"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
The Demoralizing Nature of the State
Column by Michael Kleen.
Exclusive to STR
The problem of being both opposed to the modern state and being forced to live within the context of it is a vexing one, and one that has plagued libertarians, anarchists, and other like-minded individuals for quite some time. As previously mentioned in “A Pragmatic Approach to Anti-Statism,” there are two possible responses to this problem—one based on ideology and one based on pragmatism. Both are troubling in certain ways, although the ideological response leaves the individual with fewer options. While there are two possible responses to this problem, however, there is, in fact, no solution to this problem while the state remains in existence. Previous attempts to solve this problem have fallen short because they failed to fully recognize this reality, but it is a reality that, in itself, can become one of our most effective arguments against the modern state.
In his 1987 article “Libertarians in a State-Run World,” Murray Rothbard asked the question, “How can we act, and act morally, in a State-controlled and dominated world?” In answering this question, Rothbard emphasized the need to avoid two “traps”: ultrapurist sectarianism and sellout opportunism. In the former, a libertarian would go to extremes to avoid anything state-related, including walking on public sidewalks. In the latter, a libertarian could absurdly work as a concentration camp guard while still claiming to be a “libertarian” in principle. Rothbard’s answer to his question was that it is acceptable for libertarians to live within the state as long as they do not add to the state or participate in state activities that are explicitly immoral and criminal.
However, this is a little like saying that you oppose open heart surgery, but will get open heart surgery anyway because, hey, at least you’re not the surgeon.
In defending this position, Rothbard pointed out, “If one’s vocation is university teaching, it is almost impossible to find a university that is not owned, economically if not legally, by the government . . . . In such a situation, it is foolish and sectarian to condemn teachers for being located in a government university.” It may be foolish and sectarian to condemn them, but that does not make their presence at those institutions any less problematic. Personally, I have benefitted from state-run schools for most of my life. Most of my university education was paid for by Federally subsidized student loans, yet I am adamantly opposed to state-funded and state-controlled education. Does that make me a hypocrite? You bet it does.
In his effort to morally absolve libertarians of leeching off a system they did not create and which they have virtually no control over, Rothbard missed a more important point: The answer to his question of how we can act morally in a State-controlled and dominated world is, actually, “We can’t.” By diffusing accountability among everyone living within the state, the state makes everyone both a victim of and an involuntary partner in its crimes. For instance, if you believe taxation is theft, the state makes you an accessory to theft every time you go to the store because tax dollars are used to subsidize the products you buy. You are an accessory to theft whenever you use a public road in order to drive to that store. In order to pay for those public goods, you are charged a sales tax, your employer deducts tax from your income, and in April, you are given a choice between filing your income tax forms and going to prison. Most people choose not to risk going to prison, thus they become a victim as well as the perpetrator.
“There is nothing wrong, and everything rational, then, about accepting the matrix in one’s daily life,” Rothbard concluded. “What’s wrong is working to aggravate, to add to, the statist matrix.” What he should have said is that “accepting the matrix in one’s daily life” is a necessary evil; one that allows us to work and agitate as best we can in behalf of liberty without wandering into his twin traps of “ultrapurist sectarianism” or “sellout opportunism.” The fact that the state makes hypocrites of us all in the process should disgust any advocate of liberty.
Like the argument that slavery morally debased everyone who came into contact with it in the antebellum South, the demoralizing tendency of the modern state is an argument that should be added to our arsenal. The fact that, even while trying to mind your own business, the state forces (through taxation or denying private employment opportunities) your complicity in its actions, should effectively demonstrate its totalitarian tendency. With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, it is impossible to live within the matrix of the state and not add to that matrix. That is what makes the modern state so particularly insidious.
(2 votes)
PrintUser Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
You pointed out something that is continuously on my mind. The state has made it impossible for us not to "use" it. People may think of us as being "hypocritical" for driving on the government's roads and paying the government's taxes on gasoline, but in order to be "unhypocritical," one would have to give up driving, and even as you pointed out, walking on sidewalks.
I find the best way to be free is to avoid the initiation of coercion wherever possible, and to accept that freedom is a process, one that will inadvertently and unavoidably involve some aspect of the state until everyone else on this land mass wakes up.
One of the best things we can do is remind everyone willing to listen that every good or service currently provided exclusively by the government would exist, and probably in a better way, without the state's interference. Then, set example by finding your own unique, individual way to walk away from systems of coercion.
G'day B.R. Merrick,
As I understand it, they are NOT "government roads". They are, legally, (and lawfully), speaking, "free and public roadway[s], or street[s]; one[s] which every person [sic] has the right to use.[1]" The gasoline tax helps pay for their upkeep, and what one abuses[2], one should voluntarily pay for. Because of my free man status, I once had a very interesting discussion with some agents of a place called Sweetwater on this jurisdictional issue.
"In the United States, the fuel tax receipts are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation projects, so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee." ~ "Wikipedia"
_________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 728
[2] Vehicles, according to weight, cause damage to the highways (roadways and streets). There is no charge, even on toll roads, for foot traffic, because it causes no extraordinary wear and tear.
Well, that certainly makes me feel better.
:)
G'day B.R. Merrick,
Well, let me try to put your mind further at ease.
"The state has made it impossible for us not to "use" it."
Nothing personal, but here we have the perfect excuse; If "the state has made it impossible for us not to "use" it", then it is impossible for anyone to secede from it, i.e. withdraw from membership in it.
Really?!
So, if an Individual Secessionist, like myself, "uses" FRN's, for example, (the first most popular "excuse"[1]), or if (s)he "uses" the "highways", (another popular excuse), or if (s)he "uses" gasoline which has a "gasoline tax" added to it, (another very popular one), or if (s)he pays a "sales tax", (way up there on the "excuse" scale), that somehow magically subjects her, or him, to the dominion of a STATE, or the UNITED STATES?
Well, let's test a few "excuses".
If a RUSSIAN citizen comes to America and "uses" FRN's, does (s)he magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
If a FRENCH citizen comes to America and "uses" its "highways" (roadways and streets), or pays a fricken toll, does (s)he magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
If a SWISS citizen comes to America and "uses" a market, while visiting America, does (s)he magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
If an ISRAELI citizen comes to America and pays a gasoline tax, a bow and arrow tax (yes, there is an "hidden tax" on bows and arrows), or any other type of "sales tax"[2], does (s)he magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
Last, but hardly least, if a GRECIAN citizen comes to America and bears a child while on this portion of the continent known as North America, does that child magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
And, if a free woman or man does any of these things, does (s)he magically become a subject/citizen of a STATE, or of the UNITED STATES?
To all those who answer "yes" to any of the above questions, CONGRATULATIONS, your indoctrination is complete.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] This one is hilarious, because one of the most common solutions is to "use" your FRN's to buy gold and/or silver, depending, in many cases, on which one the guru is selling, or getting a kick-back from. So, what's the difference, "using" those FRN's to buy food, clothing and equipment, or "using" them to buy gold and/or silver?
[2] "Generally, the purchaser pays the tax, but the seller collects it, as an agent for the government." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1339
Pay close attention to that, "the seller...[is] an agent for the government, not the purchaser.
Interesting point, I guess I (and Rothbard) should have picked a better example.
I've had to pay a toll to walk across some bridges before. Really, if the state were adhering to Black's definitions, it would hardly infringe on our rights at all.
G'day dhowlandjr,
"Bridges", plural? You've had to pay a toll to walk across more than one then? And, were 'they' private or public bridges?
You also wrote, "if the state were [sic] adhering to Black's definitions, it would hardly infringe on our rights at all".
First, that's a bit like saying, "Canines hardly ever bite." What kind of canines, i.e. canidae, the wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, or the domestic dog?
What kind of "rights" do you have, dhowlandjr? If you call yourself a citizen of a STATE[1] then you have traded your natural rights, among which are your right, i.e. just claim to, your Life, Liberty and justly acquired Property, for a mess of man-made legal and political rights, and these "legal/political rights" may be "legally" infringed on with "due process of law", and "due process of law", my friend, is whatever the creators of these man-made rights and laws say it is.
And, second, the STATE doesn't adhere to Black's definitions, Black's definitions adhere to the STATE, as it were, notwithstanding that it is next to impossible in most cases, because adhering to the STATE is like adhering to quicksand, as we see in "A Final Word of Caution" in Black's Sixth Edition (c.1991), page iv.
"The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage. Accordingly, a legal dictionary should only be a "starting point" for definitions."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] "If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. It is, after all, his innate human right to rule over everything within the lower realm of imaginary creations." ~ tzo
"With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, it is impossible to live within the matrix of the state and not add to that matrix."
This may be overstating a bit. :-)
Say we have a ultrapurist libertarian, living as a hermit in a cave. One day he takes a walk, and happens to walk on a sidewalk for a bit. Is he now "adding to the matrix" (whatever that means)? Has his whole life become besmirched, sullied?
Well, I don't think so.
A reasonable way to approach this is to use private alternatives where available, go without "services" if you can, but if those choices aren't possible then use the government-usurped service without resorting to self-flagellation when you get home. As long as the net sum of your activities add up to anti-state, you are fine (the more, the better, of course). As to Rothbard, I think he actually stepped over the line. He didn't actually HAVE to be a professor in a government indoctrination camp.
"The problem of being both opposed to the modern state and being forced to live within the context of it is a vexing one, and one that has plagued libertarians, anarchists, and other like-minded individuals for quite some time."
"How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Therein lies the solution to "the problem". One may find himself "in" the modern state, i.e. "among" those who are a part of a state, but (s)he can choose not to be "associated with it", just as he may find himself "in" a riot, but may choose not to "participate" in it.
If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in [to be in association with] the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. ~ "A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government" by tzo [Bracketed information added]
The powerful message of the first sentence of that paragraph bowled me over!
If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in [to be in association with] the government organization.
The solution is not to "oppose it", the solution is not to be "associated with it". Again, tzo gives us a simple, power-filled message. ″All governments must have citizens in order to exist.″ And a simple, though perhaps not easy, solution, (one that, unfortunately, most of us, evidently, do not want to hear).
If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen.
As a member of the human race, YOU are entitled to freedom of association, whether those who wish to have dominion over you say you are, or not.
As a human being YOU have the right to, "Just Say No!" Every time you are asked, and every place you are asked, "Are you a citizen?", simply say, "No, I am not a citizen of the STATE OF ____________________, nor am I a citizen of the UNITED STATES!"
Good idea, except if Tzo or you want to drive anywhere and happen to get pulled over by the police without a driver's license, or try to leave or enter the country without a passport. Since you walked away from the state, you should probably get rid of all your cash too.
G'day Michael Kleen,
What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to leave the STATE? You are in way-y-y too deep for that to ever happen, my friend. We have wandered so far off the path that there is no easy way back. Sorry.
What is your strategy, brother, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you? If so, let me know how that works out for you.
And, where did, "get rid of all your cash", come from?! (Guess you didn't read the 4th comment to this thread.) Why on Earth would a free man do that?! Do you honestly believe that merely using Pesos to trade with while you are sojourning on that part of the Earth called MEXICO, somehow magically transforms you into a subject of the MEXICAN government?
You don't think that I've not been "pulled over by the police without a driver's license"? You don't think that I've not flown to Hawaii and back without any government ID whatsoever? And, you don't think that if I really wanted to sojourn on the part of the Earth known as CANADA, that I couldn't do it without voluntarily enslaving myself? If you do, you'd better think again, brother.
Let me explain something to everyone here. I don't expect anyone to do what I have done. I just get really tired of hearing that empty excuse, IT CAN'T BE DONE.
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that I suspect neither you nor Tzo have done it. Tzo talks about how easy it is, but I suspect that he, like the rest of us, is stuck in the same Statist paradigm. You talk the talk about just ignoring the state, but you don't walk the walk. I never made any such claims, hence all my reflections on how difficult it is for the average person to even consider such a thing. That's my point.
My point about the cash is that by using dollars printed by the state, you are agreeing that the state is a valid entity. The value of money, after all, is largely determined by the faith people have in the government that backs it.
That, sir, is hogwash. The only thing that using dollars validates, for me, is that people are willing to trade stuff for it, and the value of that fiat currency is determined strictly by what people are willing to trade for it, just like anything else. Proof of that assertion is very simple; if everyone refused to accept it in trade for their goods tomorrow, it would, that very day, be utterly worthless.
"You talk the talk about just ignoring the state, but you don't walk the walk." ~ Michael Kleen
That, sir, is a lie
However, it could have been the truth had you said, "you don't walk the walk, according to my [Michael Kleen's] standards", or some such thing.
But, I would ask you to fairly consider this; unconsciously, many people try to create, in their mind, the image of impossibility, perhaps to assuage their feelings of guilt for not giving up membership in the STATE. Or, they use the ploy, if you can't do it "perfectly", you can't do it at all. Another way they sometimes try to ease their shame is by denying that anyone else could possibly give up membership in it.
My natural law wife and I saw a movie last night, The Way Back, [highly recommended], which exemplifies this very nature in some people. Those who were "serious...really serious", or at least some of them, made it.
Janusz: "It can be done."
Mr. Smith: "What can be done?"
Janusz: "He knows a way through the wire. He has a plan."
Mr. Smith: "Shh. Who has a plan?"
Janusz: "His name is Khabarov."
Mr. Smith: "The actor."
Janusz: "Do you know him?"
Mr. Smith: "He has no intention of escaping."
Janusz: "What do you mean?"
Mr. Smith: "He is a liar. He's been here for years. Seeks out new arrivals. Me...when I first came here. He just likes to talk about escape. I've known others like him."
Janusz: "Why should I believe you?"
Mr. Smith: "Nothing is for nothing in the camps. From you he gets your energy, your spirit. You feed his dream of escape. You help keep him alive. He's nothing but a leech."
Janusz: "You are a cold bastard, Mister."
Mr. Smith: "I'm still alive, that's all I know. ... But if you're serious--really serious about making a run for it--I'm with you."
Skip to scene with Khabarov, the actor.
Janusz: "And we bring my friends."
Khabarov: "Your friends? You trust them?"
Janusz: "Of course."
Khabarov: "They won't all survive."
Janusz: "But they will die free men."
_________________________________________________________________________________
And, those who chose not to go? Well, I suppose most of them died as slaves in the gulags of Siberia.
Actually, I'm using your standards. You're the only one here who claims to be able to just ignore the state (or at least vicariously claims, through promoting Tzo's argument)
G'day Michael Kleen,
Again, you seem to be falsely accusing me, this time of being, "one...who...vicariously claims to be able to just ignore the state...through promoting tzo's argument". And, again, I must ask you the same previously unanswered question, "Do you even know me, Michael Kleen?"
For the record, I don't "just ignore the state", I am not a member of the state. BIG DIFFERENCE! And unlike tzo's recent suggestion to you, I do not merely say this to myself. I "walk the walk", at least according to my own well thought out standards.
I have not used any kind of government ID or Taxpayer Identification Number of any kind, I have had no driver's license, nor have any of my automobiles [an SUV, a truck, a few cars, a motorcycle and a motor scooter] been registered with any STATE, in well over ten years. I have never had a passport, I have no physical address and no mailing address, as a consequence of this, I have not received, again, in over ten years, even one piece of "junk mail" [smile]. I have not been "employed" in well over ten years, though I do work about five or six days a week, generally, (sometimes substantially less in the winter months, occasionally more in spring and summer), nor have I applied for, or accepted, any kind of government benefits/privileges that one must be a member of any political corporation in order to procure, since withdrawing from membership in the STATE. I do not, as another false accuser here evidently accused me of, who, obviously, also doesn't even f**king know me either, I might add, "live off of [my] mom, live in her basement and walk to [my] other 'anarchist' friends house (who also lives with his mom) to smoke weed and play Call of Duty", nor have I ever claimed to be an "anarchist", as this government trained troll seems to be suggesting. My nativity was in the winter of '48, (according to heresay evidence, since I can't remember it), so I am not "young" or a "tool", and I pay my own way for everything my wife and I have, or do. And, finally, I do not have to, "fight the urge to suck-start a pistol", as this childish moron also falsely accuses me of; I have no suicidal tendencies whatsoever.
So, you see, my friend, due to your lack of knowledge about me, you have gotten it completely 'bass ackwards'; it is because we, (my very brave natural law wife and I), have done it, to a degree unimaginable to most voluntary members of the STATE, (like yourself, evidently,) that we agree with many of, (but certainly not all, to which he can attest), tzo's messages.
I thought I might find camaraderie in this online community, but I was wrong, oh my, how I was wrong!
My wife asks me often, "Why do you waste your time and energy at HTB? It seems like no one there ever really 'listens' to anything you have to 'say'." [There are, perhaps, one, maybe even two, exceptions to what she is saying, but I dare not name them.]
To which I have, up until now, at least, answered, "Well, you never know, maybe some day I will find a kindred spirit here."
"So, how's that workin' out for ya?", she amusingly asks.
"I have all but given up hope, my dear."
It is well and good that you, "suspect neither you nor Tzo have done it", that is most certainly your prerogative, but it is quite another thing to emphatically state "you don't walk the walk". Do you even know me, Michael Kleen?
"I'm not saying it can't be done..."
So you are saying it can be done. Very good; that's a starting point, my friend.
I am indeed an ideological purist. There is some perfect form that needs to be identified as an ideal and striven for, even while it is acknowledged that it can never be reached. This is not unreasonable. No one has ever constructed a perfect geometric form or calculated pi to its infinite end but still, the concepts are useful. Perfect forms are models we have in our heads to guide us in the right direction.
This does not mean that one must automatically walk the walk of that ideology at all times, regardless of consequences. That would be suicidal, and if I have one ideology that overrides all the others, it is that I wish to keep on living—and even more—I wish to keep on living a quality life. See Aristotle.
You see, I am as pragmatic as you in my actions. I am old enough to know how the world works, and am not going to walk around with my rose-colored anarchy glasses on, selflessly trying to make the world a better place for my fellow man.
For me and my family, yes. For anyone who cares to listen, sure. For Joe on the street who actively believes that my beliefs are a danger to him and his government and his way of life, hells no.
The best analogy I can come up with is that I live in a territory that is held by hostile forces. The captive population doesn't really care one way or another, it just wants to get its Starbucks in the morning. How shall I best survive? That is one question, and it is eminently practical. How should things be? That is another. There is no reason in the world to lose sight of what should be, and there is no reason in the world to not remind people who have lost sight of reality as to what should be.
Criticizing a person who merely states what is the ideal and what is the direction we should move is a bit odd. Well, this is nothing new, and there will be those on one side and those on the other, and every individual has to answer to himself at the end of the day.
But what is so hard to understand? When someone points a gun at you, that immediate threat must be factored in with any ideals one might have before action is taken. Do you believe in private property or not, Michael? If not, we don't have much more to talk about. If so, what would you do if someone were to point a gun at you in an alley and demand your money? Are you going to walk the walk and refuse to surrender your private property? Or are you going to use the brains God or nature gave you and reason your way through the situation in order to survive? If you surrender your money, shall I taunt you for not believing in private property?
You are boiling my position down to a very simplistic, very inaccurate one. The previous paragraph is a Cliff's Notes version of how I reconcile belief and action. I don't believe I can make it any simpler.
What I claimed to be easy is to renounce your consent, and hence membership, in a violent organization. You do not wish to do so. Why? Because in reality, you will still have to pay your taxes, etc.? It is a naive and meaningless symbolic action? If I grant you this, I would still ask if the renunciation action is a right action, or a wrong one. Again, if you believe it is wrong to be able to voluntarily choose your associations, then we have nothing more to talk about. If you agree, then you agree that renouncing your membership, however little it changes anything, is the right thing to do. If you actually do wish to voluntarily associate yourself with the violent organization known as government, then for the third time, we don't have too much to talk about.
If you can't even say the words "I hereby renounce any voluntary association with the organization known as the United States government (and you only have to say the words to yourself—no one else has to know)," then Houston, you have the problem and only you can fix it.
If you don't actually hold the belief in freedom yourself, it is not possible for you to spread that belief. In fact, it is a hypocritical action. Preaching by the nonbeliever. Diet advice from the morbidly obese. Brotherly love seminars by the neo-Nazi. Freedom through Ron Paul. Not just doublethink and doublespeak, but doubleaction.
You believe voluntaryist society is a pipe-dream. I get it. But you have implicitly agreed that it would be a good idea. You just don't believe the ignorant masses will ever catch up, and so baby steps within the current paradigm are required.
But people are not as stupid as you may think. Ron Paul ain't going to babystep the people to more freedom, because he is operating from within the cesspool. Political action is one way trip away from freedom. Working within the system to promote freedom is an inconsistency that people understand at some level. Ron Paul wants to use force against us to make us freer. What?
The paradigm must shift. The starting point of all conversation cannot be government. Once people begin to understand that there are options beyond government solutions to problems, then they will figure the rest out rather quickly. People are not stupid, just miseducated. Also, if they are comfortable, they are not going to worry about details. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But the comfort is draining out rather quickly as of late, I think. Before too long we'll see if we get revolution or evolution. Evolve or revolve.
PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the [preceding post], are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. ~ Excerpted from Common Sense by Thomas Paine
Another great article Mike.
I love this part of the comments, "As a human being YOU have the right to, "Just Say No!"" I did not know citizenship was boiled down to an after school special. It may work if someone offers you crack in a boy's bathroom in 1985, but simply saying this does not make it so. I could also say I am an alligator and close my eyes, and wish REALLY hard, but I won't grow a bigger mouth or have green skin the next morning.
Many illegal aliens from Mexico would probably wish this was true, but citizenship is not based on the judgment of an individual, it is based on the judgment of the state. If one could supposedly wish to be no citizen, could one wish to change citizenship? Hey, I just became a Russian! One can change and even have dual citizenship, but it is still based on the decision of the state. For example, if I was caught backpacking into Iran, and I was picked up by one of their roaming camel patrols, I would eventually be labeled an "American spy" even if I say I am from nowhere [even though in my mind I am still Russian]. I know I am just a brain washed rube to you enlightened anarchists, but just hear me out.
If you claim to be a citizen of OZ (i.e. your imaginary state of mind) and decide to go off the grid, I hope you never plan to travel again (Canada does not recognize your state of mind, even if you make your own passport out of home-made paper), drive a car, get married, have kids, go to college, get a job, buy things with money, or a thousand other things that require ID, taxes paid, or use a paper form of currency. If you move to Alaska and live off of the land like Bear Grylls, I will give you props, but if you live off of your mom, live in her basement and walk to your other 'anarchist' friends house (who also lives with his mom) to smoke weed and play Call of Duty, you are just creating reasons to excuse your existence as a loser..."I am not unemployed man, I am an anarchist who doesn't want to be held down by the man." Sure. Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can fight the urge to suck-start a pistol.
Look, I know it sounds "cool" to be an 'anarchist,' [if you are young and call yourself a Republican, people think you are a little a-hole in a suit like Alex P. Keaton, and if you call yourself a Democrat, you are one of those tools in the cafeteria wearing a Che t-shirt and trying to get laid by playing a guitar in front of a bunch of chicks] but we all know that it is too altruistic to work. It is kind of like Communism. It sounds good on paper, but what they don't add into the equation is human nature. Humans can mess up a free lunch. Even if you guys succeeded in starting your own 'non-state,' you would be taken over by your neighbor with a standing army who will rape and pillage their way across candy land where the trees are made of peppermint and the clouds are made of cotton candy.
By the way, if anarchists are supposedly independent and hate the state, then why are they always protesting when the government decides to raise college tuition or get rid of welfare? Just look at the recent riots in London. The British government has to raise tuition rates for their government run schools, and "anarchists" were out by the thousands breaking other people's property and throwing rocks at the police. Hmmmm...they act more like Communists in my opinion. But, both ideologies are both too altruistic to work. Thanks for reading and I happily await your vacuous remarks.
"Congratulations, you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training. Now, if you'll just follow me, we have one more test to administer, an eye exam."
I give props to this man for trying: (remove spaces) http:// www.nola.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/05/ feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html
Michael Kleen,
You "give props to this man for trying: (remove spaces) http:// www. nola.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/05/ feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html"
So why don't you give "props", whatever they are, to me and my wife for "trying", I suspect, even harder than this man? What's the difference? Is it because he went to prison for not paying his federal income taxes? Is that what impresses you so much?
You know, Michael Kleen, had the roles in this little mini-drama been reversed. I would have apologized to you for EVIDENTLY having been mistaken about you, because it would be the integritous thing to do.
Speaking of which, you apparently missed these three questions, since you failed to answer any of them.
(1) What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to leave the STATE?
(2) What is your strategy, brother, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you?
(3) Do you even know me, Michael Kleen? [This last one I have asked twice.]
Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention.
Michael Kleen,
Still waiting for your answers to these six questions.
"Those that say it can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it." ~ Chinese Proverb
Leave it to Suvey to throw in odd quotes without stating a reasonable argument. I thought anarchists were good at thinking for themselves? I guess not.
"Sir, a secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a government by conspiracy; in which the people at large can have no rights. And that is the only government we now have. It is the government of which you are a voluntary member and supporter, and yet you claim to be an honest man. If you are an honest man, is not your honesty that of a thoughtless, ignorant man, who merely drifts with the current, instead of exercising any judgement of his own?"