Government in General
Recently, I was asked why I don’t vote. On the spot, I found it relatively difficult to communicate my particular outlook on voting without my mind running wildly this way and that. When the haphazard conversation had adjourned I thought about the question quite a bit. I haven’t voted since I was 18; although, I’m sometimes tempted to vote. I wanted to make certain that my principles still reflect the feelings I once held toward voting, feelings which went beyond justification of my political absense, but even persuaded me to actively speak out about the evils of political goings on in general. The following is my best shot at quickly summing up the slice of my philosophy which shapes my position regarding voting:
Circles are not squares. They are never squares. Among other reasons, this is because a square has four corners, and a circle has no corners. This single discrepancy explains the existence of the principle, “Circles are not squares”.
As a principle, the statement “circles are not squares” holds true throughout the ages, amongst all realms, and in light of new information. Principles do just that; they hold true regardless of variable circumstances. This is important. Understanding the basic concept of a principle allows people to create ethics and morals. Without understanding the concept of principles, ethics and morals are not only subject to change, but are even excepted from entire facets of life altogether.
Here is an exercise in the extension of the principle described above:
Are circles square in California? Are they square in Mumbai? Are they square when your friend’s dad comes around? Are circles square when a donkey steps over a four-leaf clover on the second Tuesday in March during a leap-year? No; circles are never square, regardless of circumstances.
Let’s try this with another principle – the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Simply put, the NAP suggests that it is immoral to initiate force against another person. This means it is “wrong” to initiate an interaction with another person or people in which you remove their ability to make a fair decision whether through violence, the threat of violence or any form of coercion. Before I get into why this is immoral, let’s try to think of an instance in which initiating force against a person is moral, or even neutral.
Would it be moral, or neutral, if a man were to walk down to the nearest donut shop and start strangling the person in line? Or, what if a woman decides she wants a raise at work, so she puts a knife to her boss’ throat and forces him to sign a new contract? Perhaps force is acceptable if a child wants to acquire his playmate’s toy, so he bonks the other kid on the head and snatches it away. Would any these instances be considered tolerable?
Keep in mind that all of the situations I’m putting forth are examples of the initiation of force. Now I’ll apply the NAP to what should be a familiar institution.
Is it moral, or neutral, if a small group of people think that they can spend money very wisely, and much better than the average layperson, so they hire costumed thugs to pillage the countryside holding people at gunpoint and robbing them of a portion of their wealth? What if all the while the robbers explain that they are stealing the money in the interest of public good? Obviously, this is absurd behavior.
Afterwards, what if the small assembly of frugal folks were to put forth several options regarding how the stolen earnings might be spent once they’ve paid themselves a handsome salary? And, what if they were to give the laypeople an option to vote on the matters? I would argue that this is still an absurd situation to comprehend and a model of hideously immoral behavior.
What if the small group intends to use a large portion of the stolen funds to hold the laypeople at gunpoint, regulating their behaviors, and controlling the people’s options regarding how to earn their livings, and with whom they become romantically involved? Ludicrous, I know. Only the most sociopathic brutes would demonstrate these sorts of unscrupulous attitudes and wiles?
What if the small group of people pitted the large body of laypeople against one another by forcing rhetoric down their throats from the age of 5 to 18 in indoctrination camps wherein children are brainwashed into thinking that voting is not only a fair way to affect change, but that it’s a civic duty? What if those children grew up to think that they had the right to tell other people what to do as long as people they agree with hold fire-power over the entire population? It’s hard to believe I may have to explain the reasons why these situations are immoral, but for the sake of conversation I’ll briefly attempt to do so.
Property is anything belonging to a person. Property begins with a person’s mind and body and extends outward to all things created by a person with their mind and body. I own my brain, I own my mouth, I own the words I speak, and I own the results of those words. I own my actions and the results of those actions. And, as this defines property, it is immoral to initiate force against people, because it violates their right to property. Force robs a person of their ability to fairly make a decision regarding their property. Whether a child bonks his playmate on the head and takes her toy, or a very bright adult steals someone’s living wages in order to provide wonderful benefits for the many, property rights are being violated, and that is absolutely immoral. Respecting property rights is a principle; therefore it extends to all areas of the universe regardless of contexts and conditions.
Any person, people, or institution whose foundation embodies a violation of property rights is inherently immoral. Also, the initiation of force is the most egregious crime committable; it is a violent crime even when the gun isn’t “in the room”- so to speak. Even when the gun is disguised as justice, and all the laypeople have been fooled into pointing the gun at each other through the “power” of voting, each person begging their masters to point the guns at someone else via policy, regulation, and legislation, it is violent and immoral. This is a truly monstrous system, because it forces people, it lies and manipulates people to act out against each other. It is an atrocious system, because it is immoral from the ground up. And, the majority of people are indoctrinated throughout childhood, in schools they cannot avoid attending, to love their country’s governments – the very governments which will steal their earnings and threaten to punish them throughout their entire lives. They’re taught that government is good, and just, and necessary. This sort of relationship, in which victims must love masters whom they inevitably fear, is the definition of sadomasochism.
The institution of government is a system in which I choose not to participate. I was born under the thumb of government, and I understand this culture; therefore, I continue to live here under the rule of government. However, I reject the state in all its terror. I pay off the costumed thugs, so I will not be kidnapped and abandoned in a rape-room. I follow the rules, so that I will not be robbed of my wages. But, I do not legitimize my involuntary masters by begging them to use their force to impose my will and my preferences on my neighbors. Thus, I do not vote. As so often seems appropriate, I’ll close with a quote by R. W. Emerson: “Insist on yourself, never imitate.”
I think many people find themselves too busy to worry about economic philosophy. What’s to think about? We work, buy things, sleep, and repeat. Right? Well, there may be a bit more to it. Economic philosophies reflect broad variance in the direction of markets. Public economic philosophy affects job availability, product availability, our wages, and our quality of life in general. And, it wouldn’t matter if people had no control over which economic philosophy dominates the marketplace, but we do.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive definition or comparison of economic philosophies; rather it stands as a vague description of a few predominant viewpoints in modern society. I hope you’ll research them further, but this should at least present a gauge of where you may currently stand.
The Classical economic approach to markets suggests that they regulate themselves. It states that people are intelligent enough to understand what products they value based on their own preferences (functionality, design, aesthetics, etc.), and they’ll determine demand in the marketplace. Classical Economics also says that competition between providers of products and services drives the costs within a market place, thereby making affordable all things necessary and otherwise in demand. In short, if people want something it will be provided within the marketplace, and competition between providers will ensure the price is reasonably adjusted.
Neoclassical Economics proposes that the Classical economic approach is correct. However, in times of extreme economic downturns and the subsequent shock, the Neoclassical attitude claims that the government must intervene and impose economic regulations on the markets by force. It also proposes that the government police the financial system through a central bank. Today this is done through Quantitative Easing in which over 80 billion fake dollars are injected into the markets to prop up our failing system every day. Which system you ask?
More and more we’re seeing our government leaning toward a more Keynesian style of economics. Keynesian Economics posits that government ought to regulate the markets regardless of current conditions. Whether the markets are up, down, or stagnant, Keynesian Economics pushes for government force in all facets of the marketplace from areas as directly effective to people as wage-control to areas of macro-scale significance such as interest-rates. The argument here is that people are excessively obtuse and, therefore, unable to comprehend their own needs and desires; they must have government involvement in their decisions.
So which category do you fall under: Classical, Neo, or Keynesian? Are you intelligent enough to determine what you want, or do you require assistance? Do you have confidence in your neighbors to determine their own needs most of the time with the exception of periods of economic recession? Or do you find that you, and those around you are so pitifully moronic in nature that you all need someone else far, far away to dictate the cost of goods, the availability of products, how much money you are allowed to work for, and your over-all quality of life? Let me know.
Again, this is far too concise a characterization of these philosophies, so you’d need to read a bit more on each to determine all of the market variables and exogenous factors that play a part in market behavior. However, philosophically, I think this is a fair assessment of these positions.
While Nelson Mandela was the head of the terrorist organization, UmKhonto we Sizwe, he ordered the bombings of many public areas in South Africa, including churches, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents. Upon his capture, the racist and corrupt government in place at that time offered to let him go free in return for his public denunciation of his past actions and those of his followers, but Mandela refused. In 1962, he admitted to committing 156 acts of public violence and subsequently spent 27 years, or so, in jail.
After his release in 1990, Mandela hid his connection to the South African Communist Party in an effort to politically distance himself from the likes of Russian communists whose country was crumbling at the time. He was successful in his deceit and became the first black President of South Africa. Once in office, Mandela made a point not to take retaliatory actions toward his captors for which he has received much praise. He began spreading a message of equality and forgiveness; oddly, though, he began aligning himself with communist dictators around the world. Meanwhile, South Africa’s crime rates soared.
Today, South Africa is the rape capital of the world. Every four minutes a woman is raped in South Africa (66,000 rapes per year). South Africa has been widely known for its incredibly brutal and corrupt police force, largely made of “volunteers”, who are known to regularly rape and torture women throughout the country. Rates of this violent behavior have soared since Mandela started his campaign to spread peace. However, he did make significant contributions toward shifting the public outlook away from racism in South Africa through the peaceful forgiveness of his Apartheid predecessors.
Unfortunately, police corruption increased astronomically as well under Mandela’s guidance and has continued since his resignation. Last July, an internal audit of the South African police force uncovered 1,448 police employees, to include Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Captains, and Warrant Officers, with undisclosed convictions for murder, attempted murder, homicide, rape, attempted rape, assault, aiding and abetting, theft, breaking and entering, drug trafficking, kidnapping, robbery, malicious damage to property, and more.
Also, it’s unclear whether Mr. Mandela’s efforts truly helped resolve racist conflict. In 2012, an international monitoring agency, Genocide Watch, warned that South Africa was in the fifth of eight stages of the genocide process called the “preparation stage”. Genocide Watch officials reported that the African National Congress was engaging in a “campaign of state-sponsored dehumanization of the white population as a whole”. White farmers, in particular, seem to be on the receiving end of the brunt of the violence.
Violence, today, against white farmers in South Africa is excruciating just to hear about. One native South African recently told a reporter, “The other day, when we were having lunch—I couldn’t tell you how bad it is, it would have made you sick. About 10 klicks just down the road where I used to live, three blacks broke into a house, tied up the husband, gang-raped and killed the wife, before stabbing him like 14 times and chopping him with a panga [machete] and spreading the parts all over the house. Then they took their young son and drowned him in boiling water.”
Instances like this one are not rare. In fact the end of Apartheid and beginning of Mandela’s reign marked the incline of this egregious violence. Since then, approximately 3,000 white farmers have been murdered and countless numbers of them have been tortured, raped, beaten and robbed. Under and since Mandela, laws were passed forbidding the hire of whites, welfare increased exponentially, affirmative action measures were set, black police forces were mandated, etc. You might say that Mandela reversed his anti-racist revolution after taking office and, instead, created a lawless, corrupt, more racist and more violent statist establishment than that of the atrocious Apartheid regime he’d successfully expelled.
So why isn’t the media reporting this? Why is our president attending Mr. Mandela’s funeral? Why are so many people singing Mandela’s praises? How much good does it take to outweigh the horrific actions of this person prior to his imprisonment in 1962, and how much good does it take to outweigh the results of his leadership in South Africa after 1990? I’m not saying that the responsibility for every corrupt police officer, every raped and gutted woman, every drowned child, and every terrorized church-going bomb-victim rests solely on the shoulders of poor little Nelson! I’m saying, “Stop praising this unethical, disgusting, ruthless terrorist – turned socio-cultural devastator!”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. In the age of information it has never been easier to know the truth, nor more difficult to stay focused on it.
Below are some links to my sources:
As I time-travel back to 1998, in my mind, I remember all sorts of exciting things that were happening in my life. I was 13 years old and had recently graduated the sixth grade at the K-6 grade school I’d been attending. That summer my family moved from a relatively small condo in the South-Bay Area to a large house with a huge yard in the suburbs of the East-Bay. I made new life-long friends that summer, smoked my first cigarette, and did a whole bunch of awesome stuff that I look back on fondly. But something else happened that year that broke a particular strand of critical thread linking the American people to their rulers.
In 1998 President Bill Clinton was found to have received oral sex from a 22 year old intern and to have inserted a cigar-tube into her lady-part (I believe these instances occurred on separate days). While at face-value this is a fairly hilarious thing to hear, it strikes me on several deeper levels. I’m no prude, and I have had my fair share of questionable sexual encounters, but when closely examining this President’s actions I can’t help but wonder where the outrage was and why it wasn’t more apparent.
The position of the President of the United States (POTUS) is one of incredible honor and world-wide distinction as the face of American values. Not only does the POTUS represent an authority over his American subjects, the person holding this position represents the absolute best America has to offer. This person is supposed to be unwavering in their conviction to ethics and incredibly strong willed in order to bolster respect from all people of the world on behalf of the Americans.
It is disgusting that the President at that time was unable to refrain from grossly abusing his power and position to seduce an impressionable, young woman. It is incredible that he was unable to resist the urge to break his marital vows over the course of his presidency. It is wildly strange that he had/has an object-penetration fetish! When I heard the viewpoint, “What goes on in his personal life is his business”, I agreed. It most certainly is his business. But as I’ve grown older and gained some perspective it occurs to me that it truly is the business of the American people.
It is a subservient mentality that allowed this guy to continue his reign. Not only does the POTUS represent the American people, he works for them. He is an employee hired to be the face of the country. Sure, he has other responsibilities, but his primary role is that of a hood ornament impressing the eyes of the rest of the world as he peacocks in his limousines, travels in private jumbo-jets, maintains a crisp, clean appearance at all times, flaunts his nice-looking family, and makes fairly vague and mostly bloviating speeches. He is supposed to show off his integrity and strength of mind and capabilities to the world.
Instead, the guy we hired preyed upon an ambitious intern, cheated on his wife, lied about it, and then quibbled over the meaning of the word “is” in his defense during his impeachment trial. What a pathetic loser.
Looking back, I can’t help but wonder how the American people allowed him to go on representing them. If a business owner hears on the news that his receptionist was caught slobbering on the lap of his CEO with a foreign object protruding from her rectum in the conference room, and then the CEO lies about it on air…the CEO loses his job lickety-split (in most cases; companies related to the pornography industry are potentially exempt from this assertion).
What’s more unreal is the obvious breakdown in the government system. I find it absurd that a guy like Bill Clinton rose through the ranks of government to become the most influential and the most powerful person in the world. Unfortunately, the explanation is simple; the governments that rule over the world’s people have no filters, therefore, those most enticed by the opportunity to obtain power over others go there and find success.
The Clinton scandal was a travesty, but the American people’s reaction to it was a devastating blow to the expectations and standards held to the position of the POTUS. Since that time Presidents have been allowed to lie outright to their employers (us) resulting in a role-reversal of epic proportions. In the last decade American Presidents’ lies have allowed government to send many thousands of American subjects to their deaths in unjustified wars, allowed for the murder of hundreds of thousands of citizens of foreign nations, removed an untold amount of liberties native to America and vital to the definition of freedom, etc, etc, etc.
And it isn’t ending. Americans’ acceptance of presidential lies has now allowed for a government takeover of the most basic individual responsibility and natural right; that is to provide one’s self with health. I’m afraid all is lost if the American people don’t take to the streets now. If they don’t raise an immense amount of backlash against Barack Obama for lying over and over in order to buffoonarize the American public, and trick them into re-electing his administration. If he is not removed from office for his transgressions against them as the representative of American integrity and strength the bar will truly be set. He lied, and this time it wasn’t about sexual fetishes, or personal commitments to a spouse; it was to cover up the atrociously adverse effects of his proposed legacy-legislation on his subjects. It was to deceive the American people regarding how their wealth would be redistributed, and how many B-B-B-Billions of tax-dollars would be fraudulently abused and wasted in his program.
Even though a womanizing liar with a fetish for cramming phallic-shaped objects into young women made it through to the top the government system and was able to hold his position even after his subjects found out, I do have hope. I have a shred of hope that this liar will be dispatched to the realm of Nixon; perhaps we could reconnect the thread that lets the POTUS know not only are we watching, we give a shit!
In just over one year the U.S. Depatment of Homeland Security has purchased over two billion (that’s right, 2,000,000,000 ) rounds of ammunition. In the interest of perspective the wars in the Middle East have required approximately 70 million rounds per year. That means that in just over one year the Feds have purchased nearly 3 times the of ammunition needed to fight two wars over the course of a decade – and they’re using our money! Tax dollars are being spent to keep ammo off American store shelves in an effort to disarm the American populous.
You see, they can’t disarm us legislatively, so they’re stealing our money and buying directly from the manufacturers. As if this isn’t outrageous enough, our fearless leaders have purchased 2,700 MRAP vehicles (light armored-tanks) as well.
At first, these expenditures seem fairly reasonable, right? Let’s face it, America is a war-like nation which is currently at publicized-war in two countries and fighting an untold number of proxy wars. Unfortunately, these purchases never left the country. Instead the tanks and ammo have been distributed to local SWAT Teams throughout our states.
This raises the question, “why is an agency responsible for defending U.S. soil stocking up on wartime materials and using them to militarize local police?”
To my knowledge, government officials have not addressed this. In fact, mainstream news corporations have hardly uttered a word about it as well. Everyone in a position responsible for reporting the meaning of this activity to American populations has acted as if nothing is going on at all.
In the past people have said to me that they, themselves, don’t break the law, therefore they have nothing to fear from SWAT teams. They think that police are there friends because they obey the police. They think that the government is working for them and that it has honor because they, themselves, feel emotional when they hear the “Star-Spangled Banner” and think about “the troops” on the Fourth of July. These people have not dealt with the police before; they have yet to be criminalized. It takes one law to take a “God-fearing, taxpaying, law abiding citizen” and completely transform them into an unrighteous, unproductive, law breaking menace to society. And when this happens to these people, of course, they’ll need to worry about SWAT teams, indeed.
The rate of swat team raids for warrant serving has increased exponentially over the last decade. Some figures estimate that approximately 200 of these raids occur every day in America. The following video is just one example of what happens when a citizen is criminalized.
The man in the video below was accused by his neighbors of selling marijuana. And so the warrant for his kidnapping was signed by one of his peers (some “judge”), and a swat team was deployed to his home to execute said warrant. In the video you can see the first five minutes of the penalty for selling random bits of arbitrary vegetation in our free United States.
This is the kidnapping of an American. But worse, it is costumed, self righteous goons betraying property rights, shamelessly and brutally torturing and slowly killing a man’s dog, terrorizing his wife and 7-year old child, and loving every minute of their sociopathic dominance over the government’s subjects.
It’s a shame we have become convinced that it should be difficult for ourselves to own guns. It’s an even bigger shame that we’ve given tremendous amounts of firepower to creepy, power-hungry sociopaths. And we’ve allowed all of this in order to grant these gangsters the obligation and the right to initiate violent force against whomever is being criminalized at the moment.
The actions of the neighbors who called the armed posse are disgusting. The actions of the armed posse are disgusting. The actions of the judge who authorized these actions are disgusting; what arrogance must exist in the corrupt mind of a man who sits in judgment over the trade of plants. Perhaps the most grotesque actions in this incredibly sad story, though, are those of the American people whose complacency, insidious in nature, has directly led to the possibility of this situation.
If you are a law-abiding citizen, just you wait until you become the criminal; it will happen. Maybe you will be late registering your vehicle, or you will refuse to pay your hard earned money when you are unfairly ticketed by a cop who’s having a bad day; you may become a criminal for any number of reasons.
Two things are certain:
The government is not working for you, and the police are not your friends.