Minarchy May Be The Only Viable Practical Path To Freedom

[PierzStyx]

I've never thought that Anarcho-Capitalism is realistic. Without a military another country could come right in and impose their government on anarchy land.

Do you imagine that the only means to self-defense is the State?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Do you imagine that the only means to self-defense is the State?

Not on the individual level. But if a nation abolished government and was invaded by another nation, I don't see how anarchy land would be able to defeat an invading army.

 

[PierzStyx]

Not on the individual level. But if a nation abolished government and was invaded by another nation, I don't see how anarchy land would be able to defeat an invading army.

Same way that the Russians defeated Napoleon. Or for that matter how a bunch of poor, ill-equipped terrorists have been kicking America's arse. Armies are only good at fighting other armies. When your militia refuse to fight like them they cannot handle asymmetrical warfare. And that si if they anarchists don't organize their own military.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I return to a previous point I have made more than once. Much of the rest of the world appears to be less oppressed than the USA in the details. Europe is similar to China in this respect in that police don't seem to as overtly oppressive because they do not outwardly behave as American police do. Just as you noted, cops from many other lands do not pick nits with their citizens. Police are perhaps the best example of this phenomenon to which I will now refer.

We see it and to my eyes it is pretty obvious. The question that stands salient is "why"? Why is it like this? Why is it that the purportedly freest nation on the planet is the one where police are the most militaristically trained (maybe not as much so as some backwater stink holes, but let us not count those, but confine ourselves to "civilized" nations) and strident in their enforcement policies and practices?

Why is it that totalitarian $#@! dumpers like the Chinese government appear to be less maniacally grasping at the reins of control than do the vermin now running the circus in America?

The answer is pretty simple, if subtle in point of operational facts. The reason is because China, Europe, and most of what is left has had mostly full control over their populations now for decades, if not centuries or more. The Chinese, and Europeans have had the tyrant's boot on their necks for so long that they are now well-bred to compliance, no matter how outrageous the conditions set upon them by their masters. America has yet to produce a Stalin or Mao (note "yet" - I put nothing past human beings). There is a reason for that: the American mentality of rebellion. God knows American is now gravely ill in terms of the average man's world view. The "ugly American" has been long cultivated, whether intentionally or by pure coincidence is almost irrelevant at this point, through the agency of institutions such as Hollywood and accepted by the American desire for self-aggrandizement and the outrageous, the latter being that part of the American spirit of adventurousness gone somehow morbid.

If we accept the assumption that there is indeed a cadre of people whom we may tag as "globalists", seeking one-world government for whatever reasons fair or foul, then everything we see happening in America suddenly comes sharply into discernible sense. The one and single thing that a one-world governmental institution would require in order to acquire and maintain its single-point, globally universal authority is world-wide compliance by those over whom they seek to lord. This is an absolute requirement. Several others follow from this, but I will not go into that here.

The rest of the meaningful populations of the earth have been reeled in. Some millennia ago, while others only comparatively recently. The important thing, however, is that they are compliant to the demands placed upon them by "government". The only significant population that remains non-compliant to a degree wholly unfitting with the demands of global dominance is America. This is manifest in the lingering American proclivity for saying, "no, $#@! YOU, I will not comply".

Far and away more significantly, it is manifest in the protections of the Second Amendment. We are not only armed, but very much well so to the point we would give any hostile military force grave fits were it to make an unwanted attempt upon American soil. This, IMO, is the single key point that has driven the cultivation of stupidity in this land for at least the past 50 years, if I am to wax less conspiratorial in my tone.

And to the question of conspiracy, let me be clear: I acknowledge that my POV could be mistaken in part or even in whole, but my training and experience in viewing things as statistical gestalts strongly suggests otherwise. I do not for a moment believe it likely that the block of broad-brush trends that have come into play in America during this time is the product of pure coincidence. There were simply too many countervailing factors that, had America been in fact a free-market land, would have wiped those trends out in their embryonic stages.

But that didn't happen. We can look back 40 years and readily see that the germ of trends that had people saying "no, $#@! you" managed to survive, not because the free markets nurtured them to the full maturity we see today, but because an invisible hand (apologies) did so in spite of national rejection by the generations of those in their majority. The clear goal there was to keep the dying fetus of an idea long enough for it to take root in the generation currently in its minority such that by the time their majority was reached, at the very least they would be tolerant of the idea and the trends to which it would give rise. That tolerance would leave the doors wide open for the next generation who, if they did not embrace it, would at least accept it as "OK". The generation after that, naturally, would be normalized to it to the extent that the notion of the trend in question would have at least a 50-50 chance of catching on and being embraced and eventually demanded.

For those who doubt this, you need look no further for a prime example of it in full-bloom operations than the trend of so-called "trans-genderism". Just walk it backwards in your thoughts and you will see that the chain of progression is there, plain as day and loud as Sonny Rollins playing two saxophones at once. It started in the 50s with the homosexuals beginning to come out, to the chagrin of the older generations who, rightly or otherwise rejected the normalization of the homosexual. From that point on, we have seen the complicity of the courts, Hollywood, Congress, and every step of government right down to the town dog-catcher, slowly get on board with tolerance. But it didn't end there, where it should have - viewing homosexuality as "abnormal" - something one certainly would not want for their children but which one accepts and tolerates in others as an unfortunate and non-reversible condition in some of us. During the course of the rightful struggle of the chromosexuals for tolerance, there came by whatever virtue a quantum shift in the mindset of those people from one seeking tolerance to that demanding acceptance, at first, then embrasure, and now finally today, our accolades and praise.

It takes no rocket surgery to see this progression.

The same cancerous process of progression can be witnessed on so many fronts that only a maniacal fool suffering from a potentially terminal case of DOG (Denial Of Gravity) syndrome could claim it to be pure coincidence. Such an assertion is simply not sound when looked with statistical eyes turned upon a multivariate system as complex as that of the American population, most particularly when taking into account the strongly homogenous nature of the white Euro-Christian culture that had established itself strongly over the course of 150+ years, essentially unchallenged.

When one brings all the factors together, it becomes clear that this nation has been under an assault of sorts of a very decidedly non-random nature. No nominally intelligent, rational, and properly educated adult can look at the details and the totality of the events that brought America to its currently deplorable state and say that it was all just a big miserable (or happy if you are a progressive) co-inki-dinky. There is far too much force directed away from a giant and vastly-powerful mean that had proven its long-term staying power for literally centuries to just up and die in the course of a paltry 4 to 5 decades. To accept that this was all coincidence makes absolutely zero sense until one abandons the assumption of organic origins of force and substitutes it with that of the deliberately contrived.

The end game here? Simple compliance. Render Americans so ignorant, so wanton, so envious, so angry, so weak, so defeated in spirit that they finally throw up their hands in surrender and, well... COMPLY.

Nothing else explains so perfectly all that to which we have borne our witness, and it explains with great perfection why Chinese cops appear to be less the dicks that are their American brethren: they don't have to be. Why? Because their ultimate bosses know they have sufficient control through the voluntary compliance of their people. It therefore behooves those of the inner circles of power to be wise rather than foolish and give their slaves enough leash to remain compliant, but not so much that they begin to run amok. This ain't rocket surgery, folks. It is a simple, if not always easy, balancing act that the wise tyrant undertakes to keep his serfs docile without letting them get any silly notions.

The same may be witnessed in Europe, though to a less adept degree as those governors have so very much lost their ways. But Europe has cultural eyes different from those of the Chinese, with far less a history of oppression. Unlike with the typical Chinese, the germ of rebellion remains in the European, no matter how dormant and atrophied. That is why we see rioting in places like France and Greece when their governments threaten to pull back on the soma rations. The Chinese are longer and more thoroughly trained away from such outbursts. Note how rare a thing the Boxer Rebellion represents there. So long as the Chinese central governing authorities do not step too terribly far from good tyrannical sense, their hegemony is all but guaRONteed. Less so in Europe, but still sufficiently so that under "normal" conditions the police are instructed to be properly civil.

Not so in America because the American spirit absolutely must be broken and reengineered to Theire specifications for compliance so that the important busyness of governing the globe can progress like the cancer that it is.

Note my italicization of words rooting in "progress". It is to bring to attention a revelation I have had about "progressives" - the realization that "progressivism" in fact refers very directly to the evolution of a cancerous social state of existence. I don't know if the progressives intended that in their choice of moniker, but it would not surprise me were it to be the case.

To recap, America stands in the way of global hegemony, if for no other reasons than that we are so well armed and by that virtue represent to the rest of the world the POTENTIAL for rebellion, not to mention that we, the people, are the actual authority here. This shaft of actinic, coherent light issuing from the depths of the eternal blackness that the rest of the world MUST be stamped out or, as the globalization of the world via the internet and other technologies advances, the example to those swallowed up in the dark will remain and stand to give those otherwise hopeless people ideas the masters most definitely do not want them to acquire.

And so we, the people of the last ostensibly free nation on the planet, live under daily attack on so many fronts. We have been rendered largely a race of functional idiots. We have been rendered hopelessly lazy in many ways, fearful, timid, cravenly avaricious, devoid of basic sense, rationality, and fundamental reasoning skills. We now flee from responsibility, accountability, and care for the rights of those around us, all protest to the contrary notwithstanding.

In short, a great plurality of Americans have been deeply corrupted and thereby rendered hopelessly lost. And yet, enough of the spirit of freedom and rebellion against tyranny remains such that the pressure must be maintained whereby the police are still a bunch of dangerously amok criminals who luxuriate in the mandates handed to them to suppress their brethren in every minute detail, like bosses. And so it shall remain until such time as the last sparks have been snuffed out, we stand disarmed, and are driven into compliance by the hammer of the mighty State.

I do, however, have this feeling in my core of cores that America is now on a cusp. To which direction we teeter will be up to us, methinks, and will tell us that of which we are still made. My optimism there is not great, but it remains, however tentatively.

But let you not be fooled regarding the Chinese state of affairs. The ONLY reason you enjoy what appears to be less hassle from government is precisely because the spirit of rebellion and freedom are dead in that nation. You said it yourself: the people do not talk politics. Why? Because to do so in a voice other than that of the happy worker running hither thither with his little red book in hand is to invite disaster into one's life. If that is what you are going to do, then why bother flapping your gums at all. Better ye lay down and play quietly within the metes of the cage you were allotted by men with guns.

Do not mistake the arbitrary grant of deign from the large-fangèd master with a state of liberty. When that master deems you need dying, you die on demand. Or "reeducation". Or...

America is rapidly approaching that level of oppression, only less subtly so because of the need to eradicate. Only time will tell how it all shakes out.

I agree. In fact, that was part of my point, that the people of other nations, particularly China, don't seem to have as many quarrels with their government because they've already been subdued for a long time. America's only not quite that way yet because it's a relatively new nation. Right now, it is quite a lot more outwardly oppressive than other nations, but part of my point is that, if tyranny yields such results and is inevitable, then maybe it's actually preferable to the blind patriotism and deep-seeded belief that we're "special" held almost exclusively by the US (and the UK to some lesser extent).

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Same way that the Russians defeated Napoleon. Or for that matter how a bunch of poor, ill-equipped terrorists have been kicking America's arse. Armies are only good at fighting other armies. When your militia refuse to fight like them they cannot handle asymmetrical warfare. And that si if they anarchists don't organize their own military.

In Russia Napoleon faced an organized army. Guerrilla warfare often works, but that's when large parts of your country have been occupied.

 

[osan]

I agree. In fact, that was part of my point, that the people of other nations, particularly China, don't seem to have as many quarrels with their government because they've already been subdued for a long time. America's only not quite that way yet because it's a relatively new nation. Right now, it is quite a lot more outwardly oppressive than other nations, but part of my point is that, if tyranny yields such results and is inevitable, then maybe it's actually preferable to the blind patriotism and deep-seeded belief that we're "special" held almost exclusively by the US (and the UK to some lesser extent).

I understand your point, but cannot get on board with it. I carried a gun in NYC illegally for at least a decade precisely to spite those who told me I could not. Perhaps I am a fool, but given the things to which I have been witness, most in the form of history, but some up close and personal, I just cannot get myself to go along with the agenda of madmen and demons.


ETA and PS: that tunnel image on your facebook page looks like one in Philly.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Mm. That's right, you're still over there. You should start a thread some place and tell us how it's been for you over there. Like every day stuff. First hand cultural and governmental observations and experiences and whatnot. Something that isn't mainstream western fodder.

Good idea! I'll get around to that soon.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I understand your point, but cannot get on board with it. I carried a gun in NYC illegally for at least a decade precisely to spite those who told me I could not. Perhaps I am a fool, but given the things to which I have been witness, most in the form of history, but some up close and personal, I just cannot get myself to go along with the agenda of madmen and demons.


ETA and PS: that tunnel image on your facebook page looks like one in Philly.

No, it's in WV near my hometown.

And yeah, I can definitely understand why you wouldn't really be on board with accepting tyranny for the sake of peace. I'm not really either, but it's not my country here so I guess that means I don't have to worry about it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The problem libertarianism has is that ideals regarding individual sovereignty are only as good as the people who share that philosophy. --It's ironic. You need an overwhelming number of people who believe in the individual for individualism to thrive.

Otherwise, the collectivists just do away with you.

 

[osan]

No, it's in WV near my hometown.

Looks just like a tunnel in Philly I've walked down. Black as pitch inside and creepy as all hell.

And yeah, I can definitely understand why you wouldn't really be on board with accepting tyranny for the sake of peace. I'm not really either, but it's not my country here so I guess that means I don't have to worry about it.

It would be potentially hazardous for you step beyond certain lines, in any event.

BTW, what are you doing there?

 

[osan]

The problem libertarianism has is that ideals regarding individual sovereignty are only as good as the people who share that philosophy. --It's ironic. You need an overwhelming number of people who believe in the individual for individualism to thrive.

Otherwise, the collectivists just do away with you.

As I have mentioned here several times, the collectivist-authoritarians have EVERY advantage on their side, and because of this will likely win in the end. They hold all the... erm... "TRUMP" cards. Their positions rely upon all of the worst of human weaknesses, whereas ours relies on all the requirements of freedom.

It is the classic battle between entropy and order. Entropy always has the upper hand because order requires energy. Entropy asks nothing more than for one to relax and let go. Entropy does all the rest.

Think of the symmetry here between entropy and the progressive authoritarian-collectivist. Entropy represents the relentless march of all unaffected things toward EQUILIBRIUM, which is the march toward pure energy equality. That is to say, everything is literally the same in energy terms. This is precisely mirrored by the progressive, whose goal is the colorless, drab, and dreary sameness of all human condition. One of the great ironies lies in their endless whinging about "diversity" from the one side of their mouths, and their shrieks for "equality" on the other. Are they so stupid or psychotic that they cannot see the rankly ridiculous nature of their wholly self-contradictory position, or are they simply so wholly corrupted with this brand of pure evil that they don't give a tinker's damn?


Progressivism requires nothing more of a man than to let go of himself such that he naturally devolves into an inert, mentally bereft stooge. Freedom requires a man's strength of character and all the work and courage in the world.

The progressive's reward? Mere and idle existence where no effort need be expended by the beneficiary... at least not until the Master finally achieves the goal of total domination, inevitably leading said stooges to this:

The reward of freedom is itself - the pure exhilaration of flying and liberation from the burdens of trying to be your brother's political keeper.

 

[PierzStyx]

In Russia Napoleon faced an organized army. Guerrilla warfare often works, but that's when large parts of your country have been occupied.

In Russia Napoleon faced an army that continually retreated before him, slashing and burning all their crops and poisoning their wells. The Russians never had to fight Napoleon, they just watched him starve. Don't collaborate, don't obey and you cannot lose.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

In Russia Napoleon faced an army that continually retreated before him, slashing and burning all their crops and poisoning their wells. The Russians never had to fight Napoleon, they just watched him starve. Don't collaborate, don't obey and you cannot lose.

The Russians actually did fight the French.

I'm going to present two scenarios:

First, let's imagine that after World War II, Western Germany, France, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe became anarchist. They would be overrun by the Red army within months. They wouldn't have the means to defend themselves against an organized and coordinated Soviet invasion. Sure, millions of people could buy rifles, but how many people can afford tanks, planes, and anti-aircraft weapons?

Second, let's imagine that America became anarchist. A foreign nation would have an extremely difficult time conquering the entire country, but they could easily take small parts of the country without any major repercussions. After all, why would someone in Florida feel the need to help a town in Maine from being subjugated.

 

[osan]

In Russia Napoleon faced an army that continually retreated before him, slashing and burning all their crops and poisoning their wells. The Russians never had to fight Napoleon, they just watched him starve. Don't collaborate, don't obey and you cannot lose.

Napoleon didn't have helicopter gunships. Air power has been a game changer. One can only wonder how the other technologies might fare in other forms of retreat. I suppose we will not know until we try.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The Russians actually did fight the French.

I'm going to present two scenarios:

First, let's imagine that after World War II, Western Germany, France, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe became anarchist. They would be overrun by the Red army within months. They wouldn't have the means to defend themselves against an organized and coordinated Soviet invasion. Sure, millions of people could buy rifles, but how many people can afford tanks, planes, and anti-aircraft weapons?

Second, let's imagine that America became anarchist. A foreign nation would have an extremely difficult time conquering the entire country, but they could easily take small parts of the country without any major repercussions. After all, why would someone in Florida feel the need to help a town in Maine from being subjugated.

As far as I've been able to prove thus far, the Russian primarily sniped from the mountains. The Russian winter did the hardest damage to the Grand Armee. Pretty much the same thing happened to the Germans. Lesson to be learned-don't invade Russia in the winter.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

As far as I've been able to prove thus far, the Russian primarily sniped from the mountains. The Russian winter did the hardest damage to the Grand Armee. Pretty much the same thing happened to the Germans. Lesson to be learned-don't invade Russia in the winter.

While the winter was the main reason for Napoleon's loss, the Russians did stand and fight the French at least once at Borodino.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

While the winter was the main reason for Napoleon's loss, the Russians did stand and fight the French at least once at Borodino.

*thumbsup* Indeed.

 

[PierzStyx]

Napoleon didn't have helicopter gunships. Air power has been a game changer.

Tell that to the people kicking our ass in Afghanistan and Iraq with nothing but trucks and homemade IEDs. The only way you're going to be able to suppress a people in revolt without using actual human soldiers, which would then require an entire nation's worth of soldiers, will be when you invent combat ready AI. In other words, Terminators.

 

[PierzStyx]

The Russians actually did fight the French.

I'm going to present two scenarios:

First, let's imagine that after World War II, Western Germany, France, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe became anarchist. They would be overrun by the Red army within months. They wouldn't have the means to defend themselves against an organized and coordinated Soviet invasion. Sure, millions of people could buy rifles, but how many people can afford tanks, planes, and anti-aircraft weapons?

Second, let's imagine that America became anarchist. A foreign nation would have an extremely difficult time conquering the entire country, but they could easily take small parts of the country without any major repercussions. After all, why would someone in Florida feel the need to help a town in Maine from being subjugated.

They fought one battle. But that wasn't what determined the conflict.

You don't even need guns to defeat the Red Army. You just need a people unwilling to comply. Noncompliance cripples empires. The point of an empire is to gain power and wealth. When the people refuse to be exploited and refuse to obey you gain neither of those, and the empire becomes a self-destructive sinkhole.

The funny part about your second scenario is the answer is staring you in the face. People from all nations, races, and languages have been coming together for over a decade to fight the American military in the Middle East. And they've been pretty successful too. Whether you call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" the ties that bind a people together go beyond nationality, ethnicity, or even state.

 

[osan]

Tell that to the people kicking our ass in Afghanistan and Iraq with nothing but trucks and homemade IEDs. The only way you're going to be able to suppress a people in revolt without using actual human soldiers, which would then require an entire nation's worth of soldiers, will be when you invent combat ready AI. In other words, Terminators.

I will not say that Afghanistan would be a cake walk by any means, but has we gone in there with the intention of waging actual war, we would have wiped them out. This was the same idiocy in which we engaged in Viet Nam, only worse. The rules of engagement are so dangerously backwards that it is no wonder that we are having a time of things.

If it is war you seek to prosecute, then so that and do not pussyfoot around. You kill everything that moves without hesitation or mercy. Otherwise you are jerking off with other people's lives and that practice occupies no more sound a moral position than going in with the full intention of winning quickly and utterly.

Reminds me of the bathtub scene in one of Eastwood's spaghetti westerns where Eli Wallach's character shoots the bad guy from under the water. Afterward he says, "if you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk." It is pretty much the same deal with warring.

PS: And as for AI, if you knew what I knew about that particular subject, you would shit your pants, lock yourself in your house and never come out again. I'm serious. I wish I could tell what I worked on, but am in no humor to go to prison for the rest of my life. But I will tell you that 15 years ago the technology was both fascinating and utterly terrifying. I can only imagine where it must stand today.