Best Government – Governs Least

Best Government - Governs Least | ThomasJefferson%E2%80%A6thatgovernmentisbestwhichgovernsleast. | Government Government Control Government Corruption Sleuth Journal Society

Once upon a time the Founding Fathers were considered to be the personification of the American Republic. Most notable among giants, was Thomas Jefferson. The significance of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence is heralded as the very essence of the purpose for fighting the revolution. Jump onward to the present era and examine the sentiment held by the populace. The seeming disconnect from the political thought of the 18th and 19th century to the attitudes in this 21st totalitarian collectivist mindset that dominates the culture, often resembles life on a different planet. 

According to Monticell.org, the quintessential statement closely associated with Jefferson, “That government is best which governs least” is clarified. 

“Although the ideas expressed in this quotation may be in line with Jefferson’s opinions to some extent, the exact phrasing is almost certainly not Jefferson’s.  However, this quotation has been associated with the ideological descendants of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party for a very long time, and this is likely why it ultimately came to be attributed to him.  Merrill Peterson even referred to the quotation as a “Jeffersonian maxim” in The Jefferson Image in the American Mind”. 

It can be fairly accepted that this world view was commonly acknowledged as the norm for most Americans. During the formative years of nation building, the proper role of government was narrow in scope. At a minimum, the civic culture professed a need and desire to keep government intervention limited on all levels.  

National Affairs proposes in the article, The Art of Limited Government a new standard. 

“What guidelines could preserve Jefferson’s ethos while also recognizing that the world has changed in dramatic ways? A good place for conservatives to start might be Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty, in which he sanctioned two spheres of domestic activity as legitimately belonging to government: offering a minimal social safety net and providing limited correction for failures of the market. Neither of these two roles, Hayek believed, was inherently incompatible with economic freedom or the rule of law.” 

In the same vein, Peter Coulson from Australia writes in the article, the best Government is that which governs least.  

“This is the central premise of libertarian political theory and is designed for two main aims. Firstly it protects the rights and liberties from a government pursuing a course of action that requires coercion of the public to achieve its desired outcomes.

The second reason for this theory is the belief that government should “focus on its knitting”: providing a stable economic management framework, with robust and predictable rules within which the market can effectively operate to create wealth for its participants.” 

The premise that official authorities operate on, the precept for the “Good of Society” has little in common with the actual conduct of government policy. In addition, the public has abandoned the quest for individual liberty in their pursuit for the good life at the expense of their neighbor. 

Political Crumbs starts out with the statement: We’ve moved a long way since Locke’s minimal vision of government, then goes on to express the fantasy myth of achieving a “Good Society”. 

“Indeed, we widely regard it as an urgent moral task of the government to guarantee a minimum quality of life for all of its citizens. Where to draw that “minimal” line is a matter of debate, but few would argue about clean drinking water, free firefighters, free hospitals, free sewage treatment plants, free schooling for children…all this is something the government of a rich state ought to, at the very least, guarantee its citizens.” 

The absurdity that it is government’s role, or even its duty to provide FREE services, exemplifies the mental illness that underpins the general decay in societal attitudes and the lack of rational thought. Government is hardly free. The notion that social programs are a moral imperative, when government never produces any wealth or monetary value, by the very nature of its composition stands on the self-evident premise, that the state derives its cash flow from coercive confiscation under the penalty of punitive laws and regulations. 

Even the notion that “so called” responsible citizens would not debate, much less rebuke the collectivist civic benefit of government fluoride poisoned water, mandated  taxable fire fighting fees and government school socialization indoctrination, or the death panels that provide their euthanasia care are all symptoms of deranged Utopian insanity. The real sewer treatment plant is the governmental apparatus that seeks to dominate every facet of individual life. 

Absent in the state worship culture is any admission that the state has failed miserably under the tyranny of governmental imposition for well over the last century and a half. Material consumerism and socialist programs are no substitute for personal dignity and individual responsibility. 

Quality of life is directly proportional with the degree of the absence of government intrusion in the lives of citizens. By this standard, we all live under the dictatorship of a system designed to dehumanize, impose dependency and demand ultimate deference to a despotic and authoritarian system. 

Well prior to the inception of the country, the model of a direct form of democracy, embodied in the Town Hall Meeting provided for participatory community decision making. Author Frank M. Bryan of the book, Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works notes. 

“Town meetings have suffered a loss in attendance over the years. Most of this decline can be attributed to increases in town size, which explains about 60% of the variance in attendance from town to town. But a decline in the number and variety of issues over which towns have control has deprived townspeople of the opportunity to make decisions that matter in their lives. That has hurt attendance dramatically.” 

While rule by direct democracy certainly conflicts with our Republic representational form of Federalism, the tradition of local citizen’s involvement in local government is a mainstay for a free people. Yes, the size of the community directly marginalizes the effectiveness of a single person; however, the message of a lone voice often is more powerful than the goon squads of a police state. Of course, a moral citizenry is the indispensable ingredient necessary to stand up to tyranny. 

As previously cited in the essay, The TUN – a true representative council provides the proper alternative to the current version of electoral office selections in the land of the timid. Read the details of this method of representation and accept the conclusion that “By applying the prudent principles of the TUN method, a real representative republic is possible. Consider a model that retains the current levels of government separations that exist today.”

Now for any form of government to justly administer and honor individual natural rights must be based upon the willful consent of responsible citizens. In today’s environment, the requirement that the people will discipline themselves is not exactly a widespread practice. Even if the multitude would accept the principle, very few have the internal strength to reject or shun the “FREE” cradle to grave government welfare society.  

The leap from innately knowing that less government produces more freedom just does not motivate the captured masses from resisting all those social benefits from the “Free Lunch”.  

In a report entitled, What Americans REALLY Think about Government, the conclusions sadly indicate how the public has sunk to the low view of their own obligations. 

“Surveys also reveal that surprisingly large numbers of people believe that the government should take the lead and be responsible for dealing with a wide variety of social and economic problems. 71% of Americans believe that the government has an important or essential responsibility for seeing to it that anyone who wants a job can have one. 63% believe that the government has an important or essential responsibility to provide citizens with adequate housing; and 78% of us think that the government has an important or essential responsibility to provide citizens with good medical care. Similarly large majorities strongly support the notion that it is the responsibility of the public sector to “guarantee a quality public education,” “protect the environment,” and “ensure equal opportunity for everyone.” 

Such attitudes are typical of those non-participates to the actual functions of governmental administration. Only job seekers, bureaucratic careerists, political aspirants or “PC” collectivists will ignore the true record of government incompetency, deliberate corruption and misguided expenditures that bloat budgets to the point of impoverishing the once prosperous Middle America.  

The National Center for Constitutional Studies sums up the plight of the lost Republic with a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville. “Democracy in the United States will endure until those in power learn that they can perpetuate themselves through taxation.” 

Dismissing the harm that irresponsible citizens have caused with their destructive demands for more government bennies, paid for by others or just pushed onto future generations, allows for the culture of State repression. The principles embodied in the TUN framework are a solution and remedy to the psychosis of Big Government.

“It is not true that that government is best which is best administered — it is a sophism invented by tyranny to quiet the inquisitive mind; a good administration is at best but a temporary palliative to a bad government, but it does not alter its nature.” –   William Penn

The post Best Government – Governs Least appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

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

It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start

It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start | environmental-protection-agency | Civil Rights Environment EPA Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Politics Sleuth Journal Society US Constitution & Bill Of Rights

The constitutional republic that our founders intended to create has become a monster, and it is time to tame that monster and restore the federal government to its proper size and scope. The left loves big government, because it allows them to impose their progressive vision of how the world should work on all the rest of us. This is why so many control freaks are drawn to liberal politics like moths to a flame. Power and control are very addicting drugs, and those that crave these things on the left are never satisfied. That is one of the reasons why the federal government just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. If our constitutional republic is going to survive, we have got to start putting the “limited” back in limited government.

Our forefathers tried to guarantee that the federal government would always be less powerful than the states by making the Tenth Amendment abundantly clear…

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I don’t see how anyone could possibly misunderstand that, but over the decades the left has worked very hard to make the Tenth Amendment as meaningless as possible.

If we want to see the Tenth Amendment restored, we are going to have to be willing to fight hard in the court system, in statehouses all over America, and in the halls of Congress.

And a good place for Congress to start would be to abolish the EPA. It is one of the federal agencies that is most wildly out of control, and fortunately there are a few good members of Congress that get this.

On February 3rd, U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz introduced a one sentence bill in the House of Representatives that would abolish the EPA at the end of next year

Introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL1), H.R. 861 totals a mere one sentence: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” That’s the same date of termination as another Republican bill to end the Education Department, which GovTrack Insider also recently covered. Gaetz is serving his first term in Congress and this is the first bill he’s ever introduced.

I would certainly vote for such a bill in a heartbeat, because as Gaetz has explained, the EPA is suffocating small businesses all over America

Gaetz, a freshman, took aim at the EPA in a leaked email, obtained by The Huffington Post, saying Americans are “drowning in regulations” enforced by the agency.

“Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” Gaetz wrote in the email, which was circulated among possible co-sponsors.

If enacted, the bill would will give power back to the states and local governments, Gaetz said.

“To better protect the environment we should abolish the EPA and downstream resources to states for more effective & efficient protection,” Gaetz said in a Facebook post Friday.

Today, the EPA is packed with leftists that love to promote their political agendas by constantly coming up with even more business-killing rules and regulations. These unelected bureaucrats have been on a rampage in recent years, and most of what they are doing is unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment.

Here in Idaho, the EPA has been a thorn in the side of miners, loggers and small businesses for decades, and it is a problem that has grown worse over time. At the moment, there appears to be little hope that the bill to shut down the EPA could get through both chambers of Congress, but that doesn’t mean that we will stop trying.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has taken some positive steps to try to rein in the EPA. The following comes from Time Magazine

But that doesn’t mean that the EPA is safe. In fact, some of the agency’s defenders worry that it faces a far more stealthy threat of being hollowed out. President Trump’s choice to run the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is known for targeting the agency with more than a dozen lawsuits.

Environmental groups and policymakers fear Pruitt will dismantle many of the agency’s core functions methodically over time rather than trying to knock out the agency with one fell swoop.

He will almost certainly try to unravel the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s primary regulation aimed at addressing climate change, a multi-year process that could require careful reconsideration of legal and scientific arguments. He might also weaken—or shutter altogether—the EPA’s enforcement office, according to an Inside EPA report.

Some of you may think that I don’t care about the environment since I want the EPA shut down.

That is not true at all. I believe that we are facing some huge environmental problems and that we should all do more to take care of the planet that we share.

But I also believe that the people of all 50 states should be able to determine how their own natural resources should be managed.

The EPA has become a highly politicized organization, and it has become one of the favorite tools of the left for moving the “green agenda” forward. And of course this “green agenda” is being promoted on a global scale by the United Nations.

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21? Well, it has been given a makeover and it is now known as “Agenda 2030”. When it was first launched in 2015, Agenda 2030 was being touted as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. The following information about Agenda 2030 comes from the official UN website

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

If you read over the 17 sustainable development goals which you can find right here, you will quickly notice that they cover virtually every form of human activity imaginable.

That is become the “green agenda” is really just a nice way of introducing “global governance” to an unsuspecting public.

The leftist control freaks at the UN literally want to closely regulate all human activity on the entire planet, and they are telling us that they need to do this in order “to save the world”.

But as I discussed, we aren’t going to allow the left to steal our country from us, and we are going to greatly resist all attempts to erode American sovereignty.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start 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