TMDS Blog
|
Stating the Bleeding Obvious (Part 3) |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sunday, 18 July 2010 03:35 |
In response to my two prior messages about stating the bleeding
obvious, a lot of people said that we need SOME "laws," or that we
need LEGITIMATE "government," or some minimal amount of it. Not
surprisingly, no one actually contradicted the bleeding obvious
points. No one said, "Yes, I CAN delegate rights I don't have!" And
no one said, "Yes, I CAN be obligated to ignore my own conscience!"
In short, they dodged the obvious proofs that the concept of
"government" is inherently bogus, and went into claims about how
it's NECESSARY to have some "government." Sorry, but that is not a
logical response. If I pointed out that Santa Claus doesn't have
time to go to every kid's house on Christmas Eve, that the laws of
physics don't allow reindeer to fly, that Santa can't physical fit
through chimneys (for those who still have them), that a bag that
size couldn't hold a billion toys, and so on, would a rational
rebuttal be, "But we NEED Santa Claus to exist, because otherwise
Christmas won't work!"?
And a "limited Santa" position isn't any more sane. "Okay, we don't
want Santa to be excessively involved, but for those kids whose
parents can't afford gifts, we NEED a minimal amount of Santa
involvement." Well, too bad. Because Santa doesn't exist. And
neither does "government." It doesn't matter how much you "need"
them. It doesn't matter what would happen without them. They DON'T
FREAKING EXIST!
"Government" is the entity imagined to have the RIGHT (not just the
ABILITY) to rule others. Trouble is, no one can HAVE such a right,
because no one can delegate such a right. This is true whether
someone is claiming the absolute, unlimited right to rule, or some
version of "tyranny lite," as the Constitution pretended to create.
No one can have a moral obligation to obey politician scribbles
(their so-called "laws") when they conflict with one's own moral
conscience.
There is no right to rule, and no obligation to obey, which means
there is no "authority," which means that "government" does not
exist. Yes, the gang of thieving, lying, murderous control-freak
scumbags exists, as do their unthinking mercenaries, and the damage
they cause is very real. But the claimed LEGITIMACY of their
forcibly-imposed "legislative" master plan is NOT real. And even if
they only initiated the types of aggressive violence described in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (e.g., limited "taxation"
and "regulation"), it would STILL be utterly and completely
illegitimate (though a lot less destructive). The logic of my two
prior messages applies just as much to "limited government" as it
does to totalitarianism. No one has the right to rob me, even if
they only steal a little, and only in certain, relatively
unobtrusive ways, and even if they say it's necessary, or for my
own good.
People try to cling to the cult superstition of "government"
because it makes them FEEL good, like believing in Santa. They want
to think that, if they're good, some all-knowing, all-powerful
entity will make sure they're protected. Never mind that
"government" is always more of an aggressor than a protector. I
can't count how many people have argued to me, "Well, what we have
NOW is nasty, destructive and illegitimate, but we really need a
GOOD 'government,' or there would be chaos!"
You mean things like $2,000,000,000,000 a year being extorted every
year from people who earned it? Oh, wait, that chaos is BECAUSE of
"government." You mean like 200,000,000 people being murdered in
one century? Oh, wait, that happened BECAUSE of "government." You
mean like MILLIONS of non-violent people being forcibly kidnapped,
dragged away from their friends and family, and put in cages? Oh,
wait, that happened BECAUSE of "government." You mean like an
entire economy destroyed by people counterfeiting the currency into
worthlessness, and engaging in massive banking fraud? Oh, wait,
that happened BECAUSE of "government." You mean like constant
violent conflict on a massive scale? Oh, wait, that happens BECAUSE
of "government." You mean like people being terrorized, tortured,
harassed and assaulted? Oh, wait, that happens BECAUSE of
"government."
How many thousands of years more does the myth of "government" have
to result in suffering, injustice, death and destruction, before
people will give up the insane notion that we need "government" to
PROTECT US from suffering, injustice, death and destruction?
There is a simple, logical reason WHY "government" is always
destructive. It's not because of bad luck, or because we weren't
vigilant enough. It's because, by its very nature, the only thing
"authority" can ever do, and will ever do, is add IMMORAL VIOLENCE
into society. That is not just a prediction; it is a logically
provable reality.
There are two basic categories of force: AGGRESSIVE force, where
someone uses violence or the threat of violence to rob, assault, or
murder another; and DEFENSIVE force, where someone uses threats or
physical force to try to STOP an act of aggressive force. Most
people acknowledge that aggressive force is immoral, and defensive
force is moral. Attacking someone is bad; protecting someone is
good. Starting a fight is bad; defending yourself is good. (I think
most five-year-olds grasp this ... it's just the adults who believe
in "government" who have problems with it.)
DEFENSIVE force is inherently legitimate. Each of us has a right to
defend ourselves, or others, against aggressors. We don't need any
official office, any badge, any special "authority," or any "law"
to make defensive force justified. The ONLY kind of force that
needs special permission, that needs "legislation" or other pseudo-
religious political cult rituals to legitimize it, is AGGRESSIVE
VIOLENCE--force that is NOT inherently righteous. If the
politician, or the cop, has a right to use force in a situation
that you do not, then he has the right to INITIATE FORCE. He has
the right to attack someone, to start a fight, to commit acts of
aggression. Because you don't NEED a badge, or a "law," to have the
right to use inherently justified force. You only need them if you
want to ATTACK someone.
In other words, all "government" ever does, all it CAN do, is to
add IMMORAL VIOLENCE into society. So, is that what society needs
more of? Is that what we need in order to be civilized and
peaceful? More unjustified violence? "There would be chaos and
mayhem if we didn't add more immoral violence into society!" Is
that really what you want to be arguing?
If someone, or some organization, only used inherently justified,
defensive force, they simply wouldn't fit the definition of
"government." A "government" which can only do what EVERY other
individual has the right to do on his own, has no "authority," has
no right to rule, cannot enact and enforce any "laws," and does not
in any way constitute "government." It can be a militia, it can be
a private security company, it can be a concerned individual, but
it CANNOT be "government." Because of what the word means, there
CANNOT be a purely defensive "government," which only PROTECTS
rights.
Here is my last "bleeding obvious" question for this series:
If every individual has the right to use defensive, inherently
justified force to protect the innocent, and "government" has the
right to use force in some cases where most individuals do NOT,
what KIND of extra force does "government" add to society? Here are
your choices:
1) It adds GOOD force, because when otherwise immoral violence is
"legalized," it becomes GOOD.
2) It can only add BAD force, because any violence that is not
inherently good--any force beyond the defensive, inherently
justified force that every individual has the right to use-- must
be inherently bad.
So which is it? Once again, you may not LIKE your choices, but
these are still your only logical choices:
a) Civilization requires an organization that does nothing but add
more immoral violence into society.
b) Immoral violence is ... um ... immoral. We can't possibly need,
and shouldn't have, any organization that only ADDS more immoral
violence into society.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
|
|
The Iron Web / "Tyrant" Book |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 16 July 2010 04:04 |
-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Subscriber,
Well, my finances are in sad enough shape that I think it's time to
offer another "I'm-really-dang-poor" deal to this list. So anyone
who orders "The Iron Web" within a week of this message will also
get a free copy of "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." (Or, if you
prefer, I'll throw in a free copy of the audiobook of "The Iron
Web" instead.)
And for those who have continued to be loyal members of the web
site, even though I've been doing a crumby job of keeping up with
things, I'll give you THREE books (any combination of "The Iron
Web" book, the adiobook, and/or the "Tyrant" book) when you just
order a single copy of "The Iron Web," which is $15. (Remember to
mention that you're a member, and specify what you want your three
to be.)
So if you're in need of some "extremist propaganda," take advantage
of this opportunity (and take advantage of my current poverty).
Here's the ordering page:
http://www.larkenrose.com/store.html
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
(P.S. I know I've said this before, but my next book--the most
important thing I'll ever write--is nearing completion. You'll be
the first to know when it's finished.)
|
|
Stating the Bleeding Obvious (Part 2) |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 16 July 2010 03:11 |
My last "bleeding obvious" article addressed the absurd notion that
anyone could ever be morally OBLIGATED to disregard his own moral
conscience. But the concepts of "authority" and "government" depend
entirely upon the insane notion that, at least in some cases, it is
BAD for people to do what they think is RIGHT (if the politicians
call it "illegal"), and GOOD for people to do what they think is
WRONG (if "the law" commands it). Statism relies upon such
insanity. But that is not the only way to demonstrate the insanity
of the superstition called "government." (This next one, many of
you have seen before.)
Question: Can you give to someone else a right that you don't have?
Here are your two possible answers:
YES, I can delegate to others a right that I do not have. That
would mean that even though it is IMMORAL for me to do certain
things (committing theft, assault, murder, whatever), I can
nonetheless bestow moral PERMISSION on someone else, giving them
the RIGHT to do such things.
Again, I hope I don't have to go to great lengths to explain why
such a notion is utterly insane. If you don't understand it, don't
worry; I'll just bestow upon someone else the right to bludgeon you
with a club until you understand it.
(There is a slight variation, which is equally insane, which is the
idea that ONE person cannot delegate a right he doesn't have, but
that MULTIPLE people can delegate a right which NONE of those
people possess. This is about as rational as saying, "No, I can't
give you an apple, because I don't have one, but if I get together
with some of my friends, NONE of whom has an apple, together we CAN
give you an apple." Right.)
So that answer stinks. But here's the only other option:
NO, I cannot delegate to others a right that I do not have. As
patently obvious as that is, consider what the logically implies:
The people called "Congress" have NO rights that I don't have. Who
could have GIVEN them such rights, if no one can delegate a right
he himself doesn't possess? If I have no right to "tax" my
neighbor, and you have no such right, who could possibly have given
the people called "Congress" such a right? In short, NO ONE. You
and I have no right to enact and enforce arbitrary "laws" on our
neighbors. And neither do the people called "Congress," because no
one had the power to delegate to them such a right. You and I have
no right to rob people, assault people, threaten people, etc. (We
can only rightfully use force to DEFEND against an aggressor.)
Ergo, the people called "Congress" have no such right to rob,
assault, or threaten either, even if they call it "taxation," or
"law," or anything else.
Sorry, statists, but once again, your choices are either believe
something insane, or abandon your statism; either you can give
someone else the RIGHT to commit theft, assault, and murder, or
"government" is completely bogus, because the people in
"government" have no right to do ANYTHING that you and I do not
have the right to do (because no one has ever had the ability to
GIVE them such a right).
Once again, the insanity underlying statism is pretty darn easy to
expose, even if it's rather uncomfortable for the indoctrinated to
rationally consider. (Again, I was raised as a statist, and I
vehemently resisted such obvious truisms for a long time, before
giving up and choosing sanity.)
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
(I'm tempted to end by quoting huge chunks of "The Law," by
Frederic Bastiat. But I'll settle for this tidbit: "But how is this
legal plunder to be identified? ... See if the law benefits one
citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself
cannot do without committing a crime.")
|
|
Stating the Bleeding Obvious (Part 1) |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 15 July 2010 05:57 |
Sometimes it can be difficult deciding how to state the bleeding
obvious, when your target audience has been carefully trained to
MISS the bleeding obvious. To wit, it's possible to demolish the
fundamental assumptions underlying statism using very simple lines
of reasoning. And for the recovering statist, the logic is
undeniable, and the rational conclusion self-evident. But for the
thoroughly indoctrinated (and that included me not many years ago),
sometimes the most simple explanation causes the most drastic
cognitive dissonance.
Here is an example:
The concept of "authority" is a MORAL concept. "Government," by
definition, is the group of people who have the supposed moral
RIGHT to enact and enforce "laws." (Whether there are "limits" on
what those "laws" require doesn't matter for this particular
point.) And a moral RIGHT of the "law-makers" to rule (even if only
in a "limited" way) implies a moral OBLIGATION to obey on the part
of their subjects. That is the essence of the concept of
"authority" and "government."
Now here is one painfully simple proof of why that concept is self-
contradictory bunk:
From the perspective of any given subject, each "law" either
coincides with his own conscience, or conflicts with it. For
example, a "law" may declare that murder is "illegal," and an
individual may think that murder is inherently immoral anyway--so
the two match. On the other hand, a "law" may require an individual
to fund a war that the subject believes to be immoral, in which
case there is a CONFLICT between his own conscience and "the law."
Okay, here comes the question. (Statists, brace yourself, because
this might be both painfully obvious and existentially disturbing.)
Ready?
Question: Can an individual ever have a moral obligation to
disregard his own moral conscience, in favor of obeying an
"authority" instead?
Here are the two possible answers, along with their logical
ramifications:
1) YES, a person CAN have an obligation to go against his own moral
conscience. In other words, a person can have a MORAL obligation to
do something which he believes to be IMMORAL. I hope I don't need
to explain in too much detail why that answer is insane. In short,
it can't be good to be bad; it can't be moral to be immoral;
committing evil cannot be virtuous. Even if a person's own judgment
is flawed and twisted, he still cannot rationally imagine himself
to have an obligation to do what, from his perspective, is the
WRONG THING TO DO.
Okay, so that answer stinks. Here's the other possibility:
2) NO, a person CANNOT have an obligation to go against his own
moral conscience. Therefore, he has no obligation to comply with
any "law" that conflicts with his own personal judgment of what is
right.
Most people can handle that much (even if they start getting
nervous at this point). But here is what directly and logically
follows from that:
If a "law" CONFLICTS with one's conscience, he has no obligation to
obey it. Such a "law" should have no "authority" (creates no
obligation to obey) in his eyes. If, on the other hand, the "law"
COINCIDES with his one's conscience, such a "law" is at best
unnecessary. It is his own conscience, not any "legislation," which
obligates him to act properly. Which means that such a "law" STILL
should have no "authority" in his eyes.
In other words, in no situation should any "law" have any
"authority" in anyone's eyes, whether it coincides with or
conflicts with one's own moral conscience. Every "law" either
MATCHES one's own judgment, and is therefore unnecessary and
irrelevant, or it CONTRADICTS one's own judgment, and should be
ignored. Which means that no man-made "law" ever has any
"authority" (i.e., it never carries an inherent obligation to
obey). And without any "authority" to its "laws," "government"
loses all legitimacy, ceases to be "government," and becomes
nothing but a bunch of bossy control-freaks.
So those are your choices: "anarchy," or being morally obligated to
be immoral. I would be happy to see any attempt by a statist to
offer some other rational answer to the question, but I won't hold
my breath.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign
his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience
then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as
for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume
is to do at any time what I think right." - Henry David Thoreau
|
|
Political Prisoners, Bad to Worse |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 09 July 2010 03:01 |
Hash: SHA1
I have two things to report about political prisoners currently
being held by the U.S. fascists. I hate reporting either of them,
but I'll get the "even worse" one over with first. Then comes the
merely "bad" one.
1) From what I have heard, after Dick Simkanin was released
recently, he decided not to report for "supervised release," based
on the theory that doing supervised release is "contractual." From
what I've heard, he was then arrested, and sentenced to seven MORE
years in prison for violating "supervised release." I haven't
independently confirmed that last part, but he is in BOP custody
again.
At the moment, I'm too discouraged and infuriated to even comment
on this. If it turns out to be true, and doesn't get reversed ...
well, I can't even think about it right now. But I thought you all
should know.
(Dear G.N., I was about to forward what you sent on to Mr. Simkanin
when I heard the news. Hopefully you'll notice this note and let me
know what you want me to do now.)
2) As some of you may know, the Bureau of Prisons has been shipping
Sherry Jackson around, for the sin of having pointing out the
crumby medical attention she got a while back. (Classic government
behavior: someone points out the bad they're doing, and their
response is to attack the truth-teller.) Even though the BOP
website lists Sherry's location as "in transit." I recently got a
letter giving her address. Hopefully she's still there, and she's
having a tough time, so any of you who want to drop her a note, do
it now:
Sherry Jackson 59085019
RADDF
POB 730
Lovejoy, GA 30250
That's all the lousy news I have for now. I think I'm going to
throw up on the next person I see waving an American flag.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 68 |
|
Your Cart
Your cart is empty
|
