As I have often pointed out, we HAD a limited, Constitutional government in the United States and it has brought us to where we are now, under the Biden Administration.
Do you remember the definition of insanity attributed (falsely) to Einstein? Sure you do: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Civil society works; a restrained coercive government CAN work for awhile, to some extent, but always devolves into tyranny.
For that matter, even SMALL government IS a tyranny -- but I'm trying to keep this brief so I'll leave that alone.
Both civil society AND small, sort-of-workable government REQUIRE a population that is itself civil, meaning emotionally healthy.
Freedom + emotional health (remember Jesus' teachings about not offending children?) pretty much nails the basics; everything else follows -- IF there is no central Power that assumes the right to initiate coercion, including -- especially -- in regards to funding. Forcible taxation is the foot in the door that leads to ever-more tyranny.
An excerpt from Barnett's column:
What this boils down to concerning the State is this:
Most everything is a lie.
Most everything is propaganda.
Most everything detrimental is planned in advance, and intentionally executed.
Many if not most evil acts are false flags.
Most everything is criminal.
Most every action and adverse event is purposely staged and a scam.
The State is most assuredly nothing more than organized crime bent on total power, monopoly, and control.
Because of governments, we have perpetual war, and the so-called ‘exceptional’ U.S., has warred aggressively for approximately 93% of its existence, likely more, and has been responsible for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions of innocent people. Today alone, governments, mostly western governments, along with Zionist Israel, are plotting to commit genocide and world war in order to advance the globalist agenda of one world governance. We have had the fake ‘covid’ scam that has led to unbelievable deadly consequences, including the lockdown of humanity, poisonous, and in many cases, fatal bioweapon injections, economic destruction, insane inflation, and complete loss of freedom. There are intentionally structured wars in Syria, Ukraine, most of the Middle East, and around the world, all due to the existence of governments and rule. Famine, poverty, rioting, property confiscation and destruction, forced mass immigration meant only to divide and harm, and the perversion and murder of children worldwide is rampant.
Sound good?
Should we order up more of that, or should we try cutting government back not just until it is "restrained" (as those in power will define it) but until it is replaced with competitive, market-based, civil, non-coercive groups, structures, and the natural individual governance that sane, civil adults practice every day?
Yes, we'll have to do some of it in stages. Yes, there will be problems along the way.
But every single argument against freeing humanity from the tyranny of the State was made against freeing the Slaves from their Masters in the South.
Those arguments are bullshit, plain and simple. There IS no honest "good argument" against freedom.
The Cabal ONLY exists, and only CAN exist, because it USES the power of the State to force its evil upon the world. For God's sake, let us put an end to that.
/rant
Uh oh. You're about to stumble on to "why was slavery pervasive and considered normal for most all of history?"
There are people that can't govern themselves. What do you propose we do with them?
counterpoint... the legitimate role of government is as a facilitator of communication between different parts of society.
Yeah, but its tiring for most people to live in the wild west with one eye open and a shotgun under your bed everyday.
I understand your point, bubble_bursts, and it's by far the most common fear of a free society, thanks to relentless Cabal propaganda: Without Government forcing people to be nice to each other, how would we survive? But the wild west is what we have right now; civil society is much calmer and safer. (Also, the "wild west" is typically portrayed as far more violent than it actually was; that makes for better movies, perhaps, and of course there WAS violence but there was also much freedom, community, and honest commerce).
Government can't do anything without screwing it up. Why do we think that government, the most violent and least efficient institution on Earth, would do a good job of creating and maintaining a civil society?
The people THEMSELVES do that, or don't; insurance companies, private security companies, and other market entities that have a stake in an honest and civil society do a better job of taming crime and maintaining civilization than corrupt, psychopathic politicians running a coercive government.
I will point out that I said:
and I'll add that by "emotionally healthy" I didn't mean "perfectly healthy" (extremely rare, if even that) but simply people not so damaged as to be a walking problem for those around them, or worse.
WITH a government, though, the WORST and most dangerous people (sociopaths and psychopaths) gain access to the coercive power of government, just as happens throughout history -- including here in "the land of Freedom", the United States.
Everything honest and positive comes from the civil, non-coercive parts of society. Is ANYTHING the government does (usually with coercion and always with stolen money) better than what you'd get from honest people and institutions? Consider Underwriter Laboratories (founded in 1894), the NFPA (founded in 1896), and other non-government regulatory agencies verses the FDA, the EPA, and every other government "regulatory" agency.
UL in particular has become more entwined with government in recent decades, because as government grows, those civil, honest, market elements shrink and what remains becomes tainted and corrupted by government power, either directly or tangentially -- but still, even UL is far more benign AND effective (including cost-effective) than government agencies ever are. No one ever has armed UL agents knocking down their door or confiscating their property because of a BS violation of some rule, for example.
The Market for Liberty is a good introduction to the workings and benefits of a voluntaryist society, and plenty of other writings by voluntaryists exist also.
We need to quit trying to "reform" something inherently evil (tyranny) – and abolish it instead. The BEST, most carefully limited tyranny -- a very small, Constitutional republic, as with the United States of the late 1700s -- BECOMES a corrupt and violent nightmare. It becomes exactly what we are fighting today.
Ultimately all these arguments hits one wall. Nexus of power. Follow this argument here for a second:
No two humans are exactly the same in terms of ability, skills, will power and most importantly physical strength. This directly results in:
In any group of people, whether its a class room or a group stranded on an island, or a prison or a frontier town - there is always a hierarchy of power. There is a small group that control the rest, and a larger group that carries out the small group's will.
This power balance tends to be fluid - when the people with power push beyond a certain level of acceptance of the general population, there is an uprisal and a new leadership group.
So far - its not inherently bad. It actually falls into what you have been mentioning and can actually be quite healthy for the society in long term.
However, in short term, when these leadership changes happen, during the tail end of the hegemony as they pus their power further and further, there are many individuals who suffer, and the society can be quite unstable for short durations.
This is what provides the opportunity for an external entity to insert themselves, and using this instability to bring about some kind of stability, which turns out in long term to be evil.
It usually takes the form of a money backed mafia. Infact, after a certain point, this mafia gains legitimacy using their money and power to buy officialdom, and becomes the corrupted government.
Breaking it all down and starting from scratch will give us nothing different that each of the million times in history we have seen this happen.
The more necessary factor is not rebuilding from scratch. It is the complete Awakening of the people so they understand what has been happening to them and why.
Once you have a population who are fully awake, and government is drastically reduced to the point of what was originally envisioned at the time of founding, we will already have everything we need to keep it pure and simple for the future generations. The more painful the awakening process is, the longer the collective humanity will remember the lessons.
Hence, the current Great Awakening and how painful it is turning out to be.
Thank you for the detailed response, bubble_bursts. I certainly agree with you that the Great Awakening is completely necessary. The Awakening now underway is (unless it should fail) a genuine turning point in human history; the importance and the level of change to come cannot be overstated -- IF we take this opportunity to destroy the Ring of Power, as Tolkien put it, instead of thinking we can finally control it and use it for good.
But Power NEVER leads to a good ending. You cannot create a good society by criminal means, and initiating coercion IS a crime, no matter how you dress it up. That includes taxation, the taking of people's money by force, which (of course!) makes "customer satisfaction" highly unlikely.
The process you mention -- the destruction of early free civilizations by roving hordes of bandits who found it easier to move in with their victims and become a "government" -- is well described, in detail, by Paul Rosenberg in Production versus Plunder: The Ancient War That is Destroying the West. Becoming a "Government" gave the bandits all the plunder with much better working conditions, and the victims were a never-ending source of wealth.
Yes, government attracts sociopaths and psychopaths, and there is no way to prevent that, OTHER than building a civil society and dealing harshly with anyone who attempts to add a criminal core (initiated coercion) to it.
I don't believe the generations going forward will remain AS awake as we hope (how quickly did Americans forget the lessons of the Revolution and of the cruelty of the tyranny of the Crown?). Immediately after the Cabal is taken down many (not all, even then) will be awake, but a generation or two or three down the line? Not so much. Nor do I believe they'll be protected from the dynamics of a growing, centralized coercive power. History shows otherwise, every damn time.
Unless people build and become accustomed to a CIVIL society, where market forces rule the land instead of a group granted the right to initiate Power over others, they will be taught from childhood (as you and I have been) that "Government" is necessary, that it is inevitable, and that it is good. We can't live without it! -- and naturally, since it is good, we don't resist having more of it, if each increase doesn't cost us too much. Those with something to gain, and those who simply want Power for themselves, will constantly push for MORE government. Compassion demands that we DO MORE for this or that reason. Our SAFETY demands that we do more; this new Federal agency is the only way to protect people from blah-blah-blah.
That's exactly how post Colonial America became Biden's America.
"Meet the new Boss, Same as the old Boss" is precisely what we'll get if we end up with a "restrained" coercive government INSTEAD OF a civil network of non-coercive organizations that regulate, protect, and provide other needed services -- the way the market provides FOOD better than the government does, and vehicles, and clothing, and every other damn thing people actually want and need and are WILLING to pay for.
This doesn't mean starting from scratch. It means transferring those few things that government does which actually NEED doing to the private sector (where they'll be done more efficiently and with less corruption and without the blatant tyranny that every Federal agency imposes). The rest of what government does -- those things that we don't need to do, that people don't WANT done, and that are actively harmful -- war after war, for starters -- we can let go.
We can save ourselves trillions of dollars a year, have far better "government services", and regain our freedom.
A citizenry that lives in such a society, and that is taught why it functions as it does, will rebuff any effort to poison it with tyranny.
How long will that last?
I don't know, but I'd certainly like to find out. And no matter HOW long it lasts, if it should eventually fail, it will at least be a powerful, shining example to freedom-seekers in the future, as the memory of an earlier America is today (I think of someone in Hong Kong holding a sign a few years back, begging America to "Please be the America we Think You Are" or something like that).
It is time to try something different -- time to END coercive Power instead of constantly trying to reform it. Reforming slavery will never work, because it is still tyranny no matter how you dress it up or modify it. As long as initiating coercion is allowed, then the system is a crime.
I'll again recommend The Market for Liberty for an engaging and thorough look at how market forces can be used to create a workable, healthy, and prosperous society without initiating coercion (but with plenty of incentives to behave properly, from insurance companies, bond companies, security firms, and the simple refusal of others to deal with you if you aren't trustworthy, for instance).
When Jesus showed up, its estimated that only 1% of the world population knew about him directly. And yet, even with all the Cabal shenanigans, majority of these people were able to follow the simple rules set forth by Jesus to remain free, for 2000 years.
America was the very first experiment of humans building their own free society and was a captured operation from day 1, and YET, it took 250 years to take it to this point.
After Great Depression, the generation that lived through it, and their children spent their entire lives never getting into debt and valuing saving money. It took 100 years before this lesson could be undone.
The precipice we are headed to is going to be experienced by 90% of the people and the pain will be a million times worse than the Great Depression, and the awakening will be a million times more powerful than anything before. No doubt this will hold until we can reach the next spiritual level.
Private sector can do things efficiently ONLY if there is a free market.
Private sector will NEVER do things correctly unless they can be held accountable, and that can only happen with a limited government.
Humanity has NEVER seen what free market looks like. The western economy has been a controlled operation via central banks from day one.
There can be NO free market without a limited government with roles and responsibilities set out precisely (very much like what is in the US constitution).
The problem in any system is ultimately the people's level of awareness. You can give them a republic, but if they cant keep it, its worthless.
We need to go back to the basics. 95% of the governments as we know it will need to be abolished and their activities moved to private sector. The rest, will need to include:
Minimal legislative branch that makes minimal laws to reflect what the people need.
Judicial branch with constitutional judges and lawyers
Executive branch which is fully transparent and understands that the true power lies with the people.
This is absolutely wrong; completely backwards.
It is government's POWER that attracts corrupt individuals, psychopaths, and sociopaths running large corporations -- who then purchase, expand, and corrupt that Power, as we see all around us today.
Yes, that takes some time, if you're starting with a truly limited government.
No, it cannot be stopped.
Perhaps if we called a voluntaryist society's court, legislative, and executive branches a "government" we'd not be arguing here. We're talking about the difference between 95% free and 100% free, after all -- my stance is that the 5% does not NEED to involve forced taxation and other coercive power structures, and that only when that kernel of power to initiate coercion is REMOVED can people actually be free -- and stay that way.
With initiation of coercion FORBIDDEN instead of GRANTED to a small group, there IS no POWER to be bought, expanded, and corrupted.
Everyone has an incentive to keep things honest because, for one thing, people like having society run smoothly and safely and honestly, and for another, those attempting to add corruption (such as taxation and other staples of government Power) are seen and treated as criminals. And if you think that means "we'd need a government to deal with criminals" then you really need to read some more voluntaryist literature, or simply open yourself up to thinking about HOW an actually free society would handle such things.
Start with the Amish, perhaps; they're a very small group (or set of groups) and of course they do exist inside the boundaries of unfree nations, but as a society, they handle things competently, firmly, and without Statist coercion. A nation needs more than what the Amish provide but -- just as even a relatively free market does a better job with, well, pretty much everything it does compared to government, a nation CAN do "government's work" with market solutions and organizations, and do it BETTER, safer, and cheaper than government does -- and WITHOUT the growing corruption that sneaks in everywhere government operates.
In an earlier America, a good deal of "government work" WAS done by the private sector. The vast growth of technology and wealth in the first 150 years of this country make direct comparisons difficult, but there is no question that every government service, from courts to national defense, CAN and to some extent HAS BEEN provided here (and elsewhere over the centuries) without the aid of government coercion.
I'm enjoying this conversation, bubble_bursts. You're an interesting thinker and writer.
I'm not young: My father was about five when the Great Depression began. During his childhood, Americans still used actual gold and silver coins, with $20 = an oz of gold and $1 an ounce of silver. Americans were patriotic, well educated, understood what the Founders did for this country, had a strong work ethic, and while there were plenty of people with emotional damage, there was none of the Woke nonsense we suffer from today.
It didn't take long for things to go to Hell from the early 1900s. (Yeah: 1913 was a BAD year, and so were plenty of others). And it took even less time, only a few decades, to go from the end of the Great Depression to Nixon's closing of the gold window and the serious acceleration of America's corruption.
I'd like to think the Great Awakening will birth something new, something better than just another "limited government" -- I'd like to think we'll begin a genuinely free society.
Maybe you're right that we'll NEED a small government, but I'm not seeing it. I'll keep thinking on the topic though.
I will break this up into 3 topics - "Voluntaryist Government", "Private Companies" and "Free Market."
I think when it comes to your idea of voluntaryism - we are both on same page. I think where we differ is what you think "Government" is.
Government is NOT taxation. Government is not tons of regulatory bodies. Government is not IRS, SEC, Fed, etc etc. They are all privately controlled entities, masquarading in various ways as being part of the government.
Income Tax is against God's law (thou shall not steal).
When I say government, I am actually referring to what you refer to as voluntaryist society. Its not at the level of Amish, but its very close. Bulk of the government will be at the local level. The state and federal level will have very specific roles and are disallowed from doing anything outside of that - this is what the Constitution was intended to be.
At the local level you will have elected Sheriff and elected Judges, and elected representatives for the local government as well as those representing state and federal levels.
If you privitize security, for instance, you are replacing a elected Sheriff with an unelected corporate entity. This means, the security entity will have no way to be held accountable by the people. Thats the difference at every level between private and small government. I will talk more about this in the "Private Companies" thread.
Infact, I always suggest people to go through the US Constitution and come up with which areas should be removed if they believe it represents too much government (or if they dont like government at all).
It'll be a day or three before I have a response to this; I haven't abandoned the conversation but have things going on.
We aren't really at odds then, at all.
I'm not conflating taxation with "government as we know it" -- I'm saying that "government as we have known it has the defacto unopposed power to INITIATE COERCION, and that makes it a criminal organization. Forcible taxation is only one of the symptoms, but I emphasize it because THAT's where the money comes from (until Fiat enters the picture) to do every OTHER coercive thing that government does.
In fact, private groups can be, and often are, democratic -- groups ranging from neighborhood associations to large corporations can utilize voting and elections to chose policies and personnel. Likewise, non-government groups can hold meetings to challenge elected officials and remove them if they so decide. I don't see this being any worse in terms of outcomes than the government elections we have now; if anything, the opposite seems true.
As for government powers in the Constitution that we could do without, my lodestar is always twofold: 1- Does it initiate coercion (force, threats, or fraud -- the last isn't always in definitions of coercion, but it belongs, in my opinion) against peaceful human beings, and 2- Are people willing to pay for it voluntarily. EDIT: Naturally, by "voluntarily" I mean that anyone does NOT feel an action is worth paying for, for whatever reason, is not forced to chip in. "Pay for your own damn wars", for an obvious example.
bubble_bursts: reading over my last response, I noticed more than one instance of needless snark.
My sincere apologies. I was mortified to see it because I'm really enjoying our exchange.
Snark is a character flaw I've not fully exorcised (although I've made progress on it over the years). Still, when I don't spend significant time editing something longer than a 2-line email, it sometimes creeps in. I'll take more time crafting my responses in the future.
~ Narg
Snarks are the last thing I am bothered about, as long as I know someone is engaging honestly.
All I care is being able to have a spirited debate with fellow frens, which this conversation is very much so.
Also, this is indeed an important conversation for Anons to be discussing at this point. Will continue the debate, but we might have to break it up into seperate threads as there are too many points to address.
Usually, it is due to financial woes. However, going beyond budget is also a .gov practice.
So, yes, each and everyone of us should be governi g themselves. It requires knowledge and sentience about yourself, and discipline, to remain within the individual guardrails that mother nature provides: your authority and strategy.
And as always: emotions ( Wave) cloud judgement and free thought.