Posts Tagged ‘foolitics’
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009
Few would deny that the market is an integral part of every economy. The market involves all of the processes necessary for the economy to function, from the efficient management of resources to the setting of prices by means of differences between supply and demand and subsequent economic growth that results from a tendency to produce more value than is consumed.
Wikipedia defines the market as follows:
A market is any one of a variety of different systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby persons trade, and goods and services are exchanged, forming part of the economy.
So the essence of every market is in trade, which is also defined as a voluntary exchange of goods, services, or both” and “voluntary” is defined as “a word meaning “done, given, or acting of one’s own free will“. Since what is being voluntarily exchanged can be both goods and services every act by a trader can be considered a service so everything an individual does for another individual, for it to be a part of the market as hereby defined, must be completely voluntary, of one’s own free will rather than by compulsion or coercion. Thus the essence of a market is voluntary interaction.
It seems obvious then that any form of compulsion or coercion is incompatible with the market and is exactly opposite of the kinds of interactions that happen within the market. Since the market is a crucial part of the economy then voluntary interaction is crucial to the workings of a healthy economy. Any economic management that involves coercion therefore harms the market. One would argue that such coercive intervention on the economic activity brings more good than harm, but the harm can hardly be dismissed while the good remains to be proven.
The argument that coercive intervention on the market brings more good than harm (since it is fundamentally anti-market) generally stems from the assumption that the one coercing knows better what is good for the economy than the one being coerced and thus implements his “better knowledge” or wisdom by means of force. However, in addition to arising an obvious question of trust into the coercers wisdom, this also gives rise to flawed logic.
The purpose of the economy is the management of value or wealth. Natural resources, products of human labor (such as technology) and human labor itself (or services) all have certain values. However value is subjective since one person may value something to be worth far more than another depending on their individual needs, desires and personal value systems. Yet nothing in the universe and natural world by itself has a specific inherent price tag on it. Nothing in the universe inherently values itself relative to human beings. It simply is the way it is and human individuals are the ones who mentally assign value to it.
So when it is claimed that the one has higher wisdom and thus the right to force another to act against his will, it is in fact claimed that one’s values trump another’s without leaving any further objective justification of why that is so, because such justification is impossible. It is one essentially forcing another to do his bidding. The “higher wisdom” is a thus a fallacy, because it merely matches one’s personal values, no matter how many people agree with such values (majority doesn’t make coercion right).
Government is based on compulsion or coercion. It is founded on the assumption that a group of people chosen by means of a particular process or ritual is justified in forcing others to do another’s bidding. They want to help the poor by stealing from those a little more well off (not even necessarily the rich). They say the price of security can only be paid by money which is taken against your will and so on. All laws include punitive laws as threats of incarceration, extraction of money or worse for disobedience, which is what qualifies each and every instruction in these laws as coercive.
So how does this government harm the economy?
1. It is a coercive monopoly.
Even the most minimal governments outright monopolize at least a few markets, by threatening force against competition and thus essentially denying even the existence of these markets since markets are about voluntary interaction not compulsion. The typical examples of these markets are defense (police monopoly) and arbitration (court monopoly), but very often includes far more such as the monopoly on provision of roads, telecommunications monopoly, healthcare monopoly and so on.
Every industry monopolized by a government is one less opportunity for an individual to use in order to achieve greater economic success. An individual either has to work for the government or he can’t work at all or in limited cases can work only if licensed by the government and still under their rules, which hardly in any way allows any real competition. This lack of competition in these industries thus ensures that certain people who would have otherwise prospered in them don’t, that advances in quality of service in these industries are not made or are made very slowly and that prices remain static or even increasing (essentially determined by an arbitrary tax rate).
It’s not only that these industries are monopolized in the sense that you have nobody else to turn to if you need these services, but in most cases you are not even allowed to refuse them. You must pay for it whether you’d like to use it or not. The only way to escape this is by exile, leaving the country only to enter a jurisdiction of another monopolizing group (another government).
2. Fiat money currency
In theory some say it is possible to trade with currencies other than those government provides, yet history (even recent history in cases of certain electronic currencies like e-gold) is filled with examples of governments clamping down or trying to control currencies that are alternative to their own. Yet their own currency is in modern world backed by absolutely nothing except the largely unfounded faith of the people using it. The government or agencies which it has exclusive partnership with, such as Federal Reserve in the US can arbitrarily print more or less of the currency or just create it by typing a number in the computer. This gives them the unearned power to manipulate the value of every dollar you hold on a nearly daily basis.
When using such a currency for trade individuals are using a measure of value which by itself has no value whatsoever. It is just paper or numbers in a computer. It means nothing and is worth nothing and you cannot exchange it for anything other than more worthless paper or worthless numbers. You can buy things with it so long as enough people have unfounded faith in it, but if you are foolish enough to hold it as a storage of value you in reality have nothing. You are gambling.
This faith never can and never does last forever. Currencies not backed by something of actual tangible and measurable value not determined by arbitrary whims of a certain central government agency (or even a non-government agency doing its bidding like Federal Reserve) but rather by actual supply and demand in the market always do and always will collapse. That day is coming for the US dollar just as it is eventually for the Euro and every other fiat currency in existence.
This creates a ridiculous situation in which every economy is essentially pre-destined for a monetary collapse because its lifeblood, the currency, is in fact poison – a fraud, a lie everybody believes in, unreal and subject to malicious manipulation. Yet the government with all its force stands behind it and tends to look very unfavorably to more solid alternatives such as gold – usually banning its use for currency once it is most needed and thus once its popularity rises more than the government can tolerate. The government wants you to use their monopoly money, not real money, because that’s what gives it power over your wealth.
3. The Corporation
If you think corporations are the product of a free market you have been living under a rock, but don’t feel bad because most people have too. Corporations have very little to do with the free market. The power of a corporation is largely the extension of government power. Corporations are “legal entities” not individual human beings nor groups of them. They are fictional and exist merely as a set of promises, permissions and restrictions provided by the government. They are analogous to sock puppets pulled by actual human beings which is why you can see business people talking about their corporations as if they were persons separate from them, even when said business people seem to run the said corporation and all its dealings.
The problem with this arrangement is that it basically shields said corporations from the effects of the market (the voluntary interactions described earlier) since instead of being subject solely to the natural laws of supply and demand based on individuals pursuing their values through voluntary trade they are subjected to not only restrictions, but also powers and benefits they have not earned through the market. This is evident from the very separation of the corporation and the individual actually running and owning it. This separation makes it possible for the corporation to be ran as if IT and not its owner was the one doing the jobs, so if IT uses bad business practices or perpetrates fraud, IT is to blame, not the actual individual running it, yet IT doesn’t exist in reality – it’s just a fictional entity based on said promises, permissions and restrictions to the said individual, all of which can be arbitrarily manipulated by their provider, the government.
So there is no real liability and no real accountability to the market. Corporations are thus such a great tool for business people to gain unearned power. It is hard for a smaller business to sue them without being in an unfavorable position, because the power of government favors the corporation.
Of course, there are not only unearned promises and permissions, but also restrictions which gives people the illusion that government actually doesn’t empower these corporations, but merely “keeps them in check”. However these restrictions often end up merely scrubbing off the part of the whole of power they already gave to the corporation and often end up in merely shifting the power from one to the other corporation. For instance, antitrust laws punishing one corporation only means that another corporation just gained a free unearned boost. A particular new regulation prohibiting a particular way of doing business will punish one set of corporations depending on such a business practice thus effectively giving a free boost to those who don’t.
Therefore no restriction and no government regulation can actually ensure that all corporations are “kept in check” at once. All of it has “unintended” consequences which beat the whole supposed purpose of regulation.
Finally, the whole concept of regulation even if idealized in some manner is completely flawed because whatever the powers the institution of a corporation as a legal entity provides the business owners or whatever restrictions it imposes on them are both artificial because they are unearned through the market. Thus the whole scheme completely routes around the market, removing YOU from the power of affecting the value and wealth of the corporation, removing your power to vote with your wallet. Even boycotts become ineffective. No wonder some people end up feeling quite futile in their attempts to thwart the big corporations. The problem is they are blaming corporations themselves and then the free market for this instead for the source of their empowerment: the government. People shout at the “free” market (which we don’t have) saying it gives free reign to corporations yet it is government, the supposed savior, which by itself has free reign and empowers corporations with it.
Needless to say, omitting market forces has generally bad effects on the economy. Corporations get bigger, competition is stifled and when the compound of all the ways in which government harms the economy collide creating a huge economic crisis, government fails the last test of their credibility as those keeping the bad corporations in check: they don’t let them fail, instead they use the money they took from you with taxes or created out of nothing (devaluing, again YOUR money) to BAIL THEM OUT, claiming this will save the economy, when in fact they merely expand the very practice that caused economic failure in the first place – coercion = involuntary interaction – anti-market activity – forcing you to pay for something you don’t want to pay for thus perpetuating win-lose relationships rather than win-win relationships upon which the health of the economy and continued growth depends.
4. Taxes and bureaucracy
This may be somewhat redundant given point number 1 about the government monopolies since I already pointed out that people don’t have a choice but pay for government services regardless of whether they want them while being denied the right to form competing ones. However it bears special mention in one aspect: it makes getting into business as well as maintaining it harder, thus making a larger amount of the population into what some call “wage slaves” rather than innovative entrepreneurs that create competition and push the economy forward.
Taxes serve as a disincentive to doing business since they rob you of a good chunk of what you’ve earned by application of your own mental and physical effort. Bureaucracy ties well into this motivation crushing effect as, unlike being a simple employee, as an entrepreneur you become obligated (forced by government) to deal with tax filing, various registrations, licenses, keeping up with latest regulations etc. all of which obviously increases your costs of time and effort even further. Government thus makes doing business as an entrepreneur much harder than it otherwise would be which means less entrepreneurs, less competition, less innovation, less economic growth, worse economic conditions for too many people and lower level of satisfaction and happiness.
It then feeds into the self-reinforcing chain of poverty, which is often the reason cited as justification of poverty, that someone must feed the poor. Continuous free hand outs of band aid charity to the poor without provision of education and motivation only prolongs their poverty, and when an inevitably economic collapse occurs, even these hand outs stop and the poor become even poorer if they can even survive. Thus instead of actually fighting poverty, taxes act as a double edged sword against the solution to poverty: free handouts without entrepreneurial education keep people poor continuously while the bureaucratic and tax costs make it that much harder for them to actually become entrepreneurs and thus rise out of poverty.
Taxes create poverty rather than solve them. People have been using the same old justification for taxes for decades and centuries, yet poor still get poorer while rich (the corporations above) get richer. And you still keep pretending.
5. Perpetuation of personal irresponsibility
The government and the ideas which justify it are surrounded by myths of its far reaching power, wisdom and ability, even as people continue to view its talking heads make fools of themselves on TV on an almost daily basis. It is as if people believe that government is something beyond the group of people actually calling themselves the government, as if it’s some sort of an all powerful entity that has the ability to protect them from all harm, like a father extending his strong arms around you or a mother keeping you in her arms.
This submission to coercive authority that can punish the “bad” and reward the “good” despite a lack of an apparent definition of the two out and keep all harms away indeed very much fits the typical family setting. Parents are seldom well practiced in philosophy and science to the point to which they can with great true authority actually define good from bad, and besides they never really try. They simply tell you what you can or can’t do regardless of their definitions and justifications. You are treated as if you don’t need to know why something is “bad” and another thing “good”. You simply learn that those things which are prohibited and for which you get punished are “bad” and those for which you aren’t or are rewarder are “good” and that sits with you on an emotional level till adulthood and becomes the way your persona operates, completely bypassing the rational examination of the empirical world around you.
The government then merely replaces the parents. Their justifications for punishment are filled with contradiction you’re incapable of seeing because you’ve never been taught to think critically about them and you simply end up accepting everything on the basis of them being a government, having all the power and thus they must be right. What they say is “legal” and everything they prohibit is “illegal”. If you do “illegal” things you are bad and so you must always obey, always do the legal, always “be clean under the law”, even when such law contradicts reality and human nature.
How does this affect the economy? The inhibition of critical reasoning as well as the learned adherence to coercive authority rids the individual of much of the sense of personal responsibility. Instead (s)he outsources much of it to said government. Let them take care of the big issues, of the ills in the world, let them cure the economy, let them cure violence and poverty – they should do everything and you the individual are supposed to simply vote for the right people. Whenever something bad happens, like the current economic crisis, everyone turns to the daddy/mommy government and tells it how bad it is, how it failed, how it sucks and how it should change immediately, like a child shouting in frustration at his or her parent. It’s not a sign of a child being less submissive to the parent, it’s just another protest “you’re supposed to protect me from this, so do it!”.
Personal responsibility is dead. Instead when such people talk of personal responsibility they talk of fraud that took its place, mere personal allegiance to the government and the mythical “nation” or “country” it represents. How can such a mentality help create a prosperous economy if it is fundamentally based on submission of the individual creative power and critical thought to the one entity which by nature exists as an anti-market force? It can’t.
I have never understood the justification of war except on an emotional level which I would describe more in terms of mental illness than in terms of healthy reasoning. The reason people support war is because they are emotionally manipulated into hating the mere image of an enemy. They never see the people branded as the enemy, they don’t imagine them as human beings just like them, they don’t imagine their suffering and their struggles in life nor their honest successes and achievements. They merely imagine them as evil drones bent on destroying them. This is what war brainwashing does. In an attempt to defeat this terrible image of an enemy, they are willing to support or actually perpetrate even the worst of atrocities.
Thus the government uses such support to commit billions if not trillions of funds from taxes and money created out of thin air into massive war efforts which by their very nature are impossible to be defined as mere defense of any kind. Defense is an immediate reaction to an attack or an individual’s increase in his own security measures. It most certainly is not an increase in the likelihood of getting shot by a police officer or a clamp down on your privacy (the “security measures” of the post 9/11 USA) nor is it a vengeful destruction of almost an entire country followed by years of chaos and violence on its streets. Vengeance is not defense. It is merely a blood thirsty destructor of both the perceived enemy and the self.
This self destruction is the effect of war on economy as its efforts tend to drain the economy to the limits and beyond, albeit the actual effect on individuals is postponed by the governments arrogant and arbitrary ability to create money out of nothing. The resulting devaluation of currency takes time to make its way through the economy, but such a process is absolutely inevitable. In case of the current economic crisis, it has in fact slowed down the process by countering said inflation with deflation, but given government’s absolutely stupid and malicious moves to respond with 10 trillion fold inflation, the corrective power of said deflation was effectively cut and hyperinflation is to follow sooner or later. USD’s days are being numbered.
Another way in which it affects the economy is the rise of the threat level. If you have an enemy designated as such and one you bully on a regular basis you’re seldom to expect safety from his retaliation and this would go on forever if you take every sign of his potential or actual retaliation as only further justification for continued violence. Violence breeds violence and it is only destructive of value and thus completely and diametrically opposed to economic growth. It’s more expensive to do business if fear is pumped up and pretty much impossible if bombs are whizzing over your heads.
7. The inevitable diminishing of liberty
Since it is based on coercion the nature of government is by itself anti-liberty for the same reason it is anti-market. Liberty is the ability to choose for yourself how to think and act without fear. Coercion, however, depends on fear. Thus all of the 6 previous points are already examples of particular ways in which liberty is diminished to the detriment of economy, which is to say, the detriment of well being of nearly all individuals in a country.
However this particular point is primarily about the inevitability of diminishing of liberties, something that is impossible to avoid so long as the very idea of government continues to be believed and pursued, regardless of what illusions to the contrary you may hold. Needless to say that less liberty, the ability to choose for yourself without fear, also means less economic activity – since economic activity directly depends on you choosing to act upon your values. If you are afraid to do a particular kind of business, produce a particular kind of good, offer a particular kind of service or just generally afraid to make money to begin with out of fear of misstepping in your tax obligations you are that much more likely to simply not bother, thus robbing yourself and others of the wealth you could’ve created.
The reason diminishing of liberty is inevitable is simple. Just as violence breeds more violence government breeds more government. It feeds in on itself in order to justify its very existence. If government starts very small, monopolizing solely the arbitration and protection industries, it wouldn’t be too long before people would question the necessity of it being a monopoly in these areas. Why can’t people establish other agencies to offer the service of arbitration (private courts) or protection (private defense)? Thus in order to continue being a government (a coercive monopoly) it must continuously keep active, it’s not enough to simply sit in place and keep things just right as they are. Instead it must keep raising issues and fuss and campaign for new legislation and yet more legislation eventually monopolizing new industries and as it keeps biting into more and more of the market and thus inevitably more and more of individual liberties, there is more and more fuss, more and more issues to keep addressing, more and more laws to pass to supposedly address said issues.
People end up being duped into believing that every problem can be solved by a yet another law being oblivious to the fact that law merely increases the government power at the expense of their liberty and consequently their own power to solve said problems so the circle of hell continues until the government effectively eats up the whole market, and so little of civil liberty is left that people are essentially boxed. Just holding the wrong views may get you kidnapped (jailed) or murdered (executed) by the government for whom now more than half of the entire country works.
In such conditions the economy is effectively at a stand still since people are literally afraid to be themselves and thus liberate their own creative potential that is necessary to innovate and create more value in the market. In fact the market barely even exists. All production is centrally coordinated and only produces what is necessary for basic subsistence of what was already achieved when the country was still relatively free.
This totalitarian nightmare thus keeps living on the brink of total collapse just waiting for an event to trigger it, whether it is a yet another “glorious” war with the nightmare inspiring image of an enemy or the few brave martyrs inciting general rioting that leads to the violent implosion of the regime.
This, my american and european friends is where we are inevitably heading if you continue believing that a group of people willing to use threats of violence or actual violence , no matter how you elected them to such a position, are the ones who should solve your economic and societal problems. Government is not a magic bullet that you may believe it to be. It is not an answer to everything. There is no magic bullet in fact, not even anarchy.
Anarchy is not an answer. Anarchy – as the admission that violence is not the way, but rather exclusively voluntary interaction, a free market – is merely the recognition of the fact that there is no single answer and that solutions are best found when individuals are let free to apply their unique creative abilities, without compulsion, to find solutions to the problems that we face. And that’s the only way we stand a chance at building a stable and perpetually prosperous and accelerating economy which can last for not merely decades before the collapses or years between recessions, but centuries and millenia.
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
I happen to be subscribed to a gloomy youtube channel called EconomyCollapse and checking my latest subscriptions two things I find is the report of economy, at least in US, going from bad to worse which basically concludes that people have been more prosperous in the recession of 80s than today (and I suppose the only one left to compete with then is the Great Depression of 30s). Another video samples what is usually the second wave after the wave of economic collapses, political crisis: Mexico on the verge of civil war.
That’s how it’s always been apparently in predominantly statist societies. First there’s economic crisis and then comes, almost inevitably, a political crisis. As people believe governments (coercive monopolies) are necessary for the maintenance of stable and ordered societies they also tend to blame that same government when anything goes wrong. Most of them didn’t quite grasp the idea of being responsible for themselves so all this is no surprise. And therefore it’s no surprise that political crisis arises.
And the whole gang warfare thing which we’re perpetually living with (and usually call things like “political campaigning”, “elections” etc.) escalates to a whole new level, where the violence inherent in the whole system finally surfaces in all its bloody glory. You see, there has never been political stability because that is an oxymoron. Politics by definition involves ones coercing others to live by their values, therefore force and violence are always the core of the game. It’s just that these facts are through elaborate conceptual masking, abstractions and doublethink hidden from view.
Until it leads to the economic crisis of these proportions.
Then as they say “shit begins to hit the fan”, or in other words, the violence inherent in the system surfaces. Gang warfare you’re living with all along takes to the streets and gun fires become much more common. Rioting, civil wars, installment of oppressive regimes (in the Great Depression era, which led to WW2) or just outright collapse into unprincipled anarchy where while freedoms suddenly increase across the board, people still don’t believe in non-initiation of force as a matter of principle and so some blood shed continues (modern day Somalia) since gangs (aspiring governments that is) vie for power.
So more rioting, government collapses, civil wars, it can all happen, across americas and across europe. What will happen is just an inevitable consequence of all that has been believed and subsequently done in the past. You believe coercion is fine? Well here are the results. Are you happy? I’ll venture to guess not. Are you gonna learn something from this? I hope so. But things must become worse before they become better.
This crisis is a natural reaction of the markets to their constant harassment with coercive practices. As such it is a good development – a correction, in economists terms. However you cannot jump off a sky scraper, no matter if it reaches to the troposphere, and expect not to hit the ground at some point. Your belief that you can jump off the skyscraper and not hit the ground wont change the facts.
Your belief that justifying some coercion in the way we deal with each other (AKA politics) wont result in poverty, chaos and death. Think again. You’ve believed in it, now you shall reap the benefits.
But should you survive the consequences, you have a chance for a new start.
Ban all politics from your life. Reject all coercion and initiation of violence. Embrace voluntary interaction (free market). Think creatively rather than competitively. Believe in your abilities. Take responsibility for your own self. Don’t ask others to live for your own sake.
Then we’ll rise out of this chaos and into the better world.
But before that, brace yourself (be prepared and informed), for the consequences of past actions and beliefs must materialize. What will be will be. What will be must be.
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
It seems articles by Dale Everett are just getting better and better every time! Here’s a great new one called The Anarchist in All of Us and here are some brilliant quotes:
“But do you have faith in the system that selects our leaders? Do you vote hoping you can gather enough on your side to overpower your opponent? Do you start playing that violent game, knowing all the rules in advance, and then complain when you lose?”
“People break laws all the time. We break them without even knowing because there are millions of words of laws on the books and we can’t possibly know them all. Have you ever secretly broken a law because you knew you weren’t harming anyone? Do you then publicly proclaim that we must comply with the law until we work through the system to have it changed? We all have our varying ideas of acceptable boundaries for the roles of governments. Some are guided by ancient documents; others by heart-felt principles of individual sovereignty. There is the appearance of lines in the sand and yet we remain complicit when our lines are repeatedly crossed. How serious of a transgression would it take before people insist that a certain law should be disobeyed immediately?”
Yep. And someone tells me laws are derived from reasoning.. Sure, but whose reasoning? Whose reasoning is it that should be accepted as universally correct and why?
No, keep that reasoning for yourself and your own life and let me reason for my own. Is that so much to ask?
No it’s not. And if you disagree all you can is pull up a gun against me, ultimately, really.. coercion. That’s the only weapon you have against free individuals. And it’s lame, pathetic and silly. If that’s your argument “oooh we must force people to be GOOD for the common GOOD by my definition of GOOD cause I’m GOOD”, you can literally shove it up your ass.. and pull the trigger, alright?
Cheerio statists. The beginning of your end has passed.
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009
I am going to do what is bound to be unpopular in this time when so many americans are “high on hope” and can’t see clearly what’s in front of them. I am not a believer. I am an individual who dares to think with his own head instead of with the head of state. Here I bring you a number of deceitful passages quoted from the Obama’s speech and respond to them.
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
No you haven’t been faithful to the ideals of the forbearers. If you had you wouldn’t be invading foreign nations in pre-emptive strikes. You wouldn’t have your income taxed. You wouldn’t be disarmed by your government at every chance they get. Your property wouldn’t be violently invaded because you smoke or heaven forbid grow certain plants. Government would be there as a fearful servant and not a master of the people. Its sole job would be to protect your life, liberty and property. Anyone who has actually looked at the constitution would frown at what Obama said here and be extremely skeptical about anything he has to say further on.
How can so many people praise this man in tears is beyond me, when he so blatantly lies to them!
Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.
Why not be blunt here Mr. Obama and just spit it out. You’re speaking on the countless times discredited “war on terror”, when in fact your government and its agencies have cause more terror both in USA and the world than there could have ever existed if you just stayed out of everyone’s business. The “far-reaching network of violence” is precisely how the very government you are taking control of can be described.
Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Collective failure? Let’s see. What is the collective here? A group of individuals. In this case the reference is to the hundreds of millions of individuals in USA. What is a failure? For there to be a failure there must be a goal that was not achieved by the set of choices that were meant to achieve it. Can a “collective” make a choice? Is a “collective” some sort of a singular entity that breaths by itself, separate from the individuals that make it up? Clearly not. Only individuals can make choices. Only individuals can have goals. Only individuals can thus fail. There is no such thing as a “collective failure”. That is just a lie designed to “spread the guilt” even to those who had nothing to do with the failures of others, just as you seek to “spread the wealth” even to those who had nothing to do with actually earning it.
Of course, it’s not the first time that a politician is using vague collectivist terminology to seduce the masses of individuals. It is like religion. So long as people believe there is such a thing as a “collective” existing in and of itself, they will submit to those who claim to be, like priests, representative of this “collective”. But it is a lie.
Unfortunately, and as can be expected, similar vague indefinite language continues throughout the rest of this “great speech”.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
No, you came here to seduce the masses into giving you and your government legitimacy that it needs to continue looting and destroying the very people you are appealing to. Bush destroyed the image of the company you represent, the US Government, and you come with your shiny, glorious new PR campaign to “clean up” your image. Do people truly believe that just putting a new president, a new face, on the same old beast, changes its nature? Are people that deluded?
You are perpetuating the petty grievances and false dogmas, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, in a new packaging.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
And you know this how? You asked every single of the individuals you speak of to know that they all were driven by some sort of a “self-sacrificing” urge to build up this imaginary entity you call “America”? Last time I checked most people who came to USA came out of their own self-interest, to build their own life success, not the success of “america”. That you look at the aggregate of all this success and proclaim it as somehow appropriated in the name of your own religion doesn’t mean they all share the same sentiment. Do not speak in their name. Speak for yourself and yourself only.
But who am I kidding, right? There are millions of people out there looking at him like he is the messiah himself, even if they don’t otherwise believe in such a thing as a “messiah”, and just waiting empty-minds and shut thoughts, waiting for him to speak in their name. His words, their words. His thoughts, their thoughts. His mind, their mind. If that’s what you call freedom and greatness why not just strap yourself into the Borg collective of some sort and give up your individuality completely? That is exactly what you’re doing.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works–whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Can your government do anything without coercing those whom do not want the service it offers to buy it anyway? Who, exactly, gets to say whether something works or not? Shouldn’t an individual get to make a decision in what to buy into and what to reject? Your government offers no such choice. Beneath this pile of words stays nothing but raw initiated violence. You said it yourself, Mr. Obama, “what essentially sets the nation-state apart.. is the monopoly on violence”.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control–and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
Another blatant lie. The market WAS under a watchful eye of your government. Your own government encouraged baseless spending and debts by encouraging loans to those whom clearly could not afford it. Now that it collapsed, you are blaming a lack of government involved. Something is seriously messed up about that logic. More government involvement is, and this can be easily researched by anyone caring for the facts, exactly what destabilized the economy. The so called “free market” was never completely free, for it was constantly regulated and its actors taxed.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Again, you are describing your own organization. When your organization sets an agenda, usually a very expensive one, who is going to pay for it? The people with their taxes, of course. What if someone doesn’t agree with your agenda and wishes not to pay for it? They must, for if they don’t, they’re thrown in jail. Talk about terror, pay up or suffer. Consider the definition of terror, “one that inspires fear”, “a state of intense fear”, “violent or destructive acts”. This is only to mention the domestic terrorism perpetrated by this government, let alone the terror perpetrated in other countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.
This comes down to nothing more than a leader of the popularized mafia sending a message to the less popular mafia organizations: we will defeat you. And the war continues. No change. None whatsoever.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
Meaning greater than themselves, such as in your organization perhaps? Why cannot an individual himself or herself decide who is to defend his or her liberty? Why do they must rely on and pay for, regardless of whether they agree or not, armies of individuals ordered by your organization’s directives to kill and plunder, in the name of “defending liberty”?
But those values upon which our success depends–honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism–these things are old.
Seriously, do people listening to this have any precise idea of what these terms actually mean? Honesty and tolerance? Honesty to admit to yourself that by saying that something must be illegal, that something must be done by the government, is the same as saying that those who do not agree with you and those who do not want to pay for the implementation of your own beliefs, must still violently be coerced into conformance to your beliefs?
Hard work? You mean work to pay your debts because government told you it’s fine to buy what you cannot afford? Work only so quarter to half of what you earn be taken from you to fund wars and implementations of beliefs with which you don’t necessarily agree with? Work to earn property which you cannot use on your own terms, as if you weren’t the owner? And all this in a country supposedly built on pursuit of “life, liberty and property”?
Loyalty to Obama? Patriotism, love for the state and not your own values?
Do you ever question the words used to seduce you into uniform compliance?
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Mr. Obama, not everyone believes in your gods. Nor everyone believes in your government, for obviously very good reasons. Some people, unlike the masses weeping in mindless emotional fervor every time you hypnotically chant your vague sentences, actually think as independent and free individuals, not units within some great collective.
More on Obama’s deception:
- An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches
- Obama’s Inauguration – The Antidote
Monday, November 24th, 2008
It’d be a start. Let the central bank of a super power like USA fall and the conception of central banking and with it fractional reserve banking would be wounded. This crisis has largely been caused by the inherent injustices and impossibilities built in the central banking system. Creating wealth out of nothing. It’s nothing that it’s gonna come back to, coldly slapping us in the face today demanding that we wake up. We can’t live in the la la land anymore.
So instead of drooling over their brand new Great Leader Mr. Socialist Obama americans should wake the hell up from this trance and at the very least listen to one politician which actually makes sense (acts very much unlike a common politician): Ron Paul -> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3qsJjTaekA8&feature=related
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008
The begfest called elections is coming up in USA.
I’ll just say this. Don’t beg.
I’ll let Stefan Molyneux speak.
Warning: He is angry, not that I can blame him.
So, will you beg? Socialism or fascism, which is it?
Don’t dehumanize yourself like that.
Saturday, September 20th, 2008
If I were not a voluntaryist I would be a republican. This is something that I concluded after watching an excellent documentary called Overview of America. It clarifies the political spectrums by putting total government control as the true far left and no government whatsoever as the far right. It then defines capital as “means of production” therefore concluding that every economic system is fundamentally capitalist (because every uses the means of production). The only difference is that in far left systems the government owns and/or controls the capital (means of production) fully (fascism, nazism, socialism and communism) whereas the far right systems leave the government out of the ownership and control of capital and serve at the most to enforce rights to life, liberty and property.
The documentary however attacks anarchy as an unsustainable bubble between collapses of governments and unfortunately there may even be quite a bit of evidence supporting that conclusion IF you would look at how many people calling themselves “anarchists” act. Most anarchists in the world appear to be “socialists” at the same time which is a contradiction in terms from where I stand because socialism implies collective rather than individual control of capital. Clearly, such anarchists cannot form a sustainable anarchy that wouldn’t just end up creating a new socialist government.
The documentary puts a republic at the balancing point which is limited government, a view which largely corresponds to what some today call “minarchism”. Considering that the USA prospered for quite a while under this system and people have rarely objected to government so long as it was kept limited only to law enforcement (law being entirely The Constitution and Bill of Rights (also dubbed by the doc “Bill of Government Limitations”), this system seems to have worked. And from my perspective today I would love to live in such a system today, compared to where I live now. I can understand why people en masse wanted to move to USA to build their dreams.
So why am I not a republican?
In principle, it comes down to a single fundamental reason: coercion. Even a limited government which only enforces the law which is only a provision for life, liberty and property is a coercive monopoly. It does not allow anyone else but itself to act as a third party in disputes or as an enforcer of contracts or defenders against violations of life, liberty and property. And frankly, I don’t see a good reason why it should have this kind of monopoly.
If the free market could efficiently handle everything else, as it did in the USA while it was still truly republican, why can it not handle law as well?
The documentary fails to make a connection that is rather obvious to me, between a free market and anarchy, both at the farthest right you can go – indeed for me The Right Way. It is exactly the free market which provides anarchy with stability it lacks when anarchy is attempted in a socialistic way. The perfect system as I see it, thus, is free market anarchy, anarcho-capitalism.
The reason why even a republican or minarchist limited government is so problematic is simple. By being the only entity allowed to operate in the market of law enforcement it becomes a magnet to all who would otherwise be legitimate competitors. Since they cannot compete with it they try to take it over. And since it is coercive by nature it can use this coercion, slowly but surely, to grow its monopoly into markets beyond law enforcement, which is exactly what happened each time a limited government was instituted (and the documentary covers Rome and America).
In a nutshell, government is the loophole of the republican system. They had a great idea, but they screwed that one up. The free market which they credit with creating the abundance that made america great, was the answer all along – they just had to let it be free of government 100%, not 99%. There is no such thing as “properly limited government”. It always grows.
There is also a question of morals, which the documentary briefly tackled. Apparently the founding fathers of the USA believed that the republic they created can only work so long as people are moral, and this had religious (biblical christian) connotations. In a sense I agree, but unsurprisingly for christianity, morality here seems to be expanded a bit too far. The documentary, for instance, shows pictures of people watching porn in the context of immorality, whereas this may merely be a subjective view.
The core morality, in my view, comes from non-coercion. No matter what another person does, so long as (s)he doesn’t harm you in doing it (initiate force on you) (s)he should be free to do so. It seems pretty clear that if people lost this moral principle they would likely deteriorate their society into one that calls for greater government and thus more tyrany. It perfectly aligns with the concept of violence breeding violence. Even a mere loss of the non-coercion moral is enough to start the vicious circle, as it will lead to the first violent act which will lead to all the more of the violence until we live in a totalitarian system where violence and the threat of violence is constantly present.
And I think in most countries today we are nearly or already living in such a system, even in countries which have a “republic” in its name like the Republic of Croatia (which is not a republic at all).
I only wished, now, that there was a place where a true republic really still existed. At least there a chance of inducing that last moral step towards a pure free market society would be feasible while the oppression would be 99% absent. Unortunately, not even New Hampshire in USA, the designated future “Free State” fits the bill.