Why Are So-Called 'Anti-State' Types Still Supporting the State and the Politicians Who

[PAF]

Why Are So-Called 'Anti-State' Types Still Supporting the State and the Politicians Who Wish To Rule?

By Gary D. Barnett
September 6, 2023


Once again, I find it necessary to write about the insanity of so-called freedom supporters (or anyone else) who voluntarily choose to continue to promote politicians for political office, as if keeping this heinous and evil system alive in the ‘hope’ that it will work this time around, is a viable option. Every single election brings out supposed anti-state individuals and groups, stumping for their candidate(s) of choice, without ever once considering that the entire system is not only flawed beyond imagination, but is, and has always been, and by design, controlled, corrupt ,and criminal since the very beginning. Choosing a new master in an ocean of government scum, will never lead to freedom and prosperity, as the problem is not who rules, but that rule exists at all.

It is brutally obvious that politicians, most all politicians, are either fully controlled, or are willing accomplices in crimes against mankind. If that was not so, things would not have worsened incessantly throughout all of time, regardless of which worthless trimmer got ‘elected’ (selected) in these make-believe and fraudulent ‘elections.’ Despite party affiliation or rhetoric, any elected politician is agreeing to uphold abhorrent State ‘laws,’ including the government-created Constitution, which is an assault against natural rights and liberty. Voting is a fool’s game, and is only allowed in order to trick the weak of mind into thinking they are controlling their own destiny. Anyone who still believes such nonsense, is a completely lost soul.

I always consider voting for a ‘master’ asinine, but I do not expect those claiming to be anti-state to fall for such nonsense. It matters not who is ‘elected,’ as it is the system that is rotten, so simply replacing one politician with another cannot ever bring a good outcome. The abolishment of government, or at the very least, the elimination of all power to regulate or restrict, is necessary if freedom is to exist.

The main focus of this rant is directed at those claiming to be conservative, ‘liberal,’ independent, or libertarian, who continue to support and promote this governing system by advocating the choosing of different candidates working within the very same flawed, dishonest, and horrendous system, that brought us this extreme tyranny in the first place. It is as if, whether innocently or by design, they believe that simply choosing a new face will put out the fire of totalitarianism, while leaving in place a dominant master ruling cabal. This kind of illogical non-reasoning is usually based on blind hope, or on knowingly presenting this ludicrous option so as to keep a corrupt agenda in place. Either way, it is always doomed to failure, and does nothing but perpetuate the enslavement of the masses.

There is no need to name names here, but as another ‘election’ cycle nears, a constant circus for the entirety of history in this country; an abomination against any and all things connected with liberty, the evil mainstream media, as well as most of the alternative media, immediately take sides to see which pre-chosen criminals will be in the game. I always expect this type of behavior from most political angles, but even those falsely claiming to be against the State also join in the party. So far this year, and the major ‘elections’ are still 14 months away, claimed anti-state types, including ‘libertarians,’ have jumped on board with many candidates, including republicans and democrats, lauding them as saviors of freedom. This concept is too ridiculous to accept by any who truly understand the great evil of the State and its manipulative, corrupt, destructive, vile, and immoral desires. Even if there is a ‘politician’ who seems sincere, a near impossibility in reality, he could never be effective by working within this system of total polluted dishonesty called government; a system that has failed miserably to ever create anything but terror.

It is as if, history, reason, logic, and reality, have been tossed away entirely, disregarding all sanity, in order to commit the exact same mistakes perpetually, while expecting a different outcome this time around. Given that this fake strategy has not only failed 100% of the time for eternity, but has also caused worldwide slaughter, murder, and economic devastation continuously, why is it so difficult for any sentient being to grasp the truth that is that all government and rule is the problem and never the solution?

I feel confident that my pleas for sanity concerning the fallacy of voluntarily picking one’s masters, will fall on mostly on deaf ears, as throughout my lifetime, and before, this nonsense has been repeated ad infinitum, and the results have not only never changed for the better, but have actually worsened, until society has now allowed the great possibility of eternal human suffering and extinction.

There is really nothing left to say, as practicing insanity as if it was a viable option in order to achieve freedom and enlightenment, is steeped in gross stupidity so extreme, as to defy all manner of rational judgement and intellect. To vote for rulers and government to manage your lives, with any expectation of gaining independence, is the epitome of confusion and ignorance.

There is but one big picture, and that is that the State is the mortal enemy of all that is good in this world. Perpetuating and supporting the lie that government is necessary, that control by the few is legitimate, that representative rule is needed, that independence leads to chaos, and that arbitrary laws enforced at the point of a gun somehow create harmony, is the epitome of a society consumed by irresponsibility, and one that seeks its own enslavement.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/09...e-state-and-the-politicians-who-wish-to-rule/
​

 

[Cap]

Lew's been having some really insightful articles of late. Thanks for posting. no rep to give, sorry bro.

 

[PAF]

Lew's been having some really insightful articles of late. Thanks for posting. no rep to give, sorry bro.

Thanks bro!

You know, as I read this article, I got to thinking. Ron, Rand, Tom and Justin each have their own subforum. If we are ever to promote true liberty, wouldn't it make sense to have a subforum for Gary Barnett?

There are many authors and videos promoting such, and all indeed have their value. But IMO, Gary is such an eloquent writer, hits it completely out of the park, and is consistent in publishing easy-to-read articles. Articles that if read, can be well understood, without spending hours reading and listening to extraneous fill.

I feel that it is time to break out of the "Left-Right" paradigm, and promote what it means to truly be free. The more one hears or reads something, the truer it becomes. In Gary's case, he already speaks the truth, so it is only a matter of promoting him to a wider audience.

 

[Matt Collins]

Author is a dumbass incapable of critical thought and/or intellectually lazy. Ignoring the government doesn't make it go away. Someone will run it, therefore we should try and make it someone who is as close to our ideals of limited government as possible. Both Ron and Rothbard held this line of thought unlike the author.

Now the federal government isn't able to be reformed. Its impossible to compete with the money printer. But state and local governments, on many issues, are indeed able to be reformed.

 

[acptulsa]

Author is a dumbass incapable of critical thought and/or intellectually lazy.

Really? Let's see.

Now the federal government isn't able to be reformed. Its impossible to compete with the money printer.

Isn't that what he said? In fact, wasn't that his exact point?

If having that opinion makes him all those things, what does it make you?

 

[Matt Collins]

Really? Let's see.



Isn't that what he said? In fact, wasn't that his exact point?

If having that opinion makes him all those things, what does it make you?

No, his opinion about just ignoring the government is the idiotic thing.

 

[TheTexan]

Author is a dumbass incapable of critical thought and/or intellectually lazy.

Kinda, yea. It's pretty easy to say government and politicians are bad and we shouldn't support them. But that's not actionable. It doesn't provide a solution.

The solution, is secession.

We got into this mess because we lost the right (and will) to secede.

The only way to get out of this mess, is to re-gain both the will and the right to secede.

The damage that Lincoln did in breaking people's will, is hard to reverse, but it's the only productive way forward.

 

[PAF]

No, his opinion about just ignoring the government is the idiotic thing.

So whatever draconian laws/statutes are signed by some politician, you will simply obey ---- until later in time if/when/never it is "voted" out?

Here are two opposite extremes:

1. If nobody is around, or maybe there is, would you walk 4 blocks out of your way to cross the street instead of J-walk? Or is that different?

2. If they had their way and passed a "law", would you march right down to the hospital and have a sex change operation? Or is that different?


So what's the difference if I do that for any/all other laws that government tries to impose on me? Of course there are things that we are forced to do [even that is debatable under risk versus reward], but the more people who oppose prohibition government while waiting around for laws to be changed, the better off we will be.

 

[Cap]

Really? Let's see.



Isn't that what he said? In fact, wasn't that his exact point?

If having that opinion makes him all those things, what does it make you?

A pinky ring owner?

 

[PAF]

Author is a dumbass incapable of critical thought and/or intellectually lazy. Ignoring the government doesn't make it go away. Someone will run it, therefore we should try and make it someone who is as close to our ideals of limited government as possible. Both Ron and Rothbard held this line of thought unlike the author.

Now the federal government isn't able to be reformed. Its impossible to compete with the money printer. But state and local governments, on many issues, are indeed able to be reformed.

Ron Paul: “Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders, and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior."


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?564231-Ron-Paul-for-President!

 

[Matt Collins]

The solution, is secession.

Well I agree that would be ideal, but they won't just let you leave. Also if you notice the boundaries are not geographic or regional anymore, they are urban vs non-urban. Pretty hard for states to leave the union when the cities in those states still want to be a part of the union.

The only way to get out of this mess, is to re-gain both the will and the right to secede.

The damage that Lincoln did in breaking people's will, is hard to reverse, but it's the only productive way forward.

There are other things that can (and must) be done prior to that. First off, getting your state and local governments on the right track, if possible. Or moving to a more liberty-friendly state. Also I think pushing for nullification/interposition on the state level against the feds is the best bet. The reality is that DeSantis is the best Governor in the country right now and he won't even interpose himself against the feds in support of his own citizens. So there is a long way to go on that particular front.

What I see happening is more of that eventually, and also a currency crisis or at least decline over the longer run. The federal government has the unlimited money printer. Once that is no longer an effective tool, their options are very limited. I think things will just fizzle but that will take decades if not centuries.

 

[Matt Collins]

So whatever draconian laws/statutes are signed by some politician, you will simply obey ---- until later in time if/when/never it is "voted" out?

Depends on the situation.


I don't particularly like jail, death, or fines, so I'm not inclined poke the bear in that manner.


There are many tools in the toolbox to help win back our liberties. Historically violence should only be the last resort after all other options are exhausted.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul: “Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders, and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior."


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?564231-Ron-Paul-for-President!

I love Ron but he is dead wrong here which is painful to say. Everything the government does comes from politics, and you can only control the government with political power. If you don't have political power then the government will just run over you and you won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[PAF]

Depends on the situation.

I gave you two scenarios that you didn't respond to:

1. If nobody is around, or maybe there is, would you walk 4 blocks out of your way to cross the street instead of J-walk? Or is that different?

2. If they had their way and passed a "law", would you march right down to the hospital and have a sex change operation? Or is that different?

There are many tools in the toolbox to help win back our liberties.

I live by this quote quite often: "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty."

Historically violence should only be the last resort after all other options are exhausted.

I never said a thing about violence. But if #2 above, for example, or mandated vaccines, I would in fact defend myself by whatever means necessary, and the law wouldn't even be a consideration.

Would you abide by "The Law"? Or would you take the initial first step of an operation procedure, or take the jab, while working to change the law"?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I love Ron but he is dead wrong here which is painful to say. Everything the government does comes from politics, and you can only control the government with political power. If you don't have political power then the government will just run over you and you won't be able to do anything about it.

It’s a matter of emphasis. More context from Ron Paul’s Farewell Address:

The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it.
...
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
...
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
...
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-ron-pauls-farewell-address-to-congress

And we should not ignore the elephant in the room. In addition to working on coalitions in Congress, and having the opportunity to question bureaucrats, especially from the Fed, Ron Paul was able to explode his message by running for POTUS. His greatest success was achieved via the political process.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Author is a dumbass incapable of critical thought and/or intellectually lazy. Ignoring the government doesn't make it go away.
...

That’s one way to put it. It would seem that an unending stream of insults from such an obviously intellectually and morally superior person was not enough to convince you of your own illogical, insane, foolish, weak-minded, asinine, stupidity?

Once again, I find it necessary to write about the insanity of so-called freedom supporters (or anyone else) who voluntarily choose to continue to promote politicians for political office, as if keeping this heinous and evil system alive in the ‘hope’ that it will work this time around, is a viable option.
...
Voting is a fool’s game, and is only allowed in order to trick the weak of mind into thinking they are controlling their own destiny. Anyone who still believes such nonsense, is a completely lost soul.
...
I always consider voting for a ‘master’ asinine, but I do not expect those claiming to be anti-state to fall for such nonsense.
...
This kind of illogical non-reasoning is usually based on blind hope, or on knowingly presenting this ludicrous option so as to keep a corrupt agenda in place.
...
There is really nothing left to say, as practicing insanity as if it was a viable option in order to achieve freedom and enlightenment, is steeped in gross stupidity so extreme, as to defy all manner of rational judgement and intellect.

 

[TheTexan]

Also if you notice the boundaries are not geographic or regional anymore, they are urban vs non-urban.

Secession doesn't immediately solve that divide but it does in the long term. Empower the states with sovereignty and they will differentiate from each other. As that differentiation widens, people in urban areas will migrate to states best suited for them, and the cities will begin to more closely reflect the cultures and ideals of each individual state.

There are other things that can (and must) be done prior to that. First off, getting your state and local governments on the right track, if possible.

This is not a practical goal that can be achieved while we are slaves to a federal government that abhors these goals.

It's also not practical without the political will to achieve these things. I hate to break it to you, but the political will for liberty is very small. For it to grow it must be given the space to grow, and that space can only be provided via sovereignty.

Even if this country was entirely uniform (it isnt) I would still put secession forward as the answer.

For a population to learn freedom, they must be free. Until we release ourselves from Lincoln's shackles, we will forever be locked in his dark, depressing basement, where no freedom can be found, imagined, or hoped for.

 

[Matt Collins]

Secession doesn't immediately solve that divide but it does in the long term.

It depends. In many states the urbanites outweigh everyone else. And it also depends on how the legislative districts are proportioned.

Empower the states with sovereignty and they will differentiate from each other. As that differentiation widens, people in urban areas will migrate to states best suited for them, and the cities will begin to more closely reflect the cultures and ideals of each individual state.

I would like to think so, but I think you may be naieve here.

Obviously if secession were an option then the feds would have to behave a lot more. And I would like to see some secession or some balkanization. I think breaking up into regional alliances makes a lot more sense. But it will only happen one of two ways.... the feds become so incredibly onerous that there becomes a fight to separate (think President Newsome locking conservatives in camps en masse) or the federal currency collapses. Right now the feds steal a ton of wealth from the states and then dole it back out with strings attached. It's impossible to compete with a money printer.

This is not a practical goal that can be achieved while we are slaves to a federal government that abhors these goals.

Yes and no. In some states there is no hope (CA, NY, IL, MA, etc).

But in many others, yes, a small group of individuals can absolutely change things on specific issues in their legislature. For example I am personally responsible for getting a form of permitless carry passed in 3 states, and I am also responsible for killing legislation in other multiple states. And I have done things on my local county level governments too.

It's also not practical without the political will to achieve these things. I hate to break it to you, but the political will for liberty is very small. For it to grow it must be given the space to grow, and that space can only be provided via sovereignty.

It doesn't take a majority. How many people do you think honestly believe there should be no firearm permitting? Probably less than 10% yet now half of the states have it.

Government policy isn't made by majorities.

 

[TheTexan]

Government policy isn't made by majorities.

While there are exceptions, the government we have today does generally reflect the will of the majority.

While it is possible for a minority to exert some level of influence, it tends to be limited in scope, and expensive in terms of time and money to maintain.

The natural state of government is to reflect the will of the majority, and attempts to subvert that will almost always end in failure.

 

[Matt Collins]

While it is possible for a minority to exert some level of influence, it tends to be limited in scope, and expensive in terms of time and money to maintain.

Duh... it isn't easy... and it isn't supposed to be easy... changing government policy is supposed to be difficult. You don't want it to be able to change on whim.

The natural state of government is to reflect the will of the majority, and attempts to subvert that will almost always end in failure.

Not if it's done right.