TMDS Blog
|
Tuesday, 20 March 2007 19:00 |
(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/21/2007)
Dear Subscriber,
Sometimes very simple questions can cause profound cognitive
dissonance. Here is a series of very simple questions I like to
pose to people at random, especially if I want to make their heads
explode. (For the record, my head was long ago exploded by these
simple concepts, so I'm not claiming superiority here.)
1) Can you delegate to someone else a right which you don't have?
For example, if you don't have the right to punch me in the nose
(just for fun), can you GIVE the right to do so to someone else?
The answer is self-evident: no, you can't. If it's bad for you to
do it, you can't make it good for someone else to do it, whether it
be murder, assault, theft, vandalism, etc. If it's immoral for YOU
to do something, how could you possibly have the ability to make it
moral for someone ELSE to do it?
2) Can TWO people delegate a right that neither of them has? For
example, if TWO of you want me to be punched in the nose (but
neither of you has the right), can you GIVE a third person the
right to punch me? What if 50 of you wanted it? How about a million
people?
Again, the answer is pretty obvious: no, the NUMBER of people who
want to do something bad doesn't make it into something good;
numbers cannot create the moral RIGHT for someone to do something.
And note, I'm talking about moral justification, not mere ability.
Almost everyone is ABLE to punch me in the nose--especially if
there are a million people who want my nose punched--but that's not
the same as having a moral RIGHT to do so. It doesn't matter how
big the group gets: if NO ONE in the group has a right to do "A,"
then they can't give that right to someone else.
Up to this point, most people follow along without much protest.
The answers seem patently obvious to almost everyone. However, if I
add a third, equally simple question, it sends most people into a
philosophical crisis:
3) If people cannot delegate rights they don't have, where did
"government" get the right to do what it does?
Sure, a few "laws" are just the exercising of rights we all have:
the right to defend yourself (or others) against thieves,
murderers, invaders, etc. We have the right of self-defense, so--if
we feel so inclined--we can delegate that right to someone else.
But consider how many so-called "laws" are things which you and I
would never dream of doing on our own, because we know we don't
have the right.
For example, do you personally have the right to demand money from
your neighbor, just because you want it? Do you have the right to
imprison him for smoking a leaf you don't approve of? To take his
money for driving his car without your permission? To tell him what
he can eat, where he can live, who he can work for, who he can
hire, who he can fire, how he can run his business, what he can
sell? And do you have the right to put him in a cage if he chooses
to disobey any arbitrary command you care to fling at him? If YOU
don't personally have the right to play intrusive control freak,
how did those in "government" get the right to do it? Who gave it
to them?
At this point, many people jump to the popular excuse of necessity.
"We NEED to have government doing those things, or there would be
.... ANARCHY!" That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question: from
whom did they get the right? Based on the self-evident answers to
my first two questions, they didn't get the right from YOU, or from
any of your six billion neighbors (none of whom have the right
themselves). So, where did it come from? A piece of parchment? A
magical voting booth? If we mere mortals didn't give them the right
(and we didn't), who or what DID?
We talk about "representative" government. What does that mean? If
someone really "represents" me, he may do only what I may do. For
example, I could authorize my "representative" to do business for
me. I could do it myself, but I allow him to do it instead. What I
may NOT morally do, however, I cannot authorize him to do either.
To be a "representative" just means acting on someone else's
behalf. If I have no right to do a particular thing, it should be
painfully obvious that someone "representing" me doesn't have that
right either.
So, upon whose behalf are the federal "representatives" acting? If
YOU don't personally have the right to "tax" me (and you don't),
neither does your "representative." How, then, did we reach a point
where almost everyone accepts as indisputable doctrine that our
"representatives" have rights that WE DON'T? On its face the idea
is absurd, and yet 99.9% of the country unquestioningly accepts it
as a given.
I'm going to stop there for now, because I have found, after doing
this little mental exercise with dozens (if not hundreds) of
people, that those few simple concepts are enough to stir up some
serious turmoil in the minds of 99% of the people who consider
them. Why? Because those few simple, obvious answers very plainly
lead to a conclusion that scares the existential heck out of most
people. It's so scary, in fact, I won't even say what that
conclusion is ... yet.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.tyrantbook.com
[ March 21, 2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ] |
|
Monday, 19 March 2007 19:00 |
(orignially launched into cyberspace on 03/20/2007)
Dear Subscriber,
What are the fundamental philosophical principles of the Republican
party? I don't mean the window-dressing and the rhetoric; I mean
what is the foundational basis for the party's existence? Put
another way, what is the Republican party's ultimate view on
government's proper role in society? What is the ideal system they
want?
If you're having trouble finding an answer, it's because there
isn't one. The Republican party has ABSOLUTELY NO underlying
principles. Not a one. (To be fair, I'm speaking now of the
politicians rather than the voters, some of whom actually have
foundational beliefs.)
In fact, there are very few political positions that are based upon
actual principles. Two, to be exact:
1) Pure collectivism, whether under the banner of socialism,
communism, fascism, or the euphemism "democracy," has an underlying
principle: EVERYTHING should be the property of the collective
(which ends up meaning the government), and the collective has the
right to forcibly control the behavior of all individuals. Okay, so
it happens to be an insane, horribly destructive principle, but at
least it's a principle.
2) Libertarianism is based on the idea that the only proper use of
force, whether by "government" or anyone else, is to defend against
force or fraud committed by others.
So what is the underlying principle of the Republican party? Do
they, for example, believe that you have a right to keep what you
earn? Of course not. When they talk about "tax cuts," there is NO
principle involved. They are NOT saying that what you earn belongs
to you. They are saying that, as your masters, they would choose to
LET you keep a little bit more than other politicians might. In
other words, they are running on the concept of "I'm a nicer master
than that other guy." And they pat themselves on the back for it.
The politicians of both parties believe, quite obviously, that it
is completely at THEIR discretion how much of your earnings they
will ALLOW you to keep. That is what "taxation" is: THEY decide how
much they get, and how much you get. You have no say in the matter.
(If you think your "vote" counts as having a say in the matter,
read on.) In principle, there is NO difference.
People are really bad at being objective: seeing a situation
without bias. We see things based on what we already know, and what
we're accustomed to. And politicians make the most of that fact.
How hilarious is it that the Republican party still wears the label
of "limited government," when it advocates that around HALF of what
everyone earns be taken by force by the government? It's only
because someone else is suggesting a slightly higher level of
wealth confiscation that by comparison the Republican party can
pretend to be pro-freedom. (The fact that that ploy works is
embarrassing.)
How can something be called a political philosophy if it doesn't
have an ideal? How do you know what direction to go if you don't
have an ultimate goal you're aiming at? "I don't know where I'm
going, but I'm going the right way." Huh? Here is what an actual
principle looks like: I am against carjacking. I don't want ANY of
it. I don't want to reduce it by 3%. I don't want to regulate it. I
don't want it inflicted only on "the rich." I don't want to put a
cap on it. I don't want to slowly phase it out (or in). I don't
want carjacking "reform." I don't want more efficient carjacking,
or a more customer-friendly carjacking. I want it STOPPED,
completely. Because, in PRINCIPLE, it is wrong.
Most people now acknowledge that voting consists of choosing the
lesser of two evils. So whose brilliant idea was it to give us two
EVILS to choose from? If everyone decides what SHOULD be from the
starting point of what IS, instead of having fundamental beliefs
and basic principles, you're just redecorating a poop cake. Such
worthless, superficial discourse is exactly what those in power
want you to think constitutes "reasonable" discussion. You can
discuss WHICH thief's hand to have in your pocket, or WHICH
jackboot to have on your throat, but don't you dare suggest that NO
ONE should be doing that.
Allow me to quote myself:
- ------------< begin quote >-----------------------------
These days the most popular illusion of "peasant power" is the
voting booth. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by
offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.
"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years." [Lysander Spooner]
No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and
oppressed by "elected" tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant
is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will
continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that
another "election" is their only civilized recourse to any
government-imposed injustice they see.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into
complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand
that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure
freedom." [F. A. Hayek]
People would think it insane to have an election to choose a
carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference
between that and choosing a "ruler" comes from the now deeply
ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential
to society (a delusion you [speaking to the aspiring tyrant here]
should reinforce constantly). The question must always be WHICH
person or group of people should have the power to rule everyone
else; the question must never be WHETHER anyone should have such
power.
"We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two
bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between
Tweedledum and Tweedledee." [Helen Keller]
If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them,
their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving
their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender
their freedom to. America gives a fine example, showing that a
people who violently resisted a relatively low level of oppression
from King George III would later fail to resist a dramatically
higher level of intrusion, control, extortion and general
oppression imposed by "elected" tyrants.
- -------------< end quote >---------------------------
The above is from my recently released book, "How To Be a
Successful Tyrant"
( www.tyrantbook.com ), which is just what it sounds like: a how-to
manual for aspiring tyrants. (I sure hope the common folk don't get
their hands on it, or the methods described in the book might not
work anymore.)
So the point here is not really to bash a particular party (though
that's always fun), but to introduce the concept of PRINCIPLES,
something nowhere to be found in "normal" political debates. And I
don't mean vague, politician-rhetoric non-principles like "I'm for
lower taxes." Lower than what? How low? Fifty percent? One percent?
Zero percent? Is there a PRINCIPLE involved, or are you just
playing with window-dressing?
The reason I call this the "anti-political" list is because it will
NOT be about tinkering with the symptoms of our twisted, insane
system. We will be digging underneath all of it, to see what is at
the heart of ALL "acceptable" political discussion. And then we
will consider some UNacceptable ideas.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com |
|
Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:00 |
(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/15/2007)
Dear Subscriber,
Let's have a discussion about how far one has to sail out into the
ocean before he falls off the edge of the earth. Is it 50 miles?
Maybe 150? Or is it more? Wouldn't that make for an informative,
intellectually stimulating debate?
Well, no. It would be a stupid waste of time. Why? Because (brace
yourself if you haven't heard this yet) the earth is spherical
(more or less); it doesn't have an edge. So discussing how far away
the edge is would be pointless. A discussion based entirely upon a
false premise isn't likely to enlighten anyone.
Notice that I describe this list as "anti-political." If you're
expecting me to endorse a party, encourage voting in some
particular way, or advocating some sort of legal reform, don't hold
your breath. Instead, on this list I will do something you will
NEVER hear in any "normal" political debate: I will look at some of
the underlying premises upon which ALL so-called "political"
discussion is based.
Be warned: I will get around to goring the political ox of almost
everyone on this list, and people don't like that. (I know I
didn't, back when I had a political ox to be gored. Thankfully, my
ox has since died the death it so richly deserved.) I will dissect
things we've all taken as self-evident, and address topics that
proper, obedient peasants don't like to think about.
Unlike the 861 issue, however, the discussion here will not be so
much about facts and evidence as it is about consistent, non-
contradictory thinking. Put another way, I intend to expose the
inherent contradictions which ALL mainstream political beliefs
have. As an analogy, suppose that someone said to you, "I know the
earth is spherical, but the edge is 200 miles off the coast of
Florida." The problem is not merely that he has his facts wrong
(though he does); it's that his own beliefs contradict THEMSELVES.
As you'll see, almost all so-called political philosophy does the
same.
Most political debate consists of two people flinging superficial
assertions and beliefs at each other. "Your guy is a poopoohead!"
"Oh yeah? Well your guy is a liar!" "Your guy wants the poor to
starve!" "Well your guy would tax the economy to death!" The
discussion never accomplishes much (or anything) and never gets
anywhere near anything of real substance. That won't be true of
this list.
Just for fun, I'll start the next message by taking a swing at
Republicans (since some people seem to have gotten the impression
that I am one). But beware: people are so accustomed to thinking in
terms of a two-sided political spectrum that if you bash "Team A,"
they automatically think you support "Team B." (Then there is the
lukewarm "middle ground," which has acquired the label "moderate,"
which pretends to be an alternative to the two "sides.") If it
makes you feel better, rest assured that whoever your political
opponents are, I'll be lambasting their beliefs zealously and
frequently. In fact, I expect to offend at least 95 percent of the
people on this by the time I'm done.
I guess that's enough of an introduction. Let the extremism* begin!
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
(* These days any belief which doesn't empower politicians and
subjugate the masses gets labeled as "extremist." As such, I'm
proud to be an "extremist.") |
|
From Tessa: Still Squeaking in the Trap |
 |
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:00 |
(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/15/2007)
Dear Folks:
I got a “bill” today from a company called
“Behavioral Interventions Incorporated.” The logo says, “BI: How
Justice Is Served.” After a moment of puzzlement, I realized that
this is the “bill” for the home monitoring equipment the government
is using to monitor me for my five-month home confinement sentence.
The bill doesn’t actually say what it’s for, but it gives me a
nice, polite “client” number. Perhaps I should write back and ask
that they change that to a more accurate “extortion victim” number.
I believe the word “client” in English refers to a voluntary
relationship, and the government should be challenged every time
they use this word to refer to any kind of unwilling victim. I
move that we create a new federal crime called “Orwellian butchery
of the English language.” Seems people are always up for making
something a federal crime. It’s the American way to make the world
a better place.
Although the government has already interfered
with my life and stolen my money in several major ways, they are
always looking for ways to put more icing on the cake, as it were.
Forcing people to pay for home monitoring equipment is just one
more little piece of extortion, like one of those crunchy little
decorations on a birthday cake. And much like those crunchy little
decorations, they’ve tried so hard to make it palatable they’ve
made it sickeningly sweet instead.
I mean, they could just say,
“We’re extorting money from you because we CAN! Ha! Ha!” But they
can’t be that honest. They have to call you a “client,” and hide
behind the vaguely scientific-sounding words “Behavioral
Intervention.” I must admit that I suffered a little temporary
insanity; Orwellian hypocrisy has that effect on me. I ran around
the house for a while yelling, “Help! help! I’m a lab rat! I’m
being behaviorally intervened with!”
And to claim that their
corporation is How Justice Is Served - does that strike you as a
little arrogant? A little creepy? A little corporo-fascist,
perhaps? Now you, too, can invest in the imprisonment and
monitoring of your fellow Americans. You too can profit from
every federal conviction and sentence. Now you can feel as good as
the prosecutor does every time some hapless victim is convicted.
Oops, did I say victim? No, these neighbors of yours are merely in
need of some behavioral intervention services.
Truly yours,
Tessa Rose |
|
Tuesday, 13 March 2007 19:00 |
(originally launhed into cyberspace on 03/14/2007)
Dear Subscriber,
Many of you have asked what my prison stay was like. It's hard now
for me to believe that it was a whole year. (Time flies when you're
having fun.) Of course, it was annoying not being home, and being
censored, but other than that being there wasn't really all that
bad. I missed out on all the exciting stuff you see in prison
movies (violence, gang warfare, etc.), mainly because I was in a
federal prison "camp." There were no locks, no fences, and the
"guards" were unarmed. Though calling it "club fed" is a bit of an
exaggeration (it's not THAT much fun), anyone there could have
walked off whenever he wanted, though of course anyone who did
would be put in a lot worse place (with extra prison time) if he
did.
There were a little fewer than 200 guys there, covering a wide
range of ages, income levels, education levels, cultural
backgrounds, etc. Most of the people there were there for non-
crimes: mainly possessing a substance without government approval.
Though a few of them actually committed real crimes (the kind with
victims), they were all non-violent, white collar stuff. No one who
commits violent crimes is sent to a camp, and no one stays in a
"camp" if he gets into fights or threatens people. So the place was
not at all scary.
I kept busy working on half a dozen different projects (writing
books, music, etc.), when I wasn't working at the powerhouse. (The
whole place is pretty much kept running by the inmates, who do the
food preparation, cleaning, maintenance, etc.) I also spent lots of
times wandering around the outdoor track, which overlooks woods and
a really cool pond... that I wasn't allowed to go to. I saw plenty
of wildlife: deer, coyote, skunk, turkey, groundhog, heron,
turtles, frogs, snakes, salamanders, a zillion kinds of birds, etc.
There were a few interesting folks at "camp" (all of them inmates).
Mostly I hung around with one particular militant moderate who was
aspiring to achieve apathetic complacency... and failing horribly.
(I think I contributed to pushing him off the political spectrum
entirely, though he didn't need much of a push.) Hail, the Great
Raytarri!
Most of the "guards" (who are called "camp officers," not "guards,"
probably because there's nothing for them to actually guard) were
decent enough, though there was the occasional control-freak,
aspiring tyrant. The staff was an interesting blend of thinly
veiled control freaks and incompetent bureaucrats, with a few
exceptions. (Anyone who likes big government should go to prison
for a while and see what it's like when they run everything.)
As far as I could tell, I received no special treatment (positive
or negative) for being an "enemy of the state." The folks at the
BOP (Bureau of Prisons) pretty much do their thing, and probably
don't care much what the IRS thinks.
On average Tessa and Elyssa visited me every other week. (It's 150
miles from my house, so that was a bit of a challenge.) A few other
people visited along the way, too. Because of the "points" system
they use, limiting the number of visits per month, I kept my
visiting list limited to family and close friends.
Mostly it was boring and uneventful, though I got a lot done on a
lot of projects. It was, of course, tough being away from my family
for that long, not being able to help them at all. But we all
survived. And I'm sure it will come as a shock to all of you that
my "correction" apparently was not a success: I still like freedom,
and still dislike liars and thieves (IRS, DOJ, etc.). They did
terrorize me into giving them money I know I don't owe, and signing
returns pretending my income is taxable, to minimize the torture of
my family. (Ah, what a swell country.) But, I'm happy to report, my
soul is still my own.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
(P.S. Sorry nothing more exciting happened while I was inside for
me to tell you about. Actually, I'm not really sorry.) |
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 68 of 69 |
|
Your Cart
Your cart is empty
|
