Main menu

Principles versus Mush

(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

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

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

"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"
( ), 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.


Larken Rose