well, mandatory GE food labels will cripple the industry: consumers will not buy gene-altered foods, farmers will not plant them, restaurants and food processors will avoid them, and grocery stores will not sell them. How can we be certain about this? By looking at the experience of the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world. In the EU, there are almost no genetically engineered crops under cultivation or GE consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Not because GE crops are automatically banned in Europe. But rather because under EU law, all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled.

European consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GE foods; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as these gene-altered are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by the Monsanto executive quoted above: “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

The biotech and food industry are acutely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or DuPont – the same people who brought you toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, Agent Orange, carcinogenic food additives, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are definitely aware of the fact that every poll over the last 20 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. Why do consumers want labels? So that we can avoid buying these mutant foods, gene-spliced with viruses, bacteria, antibiotic-resistant marker genes and foreign DNA. Gene-altered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from ever getting a public discussion, much less coming to a vote, in Congress.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) perennially introduces a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GE foods, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called “Citizens United” case gave big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.

Perfectly dramatizing the “Revolving Door” between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.

With biotech and industrial agriculture’s big money controlling Congress, the White House, and the corporate mass media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and our campaigning to more favorable terrain: the state level and the marketplace.
Besides boycotting non-organic foods likely containing GMOs (even those marketed as “natural”) and demanding that natural food stores adopt truth-in-labeling practices, we’ve got to push for mandatory GE food labeling laws in the legislatures of those few remaining states like Vermont where Monsanto and corporate agribusiness do not yet have total control. Of the 18 states where GE food labeling legislation has been introduced over the past two years, only in Vermont does our side seem to have the votes to push labeling through, as well as a Governor who will not cave in to Monsanto.

State Ballot Initiatives: Monsanto and Biotech’s Greatest Weakness
Although passing a mandatory GE foods labeling law in Vermont is a distinct possibility, and something we should all support, the most promising strategy for restoring consumers’ right to know lies in utilizing one of the most important remaining tools of direct citizen democracy, state ballot initiatives. A state ballot initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed statute or constitutional amendment, in this case a law requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.  Ballot initiatives are also called, depending on the state, “popular initiatives,” “voter initiatives,” “citizen initiatives” or just “initiatives.”

Twenty-four states, mainly west of the Mississippi, allow ballot initiatives. Each state has its own requirements for how many signatures are required, how many days can be spent collecting the signatures, and when petitions must be turned in. States also vary on the average amount of money spent by initiative committees to support or oppose ballot measures.

The essential advantage of state ballot initiatives is that they enable the grassroots (in our case the 85-95% of consumers who want labels on GE-tainted foods) to bypass corrupt politicians, industry lobbyists, and special interest legislative practices. In addition, the very strategic point to keep in mind is that it will not be necessary to pass GMO labeling ballot initiatives in all 24 of these states. In fact, passage in just one large state, for example, California, where there is tremendous opposition to GE foods as well as a multi-billion dollar organic food industry, will likely have the same impact as a national labeling law.

If Vermont passes a state labeling law though its legislature in 2011, or California voters put a GMO labeling initiative on the ballot in 2012 and pass it, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma. Will they dare put labels on their branded food products in just one or two states, admitting these products contain genetically engineered ingredients, while still withholding label information in the other states? The answer is very likely no. Withholding important and controversial information in some states, while providing it to consumers in other states, would be a public relations disaster.

A clear precedent for this situation was established in California in 1986 when voters passed, over the strenuous opposition of industry, a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredient to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California.

This same scenario will likely unfold if California voters pass a ballot initiative in 2012 requiring labels on food containing genetically engineered ingredients. Can you imagine Kellogg’s selling Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in California with a label that admits it contains genetically engineered corn? Or labeling their corn flakes as GE in California, but not divulging this same fact to consumers in the other 49 states or Canada? Of course not.  How about Kraft Boca Burgers admitting that their soybean ingredients are genetically modified? How about the entire non-organic food industry (including many so-called “natural” brands) admitting that 75% of their products are GE-tainted?  Once food manufacturers and supermarkets are forced to come clean and label genetically engineered products, they will likely remove all GE ingredients, to avoid the “skull and crossbones” effect, just like the food industry in the EU has done. In the wake of this development American farmers will convert millions of acres of GE crops to non-GMO or organic varieties.

The biotechnocrats and their allies have indeed used their vast resources to buy off Congress, the White House, and most state legislatures with campaign contributions. Monsanto, DuPont, and other corporate giants have used their enormous clout to send their lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into jobs as government regulators. Biotech’s financial power has polluted state and federal governments, along with trade associations, universities, research institutions, philanthropic organizations, and media outlets.

But there are two things Monsanto’s money can’t buy: Our trust, and our votes.
Polls Show Consumers Overwhelmingly Support GE Food Labels
Poll after poll has shown that most consumers want to know whether their food includes engineered ingredients.

The results of a recent MSNBC poll that posed the question, “Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?” indicate that nearly all Americans believe that foods made with genetically modified organisms should indeed be labeled.

Of the more than 45,000 people who participated in the poll, over 96% answered “Yes. It’s an ethical issue – consumers should be informed so they can make a choice.”

It’s not news that most Americans support labeling of GMO foods. Since genetically modified foods were first introduced in mid-1990s, scores of public opinion polls have shown that the vast majority of consumers want mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods. These include recent polls by CBS News/New York Times, NPR/Thomson Reuters and the Consumers Union.

Unfortunately, Congress and the White House have ignored these polls, accepting instead the claims of lobbyists and indentured scientists that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe, and that uninformed and scientifically illiterate Americans must not be given the choice to buy or not to buy GMOs, because they will reject them.

Monsanto spent more than $1 million on the 2010 election cycle, splitting its contributions evenly between state and federal candidates. It spends much more on lobbying – more than $8 million in each of the last three years. Monsanto’s money has bought it influence and allowed it to move its lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into roles within the regulatory agencies. The USDA, FDA and State Department are full of appointees with connections to Monsanto. Monsanto’s efforts have successfully stifled attempts in Congress and state legislatures to pass GMO labeling legislation.

The Slingshot that Can Bring Down Goliath

The most important advantage or weapon in a ballot initiative (or in a grassroots legislative lobbying campaign) is to have the overwhelming support of the people, especially registered voters. As poll after poll has shown, 85-95% of Americans support mandatory GE food labels. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend to defeat a ballot initiative, it is very difficult to turn back overwhelming public sentiment. Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth.

The second requirement for a successful ballot initiative is to have the active support of a massive grassroots movement, like the growing anti-GE food movement and OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign. This grassroots movement can gather petition signatures, mobilize public opinion, and get out the vote. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend, it will be very difficult to defeat a volunteer grassroots army of organic consumers who enjoy the massive support of the public.

The third prerequisite for victory is to have the ability to raise significant sums of money. Not only do we have millions of organic consumers in the U.S. who are passionately opposed to GMOs, and willing to donate to a labeling campaign, but we also have a rapidly growing $30 billion organic food industry that depends upon keeping GMO contamination out of the organic sector. We probably won’t be able to raise enough money to outspend Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but we can raise enough money to defend our popular position and maintain majority support.

Just like everything in U.S. politics, ballot initiatives have a price tag.
According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center:
  • “The chances of victory are directly correlated with the amount of money raised and are almost always proportional to the amount of money the opposition spends.”
  • “People power is equally important to factor in. Particularly for Citizen-based ballot initiative efforts, it is imperative to have people on the ground across the state that are connected and invested in the initiative.”
Biotechnology or BioDemocracy?

Restoring consumers’ right to know and driving genetically engineered foods off supermarket shelves are not going to solve all of the life and death issues that are currently staring us in the face: the climate crisis, endless wars, economic depression, corporate control over government, and the health crisis. But cutting Monsanto and the biotechnocrats down to size and restoring consumer choice are a good first step to move us toward sustainability and a healthy food and farming system. Just as important, in political terms, by defeating the Biotech Bullies and indentured politicians, we can begin to restore the tattered self-confidence of the American body politic. A resounding victory by the organic community and OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign will prove to ourselves and the currently demoralized public that we can indeed take back control over the institutions and public policies that determine our daily lives. Now is the time to move forward.

To support or join up with the Millions Against Monsanto Campaign, go to:http://www.millionsagainstmonsanto.org

Donate to support the campaign: http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.cfm
By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, July 27, 2011

Source:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23693.cfm

Monday, August 1, 2011

Peaceful Anarchy: Imagine a Society without the State

Transcend Media Service
by Gary D. Barnett - LewRockwell

“I am an anarchist. I suppose you came here, the most of you, to see what a real, live anarchist looked like. I suppose some of you expected to see me with a bomb in one hand and a flaming torch in the other, but are disappointed in seeing neither. If such has been your ideas regarding an anarchist, you deserved to be disappointed. Anarchists are peaceable, law-abiding people. What do anarchists mean when they speak of anarchy? Webster gives the term two definitions – chaos and the state of being without political rule. We cling to the latter definition. Our enemies hold that we believe only in the former.” ~ Lucy Parsons

“If we look at the record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and … try freedom.” ~ Murray N. Rothbard

Anarchy in its purest form is based on peaceful behavior and voluntarism in a stateless society, while government is based on aggression, theft, force, and deceit. These two systems are completely opposite. The only moral social system worth having has to adhere to the ideas of non-aggression, private property, free and voluntary exchange, and self-responsibility. This ideology is based entirely on the individual as sovereign. A political order where the individual is not sovereign, such as what we have now in this country, is the type of system that eventually leads to tyranny and serfdom. We are already far along in that process.

In my opinion, peaceful anarchy as a near perfect social system must go unchallenged, because anarchy is based on the truism that the individual is sovereign. Philosophically, anarchy is the only workable system if freedom is the desired goal. All other political systems are based on a top-down structure, with those in charge holding power over all others. This type of structure, which is our current political system, is simply one of force, and force is the antithesis of liberty.

While to me this seems to be not only simple but also logical, to most others this thinking is blasphemous. The mere mention of anarchy causes grave reactions from those from the “elite” class to the common laborer. No one it seems understands the simple concept of anarchy, and certainly can’t grasp the concept of anarchy as a viable social system. This says a lot about the “success” of the government indoctrination prisons called “public” schools. Obviously, the worship and acceptance of the State is now the primary driver in the American thought process.

This is unfortunate.

Those who believe that anarchy is chaos without justice fail to understand that anarchists simply want to be left alone. The fact that they want to be left alone should naturally convey that they also don’t want to infringe upon the liberty of others. Self-rule means that one’s life is directed from within instead of being controlled from without. This concept should not be foreign to any man who desires to enjoy a free life. But it is this simple notion that escapes so many.

Obviously, simple humans are a mixture of good and bad, so believing that a stateless society will remedy all ills is silly. The idea of anarchy assumes that most will not aggress against others, and that voluntary cooperation will be a primary factor for success. This of course seems impossible given our circumstances today, but any critical thought should help to relieve the fears of most.

If we all were self-reliant and self sufficient, if no forced welfare existed, if taxation was abolished, if positive law was not a part of society, would the manner of men change? If no standing armies were allowed, would wars cease? If the only act of force tolerated were for self-defense, would crime lessen? If none could benefit at the expense of another, would cooperation replace extortion? If no man ruled another, would there be incentive for peaceful and voluntary behavior? In my view, the answer to all these questions is a resounding yes! Would this kind of society be perfect … Of course not, because people are not perfect. No societal system can be perfect. But a system without the state would at least offer us the best chance for a long and peaceful existence, and one without the chains of governmental tyranny.

Our society has long been force-fed the propaganda that we cannot survive and prosper without the State. Our training in such matters begins at a very early age and continues throughout our lives. The transformation from a somewhat free society to our current one of servitude has taken a long time, but it has happened nonetheless. Now, most in this country are knowingly or unknowingly dependent on the government in one fashion or another, but many more thrive exclusively on government largess, and due to government protectionist practices. Did this happen accidentally or did it happen by design? I think the latter is the obvious answer to this question.

Given that the masses of people in this country believe so strongly in “their” government, what has that government done to deserve this confidence? What has the state brought us? What has been accomplished due to our political system these past two hundred plus years?
  • Standing armies
  • Continuous war and mass murder
  • Massive progressive taxation
  • State-sponsored welfare
  • Eminent Domain
  • Central banking and the Federal Reserve
  • Destruction of our money
  • The “War on Drugs”
  • The largest prison system in the world with the highest incarceration rate
  • Government schooling
  • FDA
  • EPA
  • TSA
  • NSA
  • CIA
  • FBI
  • USA PATRIOT Act
  • Military Commissions Act
  • Killer Drones
  • Guantanamo Bay
  • Torture
  • Rendition
  • Police brutality
  • Imperialism
  • Wiretapping and spying
  • Illegal searches
  • Bailouts
  • Monopoly
  • Recessions
  • Depressions
I could of course go on and on as this is a partial list, but I think the picture is clear. If this is what the State produces, how could a stateless society be worse? As I see things, it could not! Just imagine how different life would be if all the horrible things mentioned above were removed from our society. Imagine peace? Imagine a country of non-aggressive individuals working strictly through voluntary efforts? Imagine that all your property, including your own body, is yours and yours alone to do with as you see fit? Just imagine?

Murray N. Rothbard was one of the staunchest defenders of a stateless society, and presented here a great argument for anarchism as a social system. Once those skeptical souls who hunger for authority instead of freedom are shown the way to clear those imaginary anarchy hurdles, progress has a chance to flourish. This is no easy task, but if enough are shown the way, could it happen? Could it be successful? I think that it could, but major obstacles would first have to be removed.

The obstacles I speak of are those that allow one to prosper at the expense of another. If all government forced welfare were eliminated, all would then be forced to take care of themselves and their own. This alone would make a huge difference in the minds of the masses. Immediately, self-reliance and self-responsibility would become necessary for life to continue. When the majority of society is self-responsible, liberty is the natural result, and becomes the driving force of that society.

Accepting the idea of sovereignty of the individual brings much responsibility, but that responsibility leads to a freer society. A freer society leads to a society based upon voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation is the basis for free markets. Voluntary cooperation and free markets leads directly to prosperity.

It is time to break the chains of government and try freedom. It is time to throw off rule by the few for rule by self. Government has failed and failed miserably every time it has been tried. Why then continue along this path of failure? Why continue to allow rule over of the many by the few?
A stateless society has not the power to destroy the individual. I say abolish the State!
_______________________
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.