‘When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing’

‘When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing’ | Ron-Paul-Quote-Facebook | Government IRS Ron Paul Sleuth Journal Special Interests

The quote in the headline comes from Ron Paul, and it should be the goal of every conservative lawmaker in the entire country.  When professional politicians tell you that they are in favor of reforming the tax code or reducing taxes a little bit, essentially what they are telling you is that they are perfectly fine with the status quo.  They may want to tweak things slightly, but in general they are content with big taxes, big spending and big government.  I spent an entire year getting a Master of Laws in Taxation at the University of Florida Law School, and in my opinion the best thing that Congress could do to the tax code would be to run it through a shredder and put it in a dumpster.  As I noted the other day, the tax code is now more than four million words long and it takes Americans about six billion dollars a year to comply with it.  Those that believe that they are offering the American people a “solution” by proposing to tinker with this abominable mess are just fooling themselves.

The only long-term solution that is going to work is to get rid of the entire steaming pile of garbage.  Ron Paul understood this, and we would be very wise to take his advice.  The following is the full version of the quote from the headline above…

“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.”

If I run for Congress, and I am very strongly leaning in that direction, this is what my position on taxes is going to be.

Of course we are going to have to dramatically change the composition of the House and the Senate in order to get this done, so in the short-term we may have to focus on reducing tax rates and the size of the tax code by as much as possible.

But ultimately, the goal will be to abolish the tax code and the IRS altogether.

We have become so accustomed to an income tax that many of us couldn’t possibly imagine a society without one.  But today there are seven states that do not have one, and that includes very big states such as Texas and Florida.  And from 1872 to 1913, there was no federal income tax.  When a federal income tax was finally reinstituted in 1913, the rates were extremely low.  The following comes from Politifact

The 1913 law imposed a tax of 1 percent on income up to $20,000, for both individual and joint filers. However, exemptions from the tax — the first $3,000 of income for individuals and the first $4,000 for joint filers — meant “virtually all middle-class Americans” were excused from paying, according to W. Elliot Brownlee’s book, Federal Taxation in America. The law also put in place a graduated surtax on incomes above $20,000; the highest rate paid, 7 percent, applied to Americans making more than $500,000 (about $11.4 million in 2011 dollars).

So how did things go for our country during the four decades when there was no federal income tax?

Well, if you regularly follow my work you already know the answer to that question.

That period of time just happened to be the best period of economic growth in U.S. history.

Oh, but we wouldn’t want to change from the way things work today, would we?  After all, the U.S. economy has grown at a blistering average yearly rate of just 1.33 percent over the past decade, and we are actually behind that pace so far in 2017.

If you want a no growth economy and a steadily shrinking middle class, then our current system is perfect for you.

But I believe that we can do so much better.

So how are we going to fund the federal government if we eliminate the income tax?

Well, the truth is that taxing individual incomes accounts for only 46.2 percent of all federal revenue.  The federal government has lots of other ways that it raises money, but of course we wouldn’t be able to keep the massively bloated federal bureaucracy that we have today.  We would need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government to an appropriate constitutional level, and of course most politicians on the left would resist this greatly.

There are some federal agencies and programs that we could completely eliminate altogether.  If it was up to me, the EPA, the Department of Education and the BATFE would be good places to start.  Any essential functions that they are currently performing could easily be absorbed by other agencies.

There are very few politicians in our entire country that will still talk like this, because our leaders have taken us so far down the road toward “a social state” that most Americans don’t even know what “limited government” looks like anymore.

I would like to share with you an old newspaper clipping that was posted to Facebook by Get Involved, You Live Here

‘When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing’ | Beware-The-Useful-Idiots-Facebook-460x475 | Government IRS Ron Paul Sleuth Journal Special Interests

Over the past several decades, the left has made a tremendous amount of progress toward achieving the goals that Saul Alinsky originally outlined in Rules for Radicals.  Obamacare was a giant step toward federal control over our healthcare system, poverty is exploding as the middle class shrinks, we are nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt, our public schools have become left-wing indoctrination centers, and God has been pushed out of almost every corner of public life.

We should be very thankful that we got Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, but many radical leftists consider Trump to simply be a bump in the road on the way to completely eradicating our way of life.

They want to criminalize what we believe by making it “hate speech”, they want to steal the minds of the next generation by dominating our system of education, and they want to use government institutions and the legal system as tools to completely reshape society in their image.

The only way that we are going to defeat this tyranny is if we stand up and fight for our country, and that is precisely what we are going to do.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post ‘When I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing’ appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

We Want A Government So Small That We Can Barely See It

We Want A Government So Small That We Can Barely See It | Aerial-View-Of-Washington-Public-Domain-700x540 | Government Government Control

We need to fundamentally redefine the relationship between government and the people in this country.  Today, we have become so accustomed to big government that most of us can’t even imagine another way of doing things.  And I am not just talking about the federal government either.  Even in a red state like Idaho, the state government has become a sprawling bureaucracy that requires 3.5 billion dollars a year to keep going.  And all over the country many local governments are “supersized” as well.  But this isn’t the way that our Founding Fathers intended for things to work.  They intended to create a society where government is very limited and where liberty and freedom are maximized.

Back in 2015, U.S. Senator Rand Paul made headlines all over the country when he tweeted that he wanted “a government so small I can barely see it!”

In my opinion, we need 99 more senators that see things the exact same way.

The reason why we want the federal government to be so limited is because there is an inverse correlation between the size of government and the level of freedom and liberty that we are able to enjoy.  In other words, every time government gets bigger, we lose more freedom and liberty.  And when government becomes the center of virtually everything (like in North Korea), the result is nightmarish tyranny.

We have been trained to believe that government should be working to solve all of our problems, but the truth is that much of the time government is the problem.

Those that are constantly advocating big government solutions to everything are actually promoting an anti-liberty agenda.  If we can get people to start understanding this, it will result in an enormous political shift in this country.

We need to start having more conversations about the proper role of government in our society.  Government does have a role, but that role should be very limited.  I really like how Idaho State Representative Karey Hanks made this point just recently…

What is the “proper function” of government? It is debated on TV, social media and election campaigns. Many people don’t care much, as long as they have gas in the car, a paycheck, food to eat and a little spare time. Life is good! How many people actually take the time to vote in any given election?

Laws were established by our Founding Fathers to preserve freedom–not restrict it. They believed laws should be enacted only to protect against physical harm, theft and involuntary bondage. Government should not be a means of compelling citizens to perform acts of charity against their will—“redistribution of wealth” in current terminology.

“Redistribution of wealth” is one of my pet peeves.  The federal government should not be taking trillions of dollars away from some Americans and giving that money to other Americans.

But that is precisely what is happening, and if our Founding Fathers could see what is happening today they would be rolling over in their graves.

Of course the centerpiece of the system is the income tax.  In 1913, a very basic income tax was introduced and most Americans were taxed at a rate of only one percent.  But of course once the progressives get their feet in the door they are never satisfied, and so our tax system has just gotten bigger and more complicated with each passing year.

According to Forbes, Congress has made more than a change a day to the tax code since 2001, and at this point it is nearly four million words long…

How complicated? Since 2001, Congress has made nearly 5,000 changes to the Tax Code. That’s more than a change per day. The Tax Code is now about four million words, nearly as long as seven versions of War and Peace or the novel version of Les Miserables and just under four times the number of words in all of the Harry Potter books put together.

Americans spend approximately six billion hours complying with the tax code every year.

That breaks down to 8,758 lifetimes spent on taxes every 12 months.

How much better would our society be if the American people could spend all of that time on more productive matters?

If I run for Congress, and if I end up winning, one of my long-term goals will be to completely eliminate the income tax.  But we will need a lot more liberty-minded people to win seats in Congress in order for that to happen, and so I am encouraging as many as possible to consider running in 2018.

We also need to dramatically reduce the red tape that is absolutely killing entrepreneurs and small businesses all over the nation.

And it isn’t just the federal government that is doing this.  Sometimes it is state and local governments that are the worst offenders, and I want to share one example with you from right here in Idaho

Miranda Hale, Nadia Saakyan and Micalah Howard are three innovative women who launched a mobile makeup-application business that fits today’s busy lifestyles. The trio came up with an original idea: Bring the make-up studio to help brides feel just a little more beautiful on their special day, no matter the location.

Yet, senseless state regulations ruined the trio’s dream. Idaho rules don’t allow the three to apply makeup anywhere outside of a licensed and inspected beauty salon.

This regulation, and hundreds more like it, were not built for the modern economy. Outdated regulations stifle innovation and kill jobs.

This is the sort of thing that I would expect to see in California, but unfortunately it is happening right here in my state.

If we sit back and do nothing, then nothing is going to change.  The reason why we have so many rules and regulations is because control freaks tend to be greatly attracted to the world of politics.  And once they get into positions of power, they love to lord it over the rest of us and impose as many rules and regulations as they possibly can.

It is time for those of us that believe in constitutional values to rise up and take our country back.  It won’t be easy, but if we want this nation to have any sort of a future at all we have no choice but to act.

The post We Want A Government So Small That We Can Barely See It appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All?

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-vs-minarchy | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Anarchy vs. minarchy: which is better? Can we be free with a limited government? Can we be safe in a stateless society? Is voluntaryism the answer?

Anarchy vs minarchy is the contrast between the idea of a society with no government (anarchy) or a small, limited government (minarchy). For many awake and aware people, the current state of the world is so dysfunctional that they have gone beyond the point of trying to justify our current governmental structures. For this growing number of people of all nations and cultures, it’s no longer about left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, socialism vs conservatism or all the other false dichotomies that abound on the political spectrum. For many of us, there’s simply no point in investing time and energy into an illusion – the political illusion – while pretending it actually makes a difference. Why argue who is going to be the better slavemaster or the lesser of 2 evils? We are really only left with 2 choices: between having a small government or having no government. So which would be better for humanity, minarchy or anarchy?

Definitions of Anarchy, Minarchy and Voluntaryism

First of all, the words anarchy and minarchy come from the Greek words “an-” (meaning without), “arkhos” (meaning rule, chief or ruler) and the Latin prefix “min-” (meaning small). Thus, anarchy is a society or nation with no rules (i.e. government-sanctioned law), rulers or a ruling class, whereas minarchy is one with a minimal amount of rules, rulers and a ruling class. Care must be taken not to confuse minarchy with monarchy! Also, instead of the term anarchy, it may be more apt to use the word voluntaryism, which describes a stateless society where all human interactions are voluntary and where no central authority exists to make or enforce laws.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-voluntaryism-479x240 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Can we set up a society where every interaction is voluntary? That is the goal of anarchy or voluntaryism.

Anarchy ≠ Chaos

Before we begin, it’s important to address a common misconception, that anarchy = chaos. Anarchy does not equal chaos! You can still have organization, cooperation, harmony and trust in a society where there is no central authority. It is up to the individual members to act in such a way to create that society. You can even have hierarchy in a voluntary society, where members voluntarily choose to structure an organization like that (e.g. for purposes of speed, coherence and efficiency). However, such hierarchy would never be forced on anyone, because the organizations containing it would be voluntary associations.

Likewise, it’s important to stress that anarchy does not mean utopia either. It’s naive to think that everyone will just magically get along and there will be no criminals or evil if we just remove government. However, as I will get to later, the point is about humanity evolving in terms of responsibility so that we can face these problems in a different way.

The Pros of Minarchism: Arguments For a Small, Limited Government

Many people who become anarchists or voluntaryists first become minarchists, because the idea of imagining the abolition of all government in a single step is very daunting for most. Minarchists believe that we can’t do away with government altogether, because it’s necessary and fulfills too many vital, essential roles that would be difficult or impossible to otherwise fulfill. These are the top reasons and justifications usually proposed for minarchy:

– Need for a central register in society (e.g. to be the one “official” list of titles to property, which plays a key part in dispute resolution);

– Need for central planning and centralized authority for good organization;

– Need to have some mechanism to control and offset other power gangs in society, such as the Mafia and the Corporatocracy;

– Criminal justice (i.e. catching criminals, providing the arena and the judge for trials of suspects); and

– Health safety protection (e.g. forcing quarantine in case of an outbreak).

Some people also advance the claim that government (and governmentally-approved corporate structures) are the reason that Western nations evolved faster than other nations. In this entertaining debate at Anarchapulco, Mark Skousen makes the points that we need minarchy to force a criminal suspect to actually come to the courtroom and stand trial, to ensure quarantine in emergency situations, and to enforce eminent domain (the right government takes upon itself to be able to force buy anyone’s property for national and municipal organizational purposes).

The Cons of Minarchy: Arguments Against a Small, Limited Government

His opponent, Larken Rose, vehemently denies that minarchy is a good idea. He points out the following reasons why:

– Minarchists advocate the “arch” or the existence of a ruling class. All monarchists are statists. They still believe in external authority. They still advocate some kind of government; they just think or want that such a government only do what they want it to do;

– Who decides what the “minimum” amount of power is that a government is allowed to wield? It will always be arbitrary;

– The constitutional limits written down to supposedly restrain minarchy governments don’t work. No one pays attention to the limits, and it’s ultimately not possible to enforce them;

– A constitution almost always provides for its own amendment, so anyone can “legally” and “constitutionally” change the entire constitution piece by piece. Look at how the Weimar Republic “legally” gave Hitler massive power and became the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany;

– Practically speaking, has minarchism ever done what it was promised to do? Like communism, it may be good in theory, but has a government EVER existed that only protected individual rights and never grew larger or out-of-control? Look at the US experiment: it was based on the theory of limited government, but has now grown to become the biggest empire in the history of the world (far more tyrannical than King George ever was), engaging in routine tyranny such as mass surveillance, theft via mandatory and excessive taxation, torture, assassination, foreign intervention and continuous imperialistic war around the world;

– Morally speaking, it’s fundamentally wrong (and impossible) to delegate rights you don’t have. How can a government claim any moral right to do what people cannot morally do? Where did government get its supposed right to steal, punish, imprison and kill, when it’s only made up of people, and no single person has that right himself or herself? Why does “government” suddenly have magical and extraordinary moral rights?

But We “Need” Government … Don’t We?

The usual knee-jerk response from people is that we “need” government and we can’t possibly do away with it completely. But does this stand up to closer scrutiny? Do we really need government to perform all the functions it currently does, or could we open a market for various businesses to compete? For example, could we have a free market for garbage collection? Utilities? Road-building? Dispute resolution? In all cases, there’s no logical reason why we couldn’t allow private businesses to perform these functions and services. Sure, it some cases it’s easier to have competing business (utilities) than others where central planning makes it more efficient (road-building), but couldn’t people find a fair way to get together and pay for these voluntarily in groups, neighborhoods and associations? Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux have developed the idea of a free market of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) who function as private defense agencies and arbitrators, and whom people employ when they go into contract with each other as a trusted 3rd party. Indeed, big corporations such as PayPal, eBay and Visa already have such private arbitrators anyway, preferring to use them than governmental courts.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | tyrant-appears-as-protector-plato-479x225 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Without Government, Who Would Protect Us From Evil?

As stated above, anarchy does not mean an automatic utopia. From a voluntaryist point of view, removing government is a great step towards freedom, but many will be scared of the idea. “Who will protect us from evil?” they ask. The answer is, quite simply, that we all have to face it regardless of the existence of government or not. There will still be people and groups trying to trick, steal from and control others. Anarchy can’t protect against all evil. Nothing can. We have government right now, and such conniving people and groups still exist! The big problem is that all too often government becomes the vehicle for such evil rather than a protector against it. As Plato said, when the authoritarian comes on the scene, he appeals to people’s fears and base needs for safety and security. At first, he’s a savior and a protector; later, he’s a tyrant.

When you create a center of power, you create an incentive and invitation for dark forces to seize control of that center of power – then they can magnify and “force multiply” (to use a military term) their dark agenda. Has there ever been a governmental situation where this did not happen? As I discussed in the article The Top 3 Reasons Why the System Keeps Perpetuating Itself, you can use the analogy of the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings. Creating a ring of power (a metaphor for a ruling class, a government and a belief in authority) is dangerous in and of itself, because you are creating an artificial construct which you can never guarantee will be always used for good. We all know the famous phrase that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There’s no way around it!

We all know that politicians are puppets of a darker force. Put simply, the dark force behind government uses government to carry out its plans. What we see in practice, time and time again, is that government ends up enabling the very thing it was supposedly created to stop or protect against! So many insiders have told us this is exactly how the game works. For example, remember the story of Smedley Butler, who exposed how corporations try to win over the centralized coercive power of government to sanction their crimes, and wrote how he regretted becoming a “high class muscle man” for the corporatocracy.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | who-will-guard-the-guards-juvenal-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Who will guard the guards or guardians? It’s a problem as old as time itself. A quote from the ancient Roman author Juvenal.

Government has shown itself to be a vehicle for an astonishing amount of evil. Government is an idea – nothing more – yet the practical implementation of this idea has caused untold death and destruction. The term democide was (according to Wikipedia“revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as ‘the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder’”. In other words, democide means death by government. Democide was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, responsible for around 262 million victims according to Rummel, including genocides like Stalin’s Great Purges, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State. Yes, communist and fascist governments may be a worse flavor of evil, but so-called liberal democracies like the UK and US have been drenched in blood for centuries now.

Can the Free Market “Guard the Guardians” Better?

Of course, there is no guarantee that anarchy will stop all evil, but perhaps the free market can do a better job than a minarchist system. First off, people so inclined would be happy to take charge of their own defense (by owning and using guns, by taking self-defense courses, etc.). But the defense of your person, your property and your family could also be outsourced to a private group or organization that you trusted. One idea is that, in a free market, DROs could just be like private defense agencies who are vying for your business. The first thing they would have to do would be to convince you that they aren’t a threat themselves and that they are not going to try to seize power over everyone. They would have to have grand guarantees and promises (e.g. Molyneux suggests something like they have to give all their money to charity and close down business if they are caught lying). They would be subject to the scrutiny of the market. If they were found to have deceived people, their business would suffer. People would have the choice to use or not use them.

It has been pointed out that the weakness of libertarianism as a philosophy is that is strong on big bullies (centralized government) but weak on small bullies (local gangs, abusive parents/spouses, etc.). For instance, how would a voluntary society deal with domestic abuse within a family? One answer is that DROs could be called just as cops are now, and while they wouldn’t have the “legal authority” to attack or imprison the abuser (because there would be no such thing as legal authority in an anarchist society), they could certainly use force in self-defense just as any other person would, regardless of if they have a badge and uniform or not. People would have to participate more in forming local groups to resolve conflict and achieve justice for victims. While this may sound scary to some, remember this: as much as government may help some victims of abuse, government also shields and covers up the perpetrators of massive abuse (a great example is how government members participate in pedophilia at the highest levels all across the world).

Again we are left with the awkward realization: government commits and encourages more evil than it stops, or to put it more accurately, the concept and creation of government allow evil and evildoers to amplify their influence and control people more than if government simply did not exist.

Government Creates and Protects Mafia and Corporate Monopolies

Even if you ignore the egregious evils of governmental democide, which some may try to explain away by saying it’s government gone bad, the fact remains that government itself often protects the “bad guys” rather than the “good guys”. By having the power to make law for an entire area, government can create monopolies (e.g. money issuance) and black markets (e.g. prohibition on alcohol). The international banking cartel led by the Rothschilds has prospered mostly because the government has given away its own power to create currency, and has made it legal and mandatory for everyone to accept fiat currency or paper money. Without that governmental decree, the banksters would face more serious competition in the forms of alternative currencies, and people would have more options against them. This is a classic case where government serves and encourages evil rather than protects us from it.

Government itself is a monopoly. It can be defined as the organization within a given geographical area that claims the sole right to rule and the sole right to initiate violence against others who do not obey its decrees. It sets itself up as the sole authority. Once you have a monopoly, you remove the power of the free market and competition. The end user or consumer no longer has options. New World Order conspirator John D. Rockefeller once said, “Competition is a sin”. As a monopoly, government removes itself from the normal pressures that companies face in an economic environment where companies have to perform well or else risk going out of business – and therefore has no real incentive to do its job properly.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-government-is-not-reason-eloquence-force-washington-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

When an organization gains a monopoly, it shields itself from ostracism – a great tool of anarchy. Ostracism is the technique by which citizens in a free and voluntary society can make their preferences known, and a kind of way that they “vote” by who they associate with, what products they buy and with whom they do business. Collectively, it forms a network of economic checks and balances which are far better than anything the Constitution could ever protect against (and after all, the US Constitution is just “a goddamn piece of paper”

 in the eyes of tyrants).

Government is not a servant; that’s the lie fed to us. Government is a violent master. Government is first and foremost violence, and secondarily an organizational tool. The above quote is attributed to first US president George Washington.

Removing the Belief in Authority and Taking Responsibility

True anarchy or true voluntaryism takes place first inside your mind, not in the outside world. It all comes down to the belief in authority, to the notion that we have to have a ruling class, or that any ruler can be legitimate in a world where we are all born equal. A careful analysis shows that government cannot justify its political authority, no matter whether you use the arguments of social contract, implicit consent, explicit consent or consequentialism. All of these arguments can be overturned with logic to show that government is simply force masquerading in a variety of disguises such as consent, duty or so-called benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron). Believing out of fear that we have to have government (no matter what) is a symptom of mind control.

True anarchy is not chaos or disorder, but rather removing the belief in authority, and keeping the rest. It’s overturning the idea that politicians and government get an exemption from morality. There is no need to do away with organization and cooperation; there is a need to do away with the initiation of violence.

Underneath it all, there is a general tendency in some people to be lazy and scared. We want a final arbiter or decider because we don’t want to have to work out things ourselves. Yes, it can be tricky, complicated and difficult to resolve disputes and conflicts, especially when they go into grey ares. It takes responsibility, effort and skill in dispute resolution. But can we justify outsourcing this just because we don’t feel like being more responsible? Or putting out too much effort? Or because we imagine we don’t have the skills and we don’t want to push ourselves to develop them? Can we really justify creating this fictitious seat of power, this morality-free zone, just because we feel too uncomfortable trying to work these things out ourselves? My answer is that we cannot justify it, nor can we even possibly outsource it, for every government necessarily has within it the seed of power, corruption and violence; otherwise, without the power to coerce, it would not be government.

Conclusion: Trust Our Cooperative Tendencies

In closely comparing anarchy and minarchy, it is difficult to justify the minarchist position. When you put them under the microscope, government and political authority are not legitimate; they are force. The terms limited government and government by consent are oxymorons, because there are no good examples in the real world of a government that stays limited forever, and a government never really has the consent of all its citizens, most of whom are simply born into an existing system of coercion by coincidence of birth (and taught through indoctrination to never question it).

The stateless society trusts the inherent tendency among humans (and Nature) to cooperate. Yes, there is competition in life, but the greater part is cooperation, symbiosis, trust and harmony. It is possible to find win/win solutions that don’t require the need for an outside authority, and to take that model and apply it to a whole society. To continue to believe in authority is to create a game where you may win or you may lose; it’s creating a throne or seat of power which “bad guys” can overtake. It’s well nigh time for humanity to grapple with the question of anarchy vs minarchy, to move beyond the fears which are holding us back from creating a more free society.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjwmC7byCM

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/system-perpetuation-top-3-reasons/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/political-authority-no-real-basis/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/satanic-pedophilia-network-exposed-australia/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS