The State is Plunder; The State is Slavery

The State is Plunder; The State is Slavery.

Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

—David Hume

But what gives rise to such popular opinion? Surely, it must be that there is some real or perceived benefit.

One must realize the extent to which the foundation of tyranny lies in the vast networks of corrupted people with an interest in maintaining tyranny.

—Étienne de la Boétie


Memorials and Idols

Memorials and Idols.

In the spirit of last weekend’s observances, I want to announce (again) my upcoming series on the standing army in the United States. It bothers me somewhat that I haven’t finished this project yet, but I would rather it be good and take forever to complete than mediocre because it was on time. The stakes are too high for anything other than that to be the case. If I’m going to risk alienating people, I better give them the full treatment and hopefully leave them no good reason, save for their emotions and irrational fears, to feel obligated to defend the status quo. Perhaps that is too bold of a goal to set, but I think it is worthwhile. If we are going to debate the role on the United States military, not just in today’s messed-up world, but across history, throughout the supposedly simpler, more black-and-white eras that have preceded the present one, then let us really have it out. It would be nice to have the series done by the Fourth of July, another patriotic holiday (that I enjoy very much, by the way, in spite of the idolatrous pageantry that sometimes takes place), but if I am delayed again, perhaps Veteran’s Day (AKA Armistice Day) or the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor would be more realistic (if unfortunate).

In the meantime, I will tantalize you with the promise of a piece that will rip into the memory of that last, great bastion of hubristic faux-conservatism, by whom I mean Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. A “great man” to be sure. But then so were, for example, Nebuchadnezzar, Attila, and Tamerlane.

I’ve done some preliminary fact-checking already and hope to get it up some time within the next week. Hopefully it won’t be anything too fancy, just the basics. I promise not to lay the vitriol on too thick.

Where Does the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Really Come From?

Where Does the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Really Come From?

Most gun rights advocates, even the ones who know that government is not the creator of rights, would say that the Second Amendment is where the right to keep and bear arms comes from. And you would think that we could, for the sake of argument, and because we know that most of them believe that rights are endowed by the Creator and all men are created equal, etc., etc., just drop the issue that they are technically incorrect about the idea that our legal right come from the Second Amendment, because we are all on the same side (on this issue). Right? Continue reading

Obama Shooting Skeet Photo Modification

Obama Shooting Skeet Photo Modification.

[I've got some great links below, so don't be shy to pull the trigger on your hand-held point-and-click apparatus!]

Well, the White House can’t avoid being tyrannical even in the little things. There is a photo out there of Obama shooting skeet and you are not supposed to make ANY modifications to it. Presumably on pain of death if the tone used on The White House’s flickr is any indication. I first came across the story here, learned more and developed my opinion here. Pileus has their own analysis here. And it looks like I am not the only one who decided to defy the will of the supreme leader upon first becoming aware of the dictate:

Continue reading

Slavery, Secession, War, Reconstruction, Segregation

Slavery, Secession, War, Reconstruction, Segregation.

More than a month ago, I asked Brandon Christensen at Notes on Liberty a few questions:

What’s your take on the whole red states mooching off the blue states thing? I keep hearing this whenever the secession question comes up. Those few libs who don’t want to confiscate Texas from the Texans say “good riddance, you’re a tax burden anyways!”

Continue reading

Patriotism versus Nationalism (versus Internationalism?)

Patriotism versus Nationalism (versus Internationalism?).

Also syndicated here.

Patriotism to me can be a love for the place where one lives, which need not necessarily exhibit irrational feelings of superiority or inherent exceptionalism. It also can mean a love for the exceptionalism (which may be incidental or dependent on factors other than race and geography) of a culture, often within geographical confines. It can extend to a willingness to die to preserve the place or the ideas in question. Patriotism can manifest itself in both agreement and dissent.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is blind love for a specific geographical or racial entity for irrational reasons, such as perceived inherent superiority or traditional feuding. Most often it is manifested in a subtle form of groupthink, the consequences of not conforming to include: ostracism, ridicule, bigotry, prohibitions of expressions of culture or language, and even confiscation of property. In extreme forms, and much less subtle, overt violence and genocide. It is often mixed with or perhaps intentionally covered by higher ideals. Democracy. Social justice. Equality. Brotherhood. Humanity. Liberty. To this extent is has an appeal with both the base and the virtuous, and is thus pervasive and not even all those who hold some of the views (for very few hold all of them) realize where they originate, or what their intended purposes are in the form they are presented.

Both ideas rest on that of taste. One acknowledges it as a personal preference and in relations with others it either defends from attacks (ideally not overreacting) or promotes its underlying ideas through persuasion and not force, and the other (according to its own idealism, though not always according to the practice of its leaders) seeks to foist it equally upon all (assuming, of course, you are one of the ones it suffers to live), the consequences and human rights be damned.

According to these definitions, which are my own but not too far distant from how they are defined by others, individual persons and conventions of persons, experts in fields and students of ideas, nationalism is very much the more problematic of the two.

And if you break it down further this is true for two reasons. One is the way it treats outsiders (geographical foreigners, ethnic inferiors, and so on). The other is the way it treats its own. Eliminating nationalism and replacing it with a generic internationalism (some would call this world government) only eradicates the first problem in the best case scenario. A highly decentralized internationalism (some would call this globalization) would go a long way towards reducing, and in some cases eliminating, both problems.

Amongst those that agree that globalization (even those afraid to use the word for fear of being associated with, or who recognize that the word has been misused by; those who either openly embrace, or whose proposals and ideas in some way perpetuate; world government) is a good idea, there is some disagreement about the way to go about it. I won’t go into arguments for or against (uni/bi/multi)lateral/free/managed trade or international law as it pertains to evident violations of human rights or other controversial subjects with well meaning and intelligent individuals on either side of the argument. I would instead like to delineate between potent attempts at world government and relatively impotent (but still menacing in their own right) attempts.

In the first category (potent) I would put imperialism, where it should be obvious that internationalism is in fact just nationalism applied to the world stage. Attempts such as this never fully succeed (partly because they may not really be conscious of what they are doing, or if they are, may have different goals in mind than that of tyrannizing the globe) in subjugating the entire world, but are potent in the sense that they cause much suffering and disorder and do so under a gradually increasing authority (in terms of both power and geography).

Also there is mercantilism. This often goes hand in hand with imperialism. Sometimes they have the same origin. Other times they just “benefit” from each other. And still there may be some combination thereof. In a sense, aspects of it have been practiced by every “traditional” empire going back to the Sumerians, but not until the rise of the modern, benevolent, humanitarian nations did it come into its own. France, Britain, the United States. And though not “true” mercantlism in the sense of application to one nation, several aspects of it have been incorporated into the cooperative efforts of the civilized nations (treaties and alliances; NATO being a prime example, the IMF another).

I wouldn’t even rule transnational corporations (in some instances being creations of, though not always faithful servants to, the state) and Non-Government Organizations out of having at least a small part in this category (potent attempts at world government), but at the present I would like to refrain from theorizing about possible conspiracies.

In the second category (impotent) I would put such things as failed attempts at international cooperation. Take the League of Nations or the United Nations. I do not deny that they were/are to be feared. But the reason has more to do with the stupidity and inefficiency of bureaucracy than it does the greed or violence of imperialism. But more than that it is not so much the bodies themselves that should be of concern, but rather the ways they may be used by the member nations in their imperialistic and mercantilistic endeavors. 

Things such as the World Trade Organization I would have a hard time categorizing. Besides, as I said, I do not wish to formulate arguments on the issue of trade nor delve into conspiracy theories.

New Discovery: Jacques Delacroix (I had not read his piece in its entirety until moments ago, so I hope no one thinks I wrote this as some sort of response to it) goes into all of this as well (I had no idea until, for the purpose of seeing what others had to say on the subject I did a search for “WTO” on my friend Brandon Christensen’s blog), but is far less charitable to these types than I am (I think mirroring his overall more establishmentarian variant of libertarianism).

Anyways, at this stage I am not a flag burner. But neither am I a flag worshipper. At the present, this one will do:

File:Flag of Montana 1905.svg