Statism, Anarchism, Or Something Else?
Statism, Anarchism, Or Something Else?
As the ruling class has demonstrated, there is "law for thee, but not for me"!
Does the Truth start with a spark?
Previously, I mentioned that Gary D. Barnett is one of the few current publicists I read with pleasure and recommend for further consideration; not because he and I agree on everything, but he is lucid, original, and sounds authentic.
He and I seem to work on the same project, so I consider him an ally.
Today, LewRockwell published one of his articles that made me think further than usual:
Gary completes his article with the following, highly-commendable quote:
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
The article made me raise questions, so I sent Gary the following e-mail:
Gary,
LewRockwell has indeed become the abomination I described; your articles represent the only source of fresh air on it.
As you and I seem to be working on the same project, I would like us to agree on common grounds, objectives, and means.
Today, you have published one about anarchy.
You are trying to re-define the word “anarchy”, opposing the manipulatively-established meaning. Wouldn’t it be faster and more effective to introduce a new term for the meaning you are describing? Only a new idea can defeat an old one.
The tyrannical power of governments originate from the inescapable concentration of power that sooner or later always happens, when various tribes live on the same land. Even Prairie Indians were very much willing to kill others from neighboring tribes for a couple of horses, yet they had no government; only followed human nature. The only place, where your idea of freedom has ever existed was on remote islands with a single tribe on them (well, the Arawaks were quite peaceful, only to be exterminated by the Caribs on the Caribbean), and once a tribe exceeds a certain number of members or the idea of personal possessions enters the picture, power struggle comes first, followed by laws that cement in the power structure, for “the common good,” that is, for social stability (nobody wants a 100 Years’ War or a War of the Roses). So, where and how do you believe “freedom,” as you describe it, could possibly exist? Getting rid of the government doesn’t destroy social structures that inescapably generate new “governments.”
Looking forward to your ideas. You and I could also have an open public discussion about all this, if you prefer that. I certainly would. You are close to being the only current publicist I’m finding worth considering, because we are already “allies.” Of course, if “anarchy” is only an academic subject for you and you insist on non-cooperation based on personal responsibility, then there is nothing left to discuss. In that case, however, what would be the point in writing about “anarchy” and “freedom”?
Best,
Ray
The ball is in his court. I asked him about this article, because I wanted to include his responses, and what is important is that he believes that it is possible to return to previous concepts assigned to the same word (namely, “anarchy” in this case), but he said I was too busy to engage in further conversation and I am more than welcome to publish whatever I want, so here it is.
And yet, there are examples of good kings and without the common good, people loose.
my 2 pennies:
The only way out of the freemason crystal maze is to build a new system from scratch with the following keynotes:
Money: it’s a bad idea that Government has a monopoly of anything, especially currency. Anything of worth should be legal tender, even vouchers, IOUs, warrants, etc. Communities should be entitled to run their own monetary system, based on real assets. No only gold, silver, copper, platinum, lithium, precious metals and minerals, but also barter vouchers such as a pound/kg of flour, a gallon/liter of gasoline, human hours, distance transported (humans, volume, weight, special care).
Townhall Direct Democracy: votes should never be anonymous. Face to face contact is important in an era of deep fake and fake news, but even more for accountability. Representative democracy isn’t necessary if there are efficient and safe voting systems. You represent yourself, though you have the power to delegate your voting power to different representatives for different topics/mandates for a limited time and recover it whenever you want, even before the period is over.
Direct spending: those that vote believing that their votes count, also believe that they have to obey and endure whatever “their” representative government commands, because they voted for it. This can easily be solved by constitutional restrictions with severe punishment for any violation, especially, spending more than income should be forbidden and jailed. But that won’t stop the corruption, therefore we need direct spending: the federal, state and county incomes are divided by all the inhabitants (including the unborn), and you get to decide where every single proportionate cent is going to be spend in public goods and services. There’s a Spanish saying: “the eye of the master, fattens the cattle”. Direct spending would reduce bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, waste, unmet needs and government spending in things that are not a priority for the people. Deficit and borrowing should be illegal. After some years of solving critical problems, people will find harder to justify projects with low socio-economic net present value or internal rate of return, thus surplus would be returned to tax payers, and eventually, taxes lowered: it seems to be the only realistic mechanism to stop the spiral of government deficit and debt, where banksters take hostage future generations and politicians have nothing to lose by increasing spending and everything to win in terms of each group of voters thinking they are taking advantage of their politician/party by receiving more than the rest (e.g. detaxing the rich!).
Brutal transparency: reps should live stream at all possible times (not only working hours). All budgets, bids and transactions should be open for online scrutiny.
Democratic justice: community courts should be formed by people: the number of judges in the court is decided by the community. They could be elected for a certain period by chance or by vote, from a list of those capable of interpreting texts or from a list of lawyers. The same, for higher appeal courts. There’s no true democracy if natural law, including natural human rights, isn’t above the Constitution.
The police should be a local force. The captain should be elected.
The penitentiary system should be community based and directed towards reformation and paying back damages. House arrest or fenced working zones should be the norm.
My little contribution to the discussion:
The 2020 and 2022 rigged and stolen elections (it’s the machines!):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
J6: what THEY don't want YOU to know
The fake riot was mason-planned, incited and guided by FBI agents, who broke into the Capitol !!!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/j6-what-you-need-to-know
Dominion over US
You can’t make this stuff up. Do they laugh in our faces? Was the name Dominion chosen to prove their dominion?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/dominion-over-us
A Republic or a Democracy? Are we crazy to accept demo-crazy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/democracy-democrazy
It sucks! We need to improve democracy… how about REAL democracy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/reinventing-democracy
This is a really good discussion . Will try to work out some more ideas in a post later. My immediate thoughts are
(1) I read the Constitution differently. Those unalienable rights are not conferred by any documents or governments. They are conferred by a creator to each of us. This to me is the great center thought of what could be a Democracy.
(2) the founding ancestors failed partially because of their own deficient understanding of these rights. They felt it was fine to exclude women, blacks, native Americans, etc.
(3) we must be extraordinarily careful in assuming our history in America is well understood - it isn’t.
(4) there is a huge misunderstanding of the freedom called license, versus actual freedom. It is freedom we’re after and not license. License is anarchy.
(5) our nation state has been a corporation from before it even existed.
(6) without resorting to the noble savage argument there is far more to the conflict between Native Americans themselves and that between the corporate European invaders and NA’s. their history is widely misinterpreted from lack of real knowledge
(7) the deal we make to trade freedom for security underlies the entire hierarchical structure of all civilizations from time immemorial. There are poorly appreciated reasons for this.