6 posts tagged “government”

A major criticism of libertarian thought is that it is all doom and gloom and that it cannot accept compromise of any sort. That it is an all or nothing mantra espoused by a dank and less than cheerful minority. Now I can agree that indeed there are those within Libertarian circles that seem to be wracked by fury and bluster that to the average man would naturally seem quite irrational and indeed somewhat unproductive. However, I can clearly understand the frustration of the Libertarian in a world for which is gathering moss on any kind of revolutionary ideas or philosophical thought. Freedom is clearly a concept that has improved our lot, as this has been clearly shown by the wealth of nations within Europe and the US. The free market has brought with it many freedoms to our lives unthought-of in our parent’s day, let alone our grandparents. One can only imagine the world our children could inhabit with true freedom.

However, it is clear that we are not really free in the very real sense of free. Yes we are freer than most Chinese, Muslim or African people are. We are indeed much freer than our ancestors were. But just because we are freer than at any other time in our history does not mean that we are actually free. The word ‘freedom’ is used in the vernacular by all democratic govt’s. They have stolen its meaning so as to reinforce the idea that govt, taxation and the use of force are all arcane to us. As one can see from the interview that Jan has with this US senator, we see them become visibly angered by his questioning of the govt’s moral veracity. Clearly these questions hit nerves most of us wouldn’t dare touch. In this case Peter Stark tells Jan, ‘get the fuck out of here, or I’ll throw you out the window’. Clearly a violent statement made by someone reacting irrationally to a line of reasonable questioning. It clearly illustrates the tight hold that the state has on the minds of the majority.
 
So can we call this freedom then? Well as I said earlier, it may well be freedom compared to women in Muslim countries looking for equality. It may well be freedom compared to an African trying to feed his family or a Chinese man writing his blog. However our freedom is not real freedom, because real freedom would not use force against us. Real freedom would be to volunteer to pay your taxes without threat of fines, prison and violence if you so decided not to. Real freedom would be to choose your children’s education. Real freedom would be to choose your health provider. Real freedom would be to choose where you lived and not be confined by imaginary borders created by the state.
 
I understand that these thoughts create a sense of fear in most people. The reaction of the senator was a clear example of this. We have been told for so long that it is only the state that can manage our affairs and no one else. We somehow bestow meaningless virtue upon our politicians and public servants as if they do everything out of altruist desire alone. Govt is very similar to the comforting warm feeling people experience when they imagine a God that loves them. To challenge these thoughts is bound to create anxiety and uncertainty within most individuals. Therefore it is only natural for them to feel fear once this lie has been exposed.

I often ponder whether politicians are as unaware of the states use of violent threat. Is it possible that even our leaders have sedated themselves from its reality? Perhaps this is just me trying to make sense of what I consider to be such an obvious flaw in our system. However, I think they are only too aware of this threat as they feel a constant need to sugar coat everything with generalisations and hyperbole. Their constant use of rhetoric is a clear example of the smoke and mirrors politicians like to employ as a means to less constraint on their eventual decision making. Let’s face it, whenever has a politician made any real sense?

No, the freedom I dream of is a freedom to not be dictated to by individuals or a collective thereof that tells me to do what they say, not as they do. Real freedom is possible and indeed so are real ethics alike. But only without the mechanism that allows us to be manipulated, cajoled and frightened into subservience, which in turn allows this corruption to seep within the consciousness of us all.  For too long the instrument of govt have been convincing us that ethics can only come from statehood and dogmatic acquiescence to it. It’s like saying we must support Everton football club and no other, come what may, however better the other sides maybe. The state is seared within us from childhood. We are told to take sides and indeed to praise all things state like. These ideas are permeated within us from a young age, whether by school, parenting or media, as a means to making us willing slaves that accept our plight as being for the greater good.

So when George Bush talks about freedom he understands only to clearly the need and desire each of us has have for such a notion. However, he goes about defacing its true meaning by expecting us to live within the confines of freedom under a benevolent dictator. However, it is unclear how long people can live within the twilight of religion and statehood. Indeed, I have no doubt that it will change at some good time in the future. Whether I'm here to see it or not, mankind has always striven for freedom and freedom is what he will get when he is good and ready for it.

 

Fairness is often a word banded around by politicians, particularly by those in the Labour party, but they are not exclusive to its use, it’s often known as ‘social justice’ too. Indeed it’s a word that appeals to the ‘fair minded’ within society. Indeed, it even allows us to encompass an ethical dimension to our lives, where we might feel one is lacking. But what is ‘fairness’ considered to be by our politicians? Well, they would consider that paying your taxes was fair, in that you give part of your labour to them that are less fortunate than yourself. In other words to remove some of your wealth to give to them that are less well off would be a fair exchange of wealth in their eyes.

However, this fairness is quite obscure when you consider that for them on low incomes are indeed taxed as heavily in real terms as those on higher incomes. Indeed even an annual salary of £10,000 brings a tax bill of £1,293.00 with it. However, a person earning £66,000 per year pays £21,175.20 in taxes. Of course the £44,000 or so that remains will buy this person a whole lot more than the £8.700 that is left on the lesser earnings. One only has to live in the real world to discover that £10,000 will not buy you very much over a year. So can it be fair that this individual pays any tax on this income at all? According to social justice policy this person must live a relatively frugal existence, renting no more than a bed sit and still pay £1,293 per year towards someone less well off than themselves, because that is fair.

However, is there really anything fair about taxation in reality, even for the rich? It is clear that politicians accrue some moral aspect to the fairness of wealth redistribution. They make out that this is a very real way in which we can provide equality amongst society. However, they always omit the way in which this wealth is redistributed of course. Of course, to most of us taxation is quite benign. Council tax perhaps raises the most eyebrows, partly because it’s seen as having little to do with a person’s ability to pay and based principally on the property they happen to rent or buy. For the most part, tax is seen as a skim on our earnings or purchases, for which the majority is left intact or the purchase still seems affordable. However, the methods by which these taxes are extracted are far from ethical in reality. To them that pay their taxes directly or those that collect VAT receipts will tell you. There are a series of threats, fines and coercion that are employed by government organisations unlike any other. They are afforded many more legal processes in forcibly extracting their due at ANY cost. These include imprisonment as well as violence too, ultimately including death if we dare to resist their coercion further.

Ok, for the most part death is a rare event in tax evasion, including imprisonment, hardly surprising really. But it’s quite clear that the government needs to use such threats to make sure we pay our taxes. So where does this stand with their principled pursuit of wealth redistribution then?  Indeed it would appear that we have reached the smoke and mirrors that government so like to employ on these occasions. Having so swiftly convinced us that we have a moral duty to help our fellow man, that our wealth is immorally extracted from us by the fear of force. Can we safely say now that wealth redistribution in this manner has any kind of ethical dimension to it?

Of course not, but regrettably this is the great unmentionable within society, having sedated ourselves so completely from its corruption. We are so seduced by seemingly sensible reasoning, whilst confused by its threat of violence. This is why the enslaved can scoff so easily at the slave who speaks out. We all fear the threat of violence from the state whether we like it or not. To ignore it is one thing, but to support it, well, is to have lost all moral judgement completely. As for fairness one can clearly see that in its current state, that social justice is neither fair nor just.

The latest stupidity regarding health and safety laws has emerged once again, as seen here in the Daily Mail. After saving a schoolgirl from a near drowning,  the boat was immediately confiscated and impounded by health and safety executives. The reason being, was that the boat had required a hull inspection by a health & safety expert so as to pass it as fit for service.

Apparently there has been a serious breach of regulations and the incident and crew are now being investigated. One can only imagine the concern these crew-members and their families must be feeling right now, as this rather arbitrary organisation set up by government has got some rather sharp teeth.

Like much with government regulation we are for the most part blissfully unaware of how we may one day fall foul of it. There are rules for just about anything these days. It’s a surprise that we actually get through the day without breaking some of them in complete ignorance. However, this case clearly illustrates the inability of government to make a rational and indeed moral judgment correctly. If one is to break down the concerns regarding the danger this boat posed to anyone, there are perhaps 3 distinct areas we have to consider.

1 – The crew voluntarily decided to risk their own lives.

Not one of them was forced to go out on that boat, they decided on their own volition (something govt could consider when it points guns at people all the time).

2 -  The only boat available was some 25 minutes away.

Which held the obvious risk of getting to this girl too late.

3 - The crew had paid to fix it and were only awaiting a clearence certificate.

With their great experience of boats they would have been left in no doubt that the risk was minimal at best.

Given all these circumstances one can safely assume that the crew made a valued and reasoned judgement to go and rescue this girl. They even asked for permission, for which transmission was lost (thank God).

Now I am sure that these guys will be ok, particular since they have the Daily Panic behind them (Daily Mail). These guys are unlikely to face any real recriminations for their actions, as the press would likely cause a stink stronger than Gordon Browns pants. However, this is not really my concern, my real concern is the one where anyone could find themselves in by complete accident. A story of perhaps lesser virtue may not have the benefits of press protection and could lead to the imprisonment, fining or lost reputation that this putrid organisation can and does inflict on any individual and entity it deems fit to remonstrate against.

Looking on the latest military conflict to hit the news in South Ossetia, a small region of Georgia on the southern borders of Russia. Yet again we see the gargantuan misuse of a state military, bought and paid for, off the backs of  individual hard labour. One can only imagine the death and carnage that is going on over there. The systematic use of sophisticated modern weaponry still leaves us gaping into a pit of contemporary human barbarity and despair.

Almost predictably, corny expressions of unease regarding this war are emanating from the west. President Bush has demanded that the Russians go no further than South Ossetia in an almost tacit acceptance of the violence inflicted thus far. It’s at these times that governments show their true colours behind their rhetoric. The west of course is only concerned with the oil pipeline that links Azerbaijan to Europe. As a result Russia sees this part of its old territory as an important pawn in its ever growing power regarding the worlds future energy resources. So the west sits on the fence and throws light criticism at the Russians as a means to shrouding their true position on the matter.

Of course the images we see above are far worse than we would ever see in Iraq or Afghanistan and are liberally displayed throughout most western newspapers. This is Russia after all, for whom the western press is free to condemn and criticise at will. The cursed hypocrisy of the west is as virulent to see as at any other time before. They use politics as a means to hoodwinking their relevant populaces into believing their stories through vague gestures and sound bites. Now I also include the Georgians in this duplicity, as they are hardly without blood on their hands. As liberal as the west has been in its coverage of Russian aggression, it has shown scant regard to Georgia’s mister minors.

'LET FREEDOM REIGN'

As a result of all this I was left imagining a world free of conflict and unnecessary violence.  ‘I have a dream’, a phrase that was used by the late Martin Luther King, was steeped in imagery. That imagery was of a future where oppression would no longer be the norm and that freedom would at last reign. Of course, as most modern anarchists, we always have our doubts regarding the eventual shift in the zeitgeist and no more so than when we see these behemoth governments acting in such a wantonly destructive manner, such as we see in this conflict. Our gut tells us, ‘how on earth do we stop these enormous bullies?’ How and when as individuals do we ever see the moment when we can stand up to these tormentors and face them head on in a fair and equal manner?

Stefan Molyneux wrote a wonderful blog  recently regarding the safety of a free state society. It may not answer all the questions regarding personal defence, but it’s by far the broadest and most in depth challenge to the assertion that only a state can protect us militarily. It did of course allow me to dream of a society free of the tyranny of state control and coercion. A place in which voluntaryists would roam with complete protection from any force that felt a need to attack them. A world in which freedom would indeed reign and that culpability would be placed upon the individual or entity that committed any act of violence against them.

An overwhelming sense of sadness fills me now, not just for the poor innocent lives being destroyed through this current conflict. Indeed I feel a sadness that grows from my yearning for such a society, for which I am sure I'm unlikely to experience within my lifetime. However I am quite sure it is a vision of a future, whether near or far, that will at some dawn be seen as the only possible future worth having.

An interesting blog by the devils kitchen  recently regarding the divide and rule method used by our present govt… About the ONLY thing that is efficient about govt is the way it can so efficiently deflect all negativity onto something or someone else… They do this with such erudite precision that it is almost seemingly magical… However, if the only thing that keeps govt’s in power is the use of myth, then myths ye shall receive…

Govts understand only too well the myths and prejudices people hold and they use them as cunningly as they can to avoid any culpability… As long as people have enemies other than govt itself, they are hands free to throw their weight about as they please… perhaps the most hardest hit of all are the middle classes.. They are the largest taxpayers by far, for who receive the least handouts or tax breaks… They are indeed the more likely to be fined for speeding or parking illegally… Are  more likely to pay fines in general for fear of losing their jobs… They work the longest hours… Their partners have to work and pay for child care in full… And they are the least likely to complain…

The socialist has always considered the middle classes as the parasites that enjoy far too much of the good life. Govts have continually hit them the hardest as they are such a soft target for whom complaints are rare… they are good little slaves that take their slapping with a sense of dignity unseen in any other groups throughout society...

The irony is that many of the middle classes these days have been so indoctrinated by state education that they themselves believe they are undeserving and should indeed pay their tax graciously... People like Tony Robins a filthy state whore that demands us to give even more as a means to ridding ourselves from selfishness only compound this stupidity... Of course pricks like him have no need to rely on the states capriciousness... He can afford to send his children to private school and avoid his income being halved by the state... But that’s another blog of course...

The middle class are the most productive by a whole, but they are truly shat upon at a great height, even made to feel guilty about their few indulgencies.. I look forward to the day the middle class rise up and say NO MORE!!..

If only?...

I was listening to an excellent podcast today given by a Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio... It was a discussion primarily about having BIG philosophical thoughts.
 

   Podcast   (right click mouse and save as to download)

He brought up an interesting point in regard to concepts we all have when dealing with reality. When we talk of religious faith, parents, the law, nationhood and more importantly government. We often discuss these concepts as real, when in reality there is nothing real about them. These are ideas created from language and given credibility by us, and in particular by those that seek to mould us, but in reality they don't actually exist.

Some of us like to think that we have reached our rational zenith, particularly in regards to religion. Atheism is more popular than ever in its history. People are clearly lapping up the reason behind such truths as, 'there are no gods'.

However, it is clear that we still live with MANY other mythologies that are so ingrained in us, that we are almost completely blind to them. Reality of course, are the senses such as smell, taste, hearing, seeing, touch and perhaps the 6th sense could be considered the intellect. All these senses allow us to move around in this world in a safe and personally beneficial manner. But we are so taken by the myths as outlined above, that we forget the REAL senses that we use, almost without thinking, to clearly find our way within this world.

None of these mythologies can be considered as tangible or physically present, we cannot measure them empiracally. They are concepts that are forced onto us by others. By whom, you may ask? Well people who seek to have power over you of course.

Anyway, I thought I would list the real meaning of these words we show conformity too:

• Religious faith
  

Myth - A form of righteous piety that fosters contentment & makes all mankind equal.

A form of justifying bad behavior (via forgivenesss from a non entity).

• Parents
  

Myth - Virtuous people that sacrificed themselves for their children’s endeavour.

Biological coupling of two individuals.

• Law
  

Myth - Protector of the innocent.

Obey my ideas with threat of force

• Nationhood
  

Myth - Personal identity that offers a comforting idea of the self.

Geographical borders created and enforced by those that control the guns

• Government (democracy)
  

Myth - A system of power that allows us to have some say in who governs us

Holding power over the majority by a powerful minority that monoplolise violence.

__________________________________________________

As Stefan says, 'no concepts exist outside of your mind'. These are just expressions that do not exist in any kind of physical state, they are made up. In other words, they are not a statement of truth, a non sequitor.

Indeed, it is true as a friend of mine said, that these concepts have real outcomes and effects on our lives. Take the police for example, in real terms these are just people like you and me. However, because they wear a uniform we attribute power to them that we would'nt attribute to just anyone else, just them.

Of course, this all comes down to whether we believe that these mythologies provide any benefits for us in our daily lives. My impression is that they have been at best a hinderance and at worse the manufacturer of disaster in most peoples lives, aided and abeted by a paid police force, that in practice, ONLY protects their political masters. We all know the reality of reporting a crime, that this generally involves a slight chuckle from the officer and a filling out of insurance forms. The police will only use real force when either they need to be seen to be doing a good job, such as solving the murder of children or serial rapists etc. Or because they are protecting their masters, of whom you can be sure, are not us the general tax paying gulaggers.

There are many more meanings that these words actually indear. But overwelmingly they are words that force us to conform, to be controlled as well. They are made up by wicked people that seek to have power over us..

Never has Jean-Jacques Rousseau's words been echoed more.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. ..."