Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Pussy Control

Column by Lawrence M. Ludlow.

Exclusive to STR

By referencing Prince’s song, Pussy Control, I intentionally draw a link between politics and the intentional trespass of bodily boundaries. And it really does boil down to bodily integrity and respecting boundaries when you closely examine the concept of human rights – something the political process is designed to destroy.

On one hand, liberal Democrats claim to be all about women having “choice,” but we are not supposed to notice that they restrict this precious choice to only one organ of the human body – and it’s not the brain. This is a good indication of how much liberals really respect women as thinkers and doers and producers and precisely what they value most about them.

And Republicans are no better. They, too, want control of you. But like the Democrats, they are dishonest about it. They sometimes claim they want to protect the unborn, but once the human soul is firmly planted inside of a free-moving human body, they will tax, regulate, and dictate just as much as the Democrats. That’s the meaning of paying taxes to support war, the insane war on drugs, boondoggle spending, the expensive halftime entertainments that honor the military at football games, and subsidies to a multitude of other spending and regulatory programs, just for starters.

What Is a Human Boundary?

As I learned by reading the thought-provoking books of Butler Shaffer, professor emeritus of Southwestern Law School, a clear understanding and respect for well-drawn boundaries between people is absolutely necessary for the peaceful and beneficial functioning of society. But politics is not about respecting boundaries or human beings at all. It is about controlling them by force. It is about using violence or the threat of violence to compel obedience. And when you rip away the euphemisms that were programmed into our brains from an early age in the mandatory monopoly government schools, that’s what it’s all about: compulsory obedience.

In other words, even if they seem to say that you are in control of your body, you aren’t. And the government takes ownership of everything valuable that you produce – commandeering the one non-renewable commodity of the human condition: our time. Because governments steal between one-third and one-half of what we produce when we are awake, they commit, in essence, murder on the installment plan, which I previously explained in depth. Once you realize that governments take about 25% of the product of your conscious hours each day, the magnitude of the crime becomes clear. If you would have lived to be 80 years old, for example, the government has stolen roughly 20 years of your life. Now if politicians and their zealous supporters took nothing from you until you reached the age of 60 and then executed you and then liquidated your possessions, people would rise up against the barbarism. Fearing this, governments do it the smart way. They create myths and turn countries into human farms, where the cow-like people are forced to surrender a proportion of their life product to be spent against their wishes in ways that create further harm, which in turn creates the need for additional government programs to fix what the spinoff damage caused by the first government program. The point is that governments do not allow you to “own yourself.” They deny your right to control your body, to make decisions over your own life.

Why We Don’t Think Outside the (Ballot) Box

But politicians make sure you never draw a connection between what they do and control of your body. They distract you and give new, less obvious names to these proofs of ownership. They call them income taxes, sales taxes, school taxes, etc. They claim it’s for your own good, but this is a distraction. Even a thief in a back alley doesn’t try to bamboozle you in such a shameless fashion. When they put the gun to your head, they are honest about the nature of their act. They admit they are raiding your wallet and ultimately raiding your life. But at least they don’t add insult to injury by claiming to “do good” by it or by claiming that they wish to “help” you or someone else. They don’t sink that low. Politicians do. The great abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, explored this in great detail.

Indeed politicians, through their Pavlovian monopoly government schools, have inculcated a set of myths, excuses, and lies that are triggered whenever anarcho-capitalists and libertarians challenge their notions about who really owns you. As a result, the booboisie instinctively comes to the defense of the government in true Stockholm-syndrome fashion. The slave defends his master: “But how would we build the roads, the schools, or X?” But the slave never excuses the back-alley thief on the same grounds, and after all, thieves have their own equally useful plans for your money. Don’t they? And when back-alley thieves take a quick poll among their members to gain agreement about targeting you for their crime, do they act any differently than people engaging in the democratic process of voting? Is the nature of the act really any different? Of course not. One definition of the voting process is “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” But we’re not supposed to think that way, are we? The public monopoly schools have ensured that we don’t. Such thoughts are suppressed, forbidden, discouraged. The fact is that democratic government is patterned after back-alley theft and – if you are disobedient and resist the act of being robbed by the state – outright murder. Perhaps the two events that defined democracy and voting best were the execution of Socrates in ancient Athens and the elections that led to Hitler’s control of Germany. Vox populi, vox dei anyone?

Government is a monopoly, and its entire modus operandi is based on violating your human right to your own body and to everything that you produce with your body. That’s why Democrats and Republicans oppose genuine human rights and substitute the bargain-basement versions of civil rights and rights to x, y, and z (usually a commodity, a job, or a service provided by another slave). They distract the easily confused populace into accepting a bunch of faux rights -- everything but the genuine right to your own life and what you rightfully produce with your body.

Fake Rights, Genuine Rights, and Trump

So what does this have to do with Pussy Control and the now-deceased artist formerly called Prince? Well, if they are correct in their hyperbolized allegations (a big “if” considering the alacrity with which Democrats are willing to invent and lie during elections), Donald Trump has a habit of violating personal boundaries – in his case the crotch area of women. But if the Democrats are so outraged by this, why aren’t they consistent about their rage? They complain about Trump’s alleged misogyny, but they are strangely silent when their candidate is guilty of the same thing. Hillary encouraged her husband (as president) to engage in the murderous Kosovo War, which was based upon a lie. She also supported the horrible lie-and-murder-fest that was launched against Iraq, not to mention those against Afghanistan, and Libya, and Syria, not to mention Yemen. What about the tens of thousands of women killed in those wars? Don’t those women count as victims of mass-misogyny? If you asked every female victim of Hillary’s long list of war crimes if they would rather be alive and have Donald Trump grab their pussy or if they would rather increase the height of the mountain of corpses that Hillary Clinton helped build with Obama and the Bush family for their friends in the military-industrial-congressional complex, I’ll bet they would rather be Trumped than dumped by Hillary and her death-squad neocons of Marxian origin (look up Leo Strauss).

Lets not forget that Hillary (along with her nameless female interviewer from CBS) chortled like a maniac in a nut-house straightjacket when asked about the murder and anal-rape-by-bayonet of Muammar Gaddafi under the regime of Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning President Obama, who also claimed that his is “the most transparent administration ever” (a claim that Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling, and Edward Snowden, among many others, would contest). Before we all choke over the “big lie” buried in these statements, remember this: when politicians steal from you in the form of taxes, dictate what you can or cannot ingest, dictate the terms of your employment, and everything else they control, they are violating your personal boundaries and – ultimately – are violating your bodily integrity. Taxation is murder on the installment plan, and it is certainly slavery. Politicians and other “legitimate authorities” regularly violate your boundaries. And if you are a woman and accept all of these as legitimate, you have surrendered your Pussy Control to all of them. So why complain when Donald does it?

10
Your rating: None Average: 10 (3 votes)
Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
Columns on STR: 36

Lawrence Ludlow is a freelance writer living in San Diego.  

Comments

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Butler Shaffer is one of the most important libertarian theorists, and his many books and articles have clarified the meaning and vital importance of well-drawn and visible boundaries in creating peaceful human relationships. That's why I mentioned him so early in my new article, "Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Pussy Control." If you found Stephan Kinsella's writings on IP compelling, Butler offers a real learning experience!
 
Among Butler's books are the following:
Calculated Chaos
Wizards of Ozymandias
Boundaries of Order
In Restraint of Trade
 
"Calculated Chaos" explores the problems of poor boundary definition and the link to complexity and chaos theory, "Wizards of Ozymandia" explores the warfare state, "Boundaries of Order" is perhaps his most in-depth writing on boundary theory, and "In Restraint of Trade" is a history of business attempts to circumvent and undermine the free market. You can't do much better than these!

Jim Davies's picture

Thanks Lawrence for a good suggestion.
 
Amazon is out of stock of Chaos (it should be possible to make a joke out of that) but I've downloaded Restraint for 3 bucks and the other two are e-freebies from Mises.org.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Thanks, Jim. And yes, Butler's books -- espeically the Boundaries... title and the one on Chaos have connected our ideology to findings in chaos/complexity theory and to swarm theory. Over the years, I've tended to link these up the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which seems like a kissing cousin to free choice) and to the concept of "free choice" (liberum arbitrium) in medieval Catholocism. Even the concept of the "singularity" or beginning of the universe seems possible to link to caprice or an either/or occurrence that seems eerily like free choice. All of this is highly speculative, of course, but what I find very positive about this is that the NAP and libertarian theory seems to coincide very closely with how the universe works -- an "as you like it" caprice or choice or honoring of individualy and lack of central direction in favor of spontaneous order.
 

Jim Davies's picture

Lawrence, your fine suggestion bore fruit. I got three of Shaffer's books and have now finished "Boundaries"; it was a very good read, with many beautiful insights.
 
Just slightly heavy going, I thought, though perhaps that's a symptom of my senility, but it was interesting that his comprehensive exposition of the importance of ownership rights was mainly utilitarian. To me it's simple: there is no logical alternative to self-ownership and therefore that premise is an axiom; but I don't recall that Shaffer ever made that argument. Instead, he proves conclusively that society makes no sense at all, and has no future at all, without it.
 
One high point, for me, was the way he quietly impoved on Locke's proposal about how property rights are acquired from unclaimed wilderness; to "mix one's labor" with the land claimed. Like him, I've always seen that as the best reasoning around, but still not as clear as one would like. What's to stop somone claiming an absurdly large area and then working just a corner of it?
 
Schaffer's improvement is to say that like everything else one does in interaction with others in a free society, the claim will be subject to the market. You might make a wonderful widget and price it at $1,000 - but if nobody buys it, nobody profits. So, he reasons, a claim of wilderness land will be subject to market approval; not of course a majority vote, but by large numbers of individual decisions about whether the claim is reasonable and to be respected. He supports that by reminding us that in the Californian gold rush, prospectors made claims and then left quantities of gold dust in open view within the staked area, with no police presence, and nobody stole it! No doubt the ubiquity of handguns helped, but basically the market was respecting the boundaries.
 
Thanks again!

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Hi, Jim. Glad you like him. The issue of claims seems to revolve around what you have transformed into productive use. And Kinsella would add, that you must make unambiguous boundaries.

KenK's picture

As one who has actually witnessed alpha males and the female reaction to their presence  Trump's comments seem pretty accurate, if tasteless. At an airport layover some playoff baseballers (around a dozen) came on in Chicago. Young, buff, famous, and multi-millionaires one and all, they had females of all types on the plane flush-faced and bothered. "Those guys are such assholes", one of my XX seat mates commented to another. "Oh yeah. I wish they'd come back here though." The ballers could have just walked up and groped, kissed, or done whatever with most of the women on that flight and gotten away with it too.  The only thing worse than being hit on is not being hit on. 

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

That's a hilarious comment! Thanks for the observation. Yes, Trump is tasteless, especially in unguarded moments, and I'm not voting for him even though he may crack open the "fixer establishment," but the over-the-top responses to his tastlessness -- the responses that want to punish him and his followers with more than a raised eyebrow and demonize and indict and shriek and obtain extreme retribution and ban him and his followers and compel agreement before you are considered part of the human fold -- seem way out of proportion. Frankly, it seems even unbalanced mentally if it isn't just a passion play of political theater acted out for the cameras. Or maybe it's just like those critters in the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." They KNOW you are not ONE OF THEM, and you must be pointed at and hunted down and killed (they hope). Way over the top, unless you're an unhinged alien from another planet. It is perfectly in line with the crazy interpretations applied to his remark about political resistence from the 2nd Amendment crowd. All that shrieking over tasteless remarks and not a word about policies that actually rain death upon civilian popluations in Asia and Africa and the Middle East. Somebody's got their priorities really messed up!

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

PS: I didn't mention it in the article, but there is a prudery here that H. L. Mencken would have identified with the alcohol prohibitionists and other "uplifters." These are the people who hate it when other people have a good belly laugh or can relax over a few drinks -- or even worse -- decorate their homes in bright colors or (God forbid) even wear them! It's the kind of behavior that wants to measure and regulate and dictate every act and emotional expression you may have.

Glock27's picture

Lawrence: Delightful piece. Captain Charles Vane of the Ranger said much prior to his being hung "{They said} Give us your submission and we will give you the comfort you need. No, I can't think of no measure of comfort worth that price." I may be off base, but to me Captain Charles Vane of the Range is probably the most free character ever constructed. Then I am no authority on this topic. You can't say he subscribes to any -ism other than his own.