This Perpetual Dystopia of Disappointment

I am amazed at the resilience of almost everybody's fundamentalist belief in 'the state', government and the 'democrat process'. Impressive really - somewhat awe-inspiring even.

 If people would, for once and for all, just be realistic and comprehend that this always was, is and always will be, nothing but an utter peddled delusion we could at least save ourselves from this perpetual dystopia of disappointment.

Most people know Santa and the Tooth Fairy are just made-up, enough these days realise God and more certainly religions are utter bunkum too. But when it comes down to the state folk just line-up for the sheep-dip, for the slaughter-house, to relish and be thankful for the swill filling their trough each day.

We are the human herd and the construct, called a nation, is no more than the particular farm, one of many, in which we dwell. These farms are human tax-farms.

Easier than slavery to manage and more productive too; humans farmed in the way we all are are schooled with a mix of plentiful carrot and threat of stick, illusion and delusion.

We only see the shadows on the wall and think them real, are convinced it is all there is, have no ability to think it could just perhaps otherwise be.

Marijuana Dreaming

Instead of building towards an enduring and powerful anti-war peace and liberal rights movement, the hedonistic days of the 60's hippy flower power culture was driven by a covertly managed culture of drug fuelled befuddlement and from which the 'new-age' movement continues to sap the resolve of an otherwise supposedly 'enlightened' majority.

I know I own the right to consume any substance I so desire.  Nothing has changed if I cross the imaginary line around a place some people call Washington State except to the imagined legitimacy of uniformed gangs with guns to steal from me or to kidnap me.

But as it happens I choose not to.  Not because of any rules or even conveniences but because I am concerned that the stuff enjoyed on sunny days with pals in the meadows of my youth is not the same material today as it was back then.  Today people are using marijuana of a type selectively created of a different, stronger, nature and I am concerned its lasting effects are not well understood.  And today's illegally cultivated plant is grown in conditions, fed with chemicals, far removed from the natural organic product it used to be.

So I am concerned by anything the state has to offer; even when it is legitimising that which should never had been made illegitimate from the outset.  I am concerned that if marijuana is used more prevalently it will be targeted at the, already too scant, 'open minded' minority who are the selfsame ones who we need to all have all their wits about them in these times of 'universal deceit'.

“The CIA and the “Magic” of Laurel Canyon – Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream”
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/interview-dave-mcgowan-cia-magic-laurel-canyon-186/

Defending a Stateless Society from Military Attack

If we had a fully voluntary society, without any form of state, there would be considerable change, clearly, and so to predict how these changes will in reality manifest is interesting perhaps but most likely will be ludicrously wrong in the actual event.

People will pay for that which represents value.  I would insure my home with an insurance company that had a nationwide emergency service offering police protection, disaster and medical response teams.  I would insure with the best company but not at any price.  It would be the company who offered the best balance between service and price.

It is not inconceivable that these insurance companies would, maybe jointly cooperating, expand their emergency services to include a form of 'home-defence' military.  If that was a real concern to people would the majority not see a value?  What is the faster at meaningfully reacting to new challenges:  the public sector or the private sector?

From the insurance company's perspective it may be they find a strong demand for insurance cover to compensate against the threat of invasion, subsequent loss and damage.  Now, if there were enough policies up for grabs, would it not be economic to invest in protection from the threat occurring?

So some folk then think they will not bother with insurance offering cover against war.  Good luck to them - in the event of an attack they will be the ones pushing the handcarts full of all they own.

On the whole I think of the entire idea of a stateless society being racked with war as being absolutely improbable since, so far in the whole history of humanity, it has only been the state that has waged actual war and against another state too.

I think a stateless society would become, rapidly, so successful that any other remaining state's populations, or leaders even, would see the results of the model as desirable but imposable to takeover by war because, to capture a prosperous nation, you have to have a nation to take over - with a state to tax the people and so gather the tithe. 

A stateless society is by definition not actually a 'nation' at all.  Just a lump of land upon which people muddle along the best they can and coexist within their own independently developed and codified rule of law.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Defence in a Stateless Society

The topic of 'Defence' is a very large one!  It is interesting that we have a 'Ministry of Defence' as a part of the state but not, apparently, a 'Ministry of Attack'!  Could there be some loaded words used against us here, un petit peu of subliminal propagandising brainwashing speak perchance?

If we closed the 'Ministry of Attack', disbanding the paraphernalia of destruction and sanctified killers, and replaced it with a measured system of 'home defence' would it be infinitely improbable to think that it could not just be sponsored by a willing public - if such an organisation was really needed at all?

I say people need more imagination.  I say we did not know how the cotton would get picked, the tobacco harvested or the sugar-cane cut when we said that slavery was an inhuman outrage.  We did not know.  We did not imagine robotic machines could do the work at a lower cost than unpaid men.  And if slavery had continued maybe those machines would never have emerged.

The ingenuity and imagination of mankind knows no bounds except for the limitations imposed upon us by those who would shackle us to the feudal tithe gathering system that is the state.

The Systemic Extortion Racket - Taxation

Let's face it, the word 'tax' is purely a euphemism. The real description of the process should correctly be termed 'taking money via the threat of violent force and coercion'. Remove the threat of violence and this quazi-Mafiosa revenue gathering mechanism's model fails immediately; totally and irrevocably.

So, regardless of the apparent merits of hospitalising sick kittens, fighting 'just wars' or whatever other emotive sob-story is dispensed to attempt to justify taxation, when funds are gathered in such a way 'Natural Law' is broken.

What is 'Natural Law'? It is simply those fundamental rules of human society and cooperation that do not need to be written by some imaginary power, church or state, to be logical, practical and true. Natural Law says do not hurt me, do not take my property, do not steal the fruits of my labour. Anything that breaks these fundamental natural laws is intrinsically erroneous. No body has the right to exceed Natural Law - no individual or group of individuals can grant to themselves or others powers they do no possess the right of themselves.

Beyond that of the simple family group I cannot think of any form of leadership, rule or governance that did not include the gathering of a tithe to subsidise a higher echelon.

To be most successful in this enterprise - certainly man's oldest business - there is a balance to be struck between violent force and willing consent. People who live in fear of imminent attack from wolves are happy to reward the leader of those warriors who successfully protect the settlement.

The less apparent the threat or benefit the less the immediate willingness is to pay. It is the task of the state to constantly encourage its subjects to consent to pay taxes with only the minimum visibility of the ultimate threat of force being the most desirable - so as not to 'frighten the horses'.

Roman Emperors and British Kings long understood that which Thomas Paine identified in his Rights of Man: “...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”.