Storm Warning! Is NOW the Time to Holdout in the Hills and Hunker Down?

Or do we say no!  We can stay in our homes, we can embrace our land, can embrace our people, can demand our good ways of living and we can hold firm.  We can tell our brothers and sisters what we can see and they too will already be feeling it, smelling it.  They will know that what they taste in their mouths today, that bad taste, is a coming death, the death of their freedom, the death of the wealth they have built themselves and that great gift given to us, TO US, by our parents and our grandparents and all our people before.  And then they will start to hear, from muffled to clear and bright.  They will hear because everyone knows, in the hearts, that this is coming but all just hope it cannot be, hope it will not be, wish they can pretend pretend and wish it all away.  But now before long they will see for themselves too, it is coming.

What will you do my friends.  Will you run and hide or will you work to spread the word we must all learn to say, to cry out, to roar.  We must learn to all say NO NO NO!

Those who know what I always have to say will have to rock back whilst I make my most important point again: we cannot beg our rulers to stop, we cannot force our rulers out only to replace them with more of the same.  That will change nothing but only perhaps just delay this inevitable decay, this decay that will only result from allowing the power of human society to be pathetically given-up to 'the state'.  No matter what limitations are imagined, if the power to rule is held in any form greater than the individual to rule himself it will always be stolen by those who would take it for their own.  We not only will be slaves but, without complete liberty, we already are.

Belief in 'the state' is indoctrinated, by every means, into human society by 'the state' in order to preserve itself but only for the advantage of whosoever always wins control.  Belief in 'the state' is a belief in a power that is illusionary, that is false.  Belief in 'the state' is not like a religion, it is a religion.  And those who are indoctrinated into following a religion are simply cult followers.  'The state' is a cult religion.  We must end the cult of the belief in the religion of 'the state' or we will not pass to our children, our grandchildren and all the right people the future of our nations.

This fine gift is a gift we were given and have been entrusted to preserve and enjoy only whilst we have our moment of time here on Earth, not to let it all be squandered.  Our one simple duty is to make it better where we can and then pass it on.  Not to strive, in every imaginable way, to do so is a failure most diabolic.

Images stolen from 

http://masksoftheworld.com 

outstanding expert in the subject and sale of fine masks

Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World

The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all.

Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no individual, and therefore no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the initiation of the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'.

It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that kidnaps and imprisons a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs families in their homes. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man.

The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy.

And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult.

 
So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader.  You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects).

I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within.  I know, I understated.  To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction.  Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to.

To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, more compassionate, more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody.

Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary.

And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless.

Statelessness is just the next scenario - or not!

The thing about beliefs is that they can appear to work, and as they endure they develop to become more refined they can apparently appear work better still. I have a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Now there are plenty of very serious and negative things about this dogma (and cult) but the fact is they are truly all very nice, apparently well balanced, people and generally appear to live satisfactory, happy lives. So why not all live like they do?

The cult belief in 'the state' is also a system of thinking that appears to work, with some limited success, in organising a deeply complicated world; and its followers, devotees, are all on the lookout for ways in which it can be reformed to function more effectively, more equitably too. So that appears also to be all good.

My opinion is that the concept of 'the state' is beyond being able to modify to reach closer to an ideal; because it is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental flaw can never be corrected and so, instead, will always contaminate 'the whole' to a point that 'the whole' will always be less than that which could be enjoyed (without the application of the concept of 'the state' being included in human society in the first place).

That does not mean a human society without a 'state' will undergo such an enormous seed change as is outwardly conceived as inevitable to occur in the absence of 'the state'.

Most aspects of our lives are already lived in an autonomous, self-directed, manner. The changes with statelessness would be more as if the operating system polarity was changed from a top-down to a to a ground up means of deriving most effective actions. Statelessness is just the next scenario on a road from clan chief, priest, tribal king, national monarch, imperial emperor and presidential statesman which will allow humanity to avoid the otherwise apparently inevitable alternative: a world state.

If we do not place the freedom into the hands of the individual now, to live as they wish without oppression, the danger is that this coming alternative could be, looks set to be, deeply oppressive and one that may well endure as-good-as indefinitely. If human society is subjected to a global state the natural condition of human society, the belief in the one right of the individual (to live as an individual with their property, in self and in effect), could be forgotten forever. That will be to the absolute detriment of humanity and yet is, I consider, near imposable to avoid without the understanding of how statelessness is the better alternative by far, the ideal.

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

In the Cult Religion of Evil - Beelzebub Rules

The system of 'the state' is a system only of perversion. 'The state' is based on a monopoly of violent force, a right which no individual can legitimately or morally hold and so, in turn, no collective of individuals can hold either.

 No matter what percentage of people say they want a monopoly of force to be placed in the hands of 'the state' it is a perversion of morality and of legitimacy. So therefore, being a permanent condition, 'the state' has this fundamental perversion at its very core.

The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of 'the state'. The belief in 'the state' is irrational. It is not that belief in 'the state' is 'like' some kind of religion, with 'the state' just an all powerful but imaginary God, it is a religion with 'the state' a God that believers believe is real!

'The state' only appears to exist because of all the people who believe it to exist and act as though it exists but as soon as those people stopped believing in the existence of the God of the state, poof! It would be seen to have never existed. So we can accept 'the state' does not exist. We can accept 'the state' only appears to exist whilst people believe in it and act as if it is real.

 

We can also see that; as a religious belief, the religious belief in 'the state' is not one people just come around to understand and accept, it is a belief that is rooted in indoctrination. About the only thing that 'the state' is really good at is indoctrinating the public into unquestioning belief in the legitimacy and morality of 'the state' and in the necessity and utility of 'the state' too - the process is fundamental to the schooling system and much else besides.

The belief in the state is so deeply indoctrinated, so widespread, so all encompassing across human society, so unquestioned and so apparently fundamental to almost everyone's perception of humanity that it is nothing less than being a cult. A religious cult. A religious cult belief in a false God.

The wish to find and elect only good people is not the solution, has never worked, will not work and cannot work. How can the all powerful cult of 'the state' always make sure that: people who are not good people, 'bad people', (or good people who turn bad) do not get into, (or remain in), positions of power to then abuse that power. The power allowed by 'the state', having an apparently legitimate and moral right to use force, is a power most attractive to 'bad' people.

Good people, really good people, do not want that power strongly enough to fight their way past the clamoring of 'bad' people, the corruption, the lies, the aggression, the compromises necessary to gain and hold effective 'state' office. 'The state' is a bad person's game. To stop the perversion from setting in permanently the only solution is to bring about an end to the religious belief in the cult of 'the state'. Nothing less.

P.S.  Please excuse the rather vulgar URL - I was trying an experiment in building traffic only to now find it less easy to dispense with than originally envisioned (and slightly amusing too).

Separation of the Economy from the State

Whilst we have 'the state' I do not see how it can release the control it effects over economy if only because politicians, businesses and other special interest groups will always have control or influence over the government and therefore the institutions of the market. It is not possible to have those acting as 'the state' submit that status because, by the very existence of 'the state', there will always exists a means for 'special interest groups' to have influence and control, especially influence and control over the economy.

It is not possible to have these institutions of the market and of government constructed and enforced in such a way that there is a separation of the economy from the State. The cause is not the 'way' the institutions of the market and of government are 'constructed and enforced' but rather, simply, that 'the state' and its institutions exist and therefore have influence and control. Clearly: if we did not have 'the state' we would not have that means for special interest groups to influence and control the economy or need to attempt to construct and enforce a government in such a way that there is then a separation of the economy from idea of 'the state'.

If Freedom is Nature, the State is Tillage

Here is a patch of ground - how does it get along? With a natural order each organism appears to struggle for success against others, the worm is eaten by the bird, the trees take light from the ground. Soon a more stable, infinity flexible, order becomes prevalent; one that is optimal for the situation and for the life that can best flourish there. It needs no maintenance, the system is self-correcting. If rabbits boom the fox population grows too and counters that occurrence.

And it is deeper than that. It appears that each organism is an actor in this process but it is not entirely because each organism is a conglomeration of individual cells that are all acting individually in their best interest; which is to work in an ordered but highly complicated system of cooperation to form the organism they comprise.

This patch of ground needs no central planning and nor could that be achieved so supremely as it organises itself just fine. The systems are so intensely complicated it would be imposable to manage 'top-down' but left to operate as it naturally does, ground-upwards, it always produces a harmonious balanced and optimised environment.

Now the alternative is to attempt to work against that natural order and impose some apparently unified mono-culture on the patch - a lawn. It is going to take a lot of work, it is going to require force and resources. It is going to be unsustainable without constant attention and even then it is only going to look like a lawn when its is still just endlessly a natural environment struggling to return to its proper balance.

For what. Why does it need to be a lawn? Human society is not the sum of blades of grass to be unified and simplified, forced and controlled. That is not necessary if the idea is to see life flourish on this patch. Humans are as diverse as they individually wish to be and, acting as individuals, will make the vast plethora of decisions they need to work in their own best interests which then, as parts of a whole, adapt and develop to allow a balance order to flourish.

Your Property is the Last Resort of the Fractional/Central Banking Complex

I do not have a fundamental issue with a fractional reserve banking system nor with a central bank as a banker's lender of last resort. What I do have an issue with is 'the state' using its monopoly power of violence based coercion (the threat and use of force) to tax the people and underwrite that central bank.

In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.

What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.

So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.

It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.

Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.

'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.

Is My Enemy the State

I suppose the solution goes something like this: 'the state' does not exist, it is a belief, it is an illusion, it is a just another cult (but nonetheless a cult that is extremely prevalent - perhaps the most widespread cult in the history of humanity). Once people stop 'believing' in this, the 'cult of the state', it disappears, poof! (like a monster from a dream fades to nothing as soon as the dreamer wakes).

If 'the state' does not exist who is it that is a constant threat to the freedom of people. The answer, plain and simple, is: it is those who act as though the state is real and believe legitimises their various actions supposedly carried-out on the behalf of that belief they call 'the state'.

Those servants of 'the state' need to be fearful, fearful that, as this simple but evasive comprehension spreads, (that the state is a false construct which is harmful to the betterment of human society), that they, as willing agents of the imagined state, will be held personally accountable for their actions. Morally, financially and punitively. It will become 'risky' for them.

If it comes to a 'war' between 'the state' and 'human society', the people, in rebellion, will not be targeting the hard, the armed militarised police on duty, but will target the soft, all those 'servants of the state' who suckle on the teat of succour.  (Succour that is no less than the produce of stolen property obtained through the threat and use of violent force and the coercive system of physiological deception. They will soon need to live in fortresses and those fortresses will then quickly become no less than their jails).

I'm King of My World (as you are of yours)

I am a monarch, ruler and subject, sovereign of myself and myself only!  A state of anarchy does exist, has to exist, can only exist; now and at all times.

The impositions and bamboozlements of the believers in the cult of 'the state' has to work against, deny and hide this constant state of anarchy from view.

'The state' is false, an illusion, and therefore does not exist.  'The state' is just cult members doing whatever it is they think they are required or authorised to do.

There is only one freedom and that is the freedom of your mind.  They may chain you to the ground but whilst your mind is free you are free.

End 'the state'!

BadCop Inc - a definition of a police state

In a free society, that is in a stateless society, a free market would exist, for every kind of service, which businesses could address in whatsoever way they considered a competitive manner. Some organisations may offer policing services on a subscription basis, some may work through insurance providers and perhaps, more likely, an unimaginable solution would yet be found to whatever need for policing services existed. That model would then constantly evolve and improve; driven by demand and consumer choice.

A policing organisation that started to behave as we see cops funded via stolen money (taxation) behave, would most likley find their customers rapidly departed to a better provider - I mean, for starters: who wants to pay for a gang of bullies conducting themselves in such a inefficient and costly manner. Such poor public relations would backfire unless, that is, they come to your door and Taser you if you do not pay for their protection racket.

If they did Taser you for not paying it would be clear you needed the services of a better operation who would start their contract with you by getting the ugly Taser and theft cops, BadCop Inc, off your back. A business that intended to force you to place your business with them would need to have a far more subtle method of capturing and retaining your business.

One good way of making you stay with 'BadCop Inc' would be to provide their nasty violence based monopolistic service free of charge. That would have the effect of making it very difficult for widespread competition to get started as they would need to fund their service in some way. Conversely BadCop Inc. could fund their service through a charge made on everything everyone sells including everyone's time they sell at 'work'. BadCop could simultaneously take a slice on the earnings of everything everybody buys too.

But nonetheless people would not be happy. They would quickly realise that BadCop Inc. was just running the mother of all protection rackets. BadCop would have to take more money and provide, monopolistically, more supposed 'benefits' or their 'customers' would realise they were just being enslaved. So BadCop could open schools, to indoctrinate their public from the get-go, allow their 'customers' to vote for who, from a list, the next BadCop boss will be, BadCop could build roads so they can get about and collect their tithe. BadCop could see their friend's business' made money from the enterprise too and could tell these corporate cooperators what to do, such as making sure the papers, radio and TV never tell the enslaved public any sort of truth.

With all this enterprise at their hands BadCop would still have one big problem: it would slowly but surely rot from the inside out and the public would eventually see for themselves its ugliness and its threat. To counter this BadCop Inc. would have to continuously stupefy their enslaved public, make them believe BadCop is essential for humanity, and, whilst keeping their threat of violence always visible, cast themselves and their regime of violence as being utterly legitimate. Make people believe in them. Surround themselves with ceremony, ritual, costumes and badges. Make it a cult. This may be an inefficient and expensive business plan but it is the only viable option if BadCop wants to remain in business.

See also: The Nine Principles of Policing

PS.  Watch the Lego Movie - better: buy it!

The Nobody Who Rules Rules Anybody Rule.

The natural laws which exist without the rule of man are fundamental, determined by nature, and are therefore universal in their application.  The core of natural law in relation to human social order is that a man has the right to his own being, that is: to own himself, he is his own property.  If you do not agree to that stop here and reflect or ignore the lot as you wish.

'The state' is a violation of this fundamental precept from the get-go!    The justification for the legitimacy of 'the state' is dependent on the paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or on the 'divine right of kings'.  Both are false.  The will of the people cannot truthfully exist because there is no such thing, in nature, as 'the people'.  This is an invented collective, a rule of man and not a natural law.  Where a group of people decide to co-operate in some way, that is their privilege, but they have no more right to co-opt the individual who does not agree with their choice than he has to co-opt them all to act as he dictates.

'Human society' generally understands better today that the  'divine right of kings' is false than they understand that the 'consent of the governed' is false too.  The 'consent of ALL the governed' would not be false but that is not what is currently on offer in any land across the world.

When advocating that a man does not rape a woman it is not a legitimate argument to question: 'how will he sire a child if he does not rape' or 'does that child not have a right to be conceived'.  When something is identified as wrong it is not the duty of those identifying the problem to know with certainty what the outcomes will be if the crime is prevented.  It was not the duty of the abolitionist to explain precisely how sugar cane and cotton would be harvested in the future without slave labour.  And if the abolitionist described the modern farming market, methods and equipment that has been developed since he would be thought insane.

One thing is certain.  If enough individual people work towards finding better ways to do things, better ways will be found, shared, developed and widely exploited.  That is evident throughout the history of humanity.  It is also evident that this approach is better than a top-down dictation as, for example, the disaster of Soviet farming was found to be.

If people have property in themselves, their own body, it follows that they too have property in the physical product of their endeavours.  The work they do they own, that which they exchange their work for becomes their own, that which they own and then work on, develop and add value to, is theirs too.  The land they buy with the product of their labour or unencumbered homestead, they own.   A man can dictate what happens to property he owns, so long as it does not harm the property of others, but a man cannot dictate what happens to property he does not own except where it is causing harm to his property.

All resources are either the property of somebody or nobody.  If property is not utilised, the property of nobody, and it is understood there is no such thing as the false paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or the 'rule of kings' people can come and make use of that property as they wish.  But would they?

It is improbable people would come to live in a place where they were not suited, welcomed or where the resources, economic or physical, were valuable but not already well utilised.  When people do come is when they see beneficial advantage over what they have in the place they come from.  Sometimes that is because they see they can serve a need that is not being well served and that is only to the general advantage otherwise that need would already be well served. 

Often people come because they are drawn into take advantage of the social benefits provided to them by 'the state' in control of the region, benefits that are taken from the local population, via the coercive threat of the use of force in taxation, and paid to the incoming people.  Welfare holds the poor in the grip of poverty, encourages immigration at the expense of the middle income earners but to the utter benefit of a small wealthy elite oligarchy who both own the 'means of wealth production' and influence the perpetuation and actions of 'the state' endlessly to their absolute benefit.

Joe Soap has the right to shun whosoever he wishes and along with his band of pals they can get together and shun all they like within the collective boarders of their properties.  Shut away they may shun away.  But Joe Soap does not have the right to impinge his view on a 'wider human society' because, like 'the people', 'human society' does not actually exist.  It is a collective term for human individuals gathered together but it does not allow a majority of those individuals any more right than they possess individually to impinge their view onto other individuals with whom they may not agree (but who are not harming their right to their property).

If 'who rules who' is the issue from which history has a catalogue of people struggling to defend values, lands and societies from those who want to supplant, enslave or exterminate them; is it not time we looked for the issue behind this age old curse?   Since it is invalid for any individual or group of individuals to rule over any other individual or group of individuals (who are not harming your property) the solution, by default, must simply be that 'nobody should rule anybody' and to therefore end the cult belief in the false paradigm of 'the state'.

"Forward, Joe Soap's army, marching without fear, with our brave commander, safely in the rear."

People want to use the power of the religious cult of 'the state' to enforce their world view, wants and wishes. The girl getting married wants a legally binding 'marriage contract' to make it less likely the father of her child will just push off and never pay for the raising of his children (and the feller wants his wife to commit to not sleeping with other men and dupe him into paying for a child not his). The voter prays for a new school, road, hospital built in their town at the expense of tax-payers in other towns who do not get the same. And people wish for the idea of what is 'their property' expanded to include all 'state' controlled property and have influence on what can happen to that, the same, by usurping the power of the state to do their personal bidding.

I question: what gives one set of people living in one part of the world divided by imaginary lines, (drawn a century ago on a map by an elite oligarchy of psychopathic priestly manipulators), apparently no right to visit, live, work or invest on the other side of that illusionary divide?

I believe Joe Soap is fully entitled to say he does not want, for whatever reason, whosoever in his bed, home, garden, farm, business or property. That is his business and if he wants to, say, run a hotel that bans Japanese people, transvestite people, tall people and smart people that is up to him. If there is a market for having a hotel that does not have such a dull and muddled outlook on what is necessary for commercial success Joe will never get to own a chain of hotels around the world.

If a whole island is owned (roads, beaches, the lot) by a conglomerate of Joe Soap's mates: they can do the same. There will also be places in the world where everyone is welcome to come and spend, flourish and thrive. Backwaters like Joe's Island will soon enough become a thing of the past.

But whilst there is the power of the state, which will always be usurped to do the bidding of individual's preferences and xenophobic based beliefs, there there will always be a perversion, a corruption, on the form of balanced human societal structure that would rapidly manifest without it, that is without 'the state'.

Know Who the Enemy Actually Is!

The thing to remember is it is not government, 'the state', that is the enemy. 'The state' does not exist, it is a fiction, a belief, a cult. To protest that 'the state' is out of control is to simply share in the delusion.

People individually do not have the right behave in such a way as they think do when they believe they are functioning within the remit of the fiction of 'the state'. Where do these people think the right of 'the state' comes from to act in the way no individual could rightfully behave? No group of individuals can appropriate legitimate powers they do not individually or collectively possess.

There is no mending this false belief system. 'The state' will always lead to usurpation and abuse - that is what it is conceived for regardless of the idealogical spin perpetrated to fluff the gullible. Know the enemy or at least know who the enemy actually is: the enemy is all people who believe in the cult of 'the state' - actors and subjects.

Capitalism, Corporatism and the State

There does not have to be a 'state' for Capitalism to work, indeed the free market is the very life-blood of a healthy economy and of a harmonious human society when unencumbered by 'the state'. The less 'the state' the more competition arises, the more competition arises the broader the economic and social benefit.

 

Corporatism is another matter and the two, Capitalism and Corporatism, should in no way be confused. Corporatism is utterly dependent on government to grant it faux personage, indemnity, patent, monopoly and privilege. True that Capitalism will seek-out whatever benefit it can derive from whatever medium in which it is set; and that includes taking whatever advantage it can derive and coerce from 'the state'. When Capitalism so feeds from 'the state' it morphs into Corporatism. That is not the fault of Capitalism that is one of the many faults of 'the state'.

End 'the state'. End Corporatism! Long live Freedom. Long live Capitalism. Long live the Free Market.

Understand 9/11 and You Understand We Must End 'The State'.

The core deceit is the impossibility of the narrative, ascribed by governments and mainstream-media across the world, in respect of all of the events surrounding the episode of 9/11. If one rejects the 'appeal to authority' fallacy contained within the authorised narrative and instead work to draw a conclusion based on independently gathered knowledge of the facts surrounding the events and then utilise unbiased logic to assess those facts the resultant conclusion is unequivocal: the 9/11 episode is seen to be a fraud of such a massive scale any further call to authority in regards of government or the mainstream media is impossible to maintain. It does not matter who caused 9/11 or how it was actually conducted, that is not what is important or what can be concluded with certainty, what is important is that one must conclude that government and mainstream media are completely untrustworthy. One must conclude that their intention is endless, endemic, mass deception.

 
We do not need to investigate, mitigate or mend. We need to reject the busted concept of government, we need to realise that the cult belief in 'the state' can only contain this inevitable propensity, for psychopathic corruption, in every aspect of its function. We need to end our acceptance of the inevitability of 'the state', our core belief that to have a functional human society some form of state, no matter how limited, is essential. We need to study to understand, to shatter the deep multi-generational indoctrination, that without any style of government, of any kind, human society will not only function but will function at its complete optimum for all but those who otherwise will always usurp the power of government for their own device and betterment.

End the cult of 'the state'!

The solution is to end the cult of 'the state'; the only solution.  'The state' is imaginary; it does not exist.  It only exists in the minds of the members of the cult and almost everybody is a member of the cult.   Almost everybody is indoctrinated into the belief that 'the state' is inherently necessary and good.

Rex

Very few understand that 'the state' has no moral legitimacy to use force to impose its will even if a supposed 'majority' should will it.  Even less understand that 'the state' is the invention of the ruling class and that 'the state' is imposed purely to subjugate the people into accepting the occulted rule of the ruling class.

Less still understand that, converse to the popular impression that anarchy would mean a collapse of human social order, anarchy just means 'without rulers' and that a human society without rulers would rapidly become an efficient self-organising system for the betterment of humanity (but no longer for just the betterment of 'the state's' outcast ruling class).

End 'the state'!

The Legitimacy of the All Mighty State

At least as many human cultures have some form of religion as they do some form of leadership.  If belief and gods and religions were not an inherent human propensity there would be numerous cultures without gods or religion.  Religion comes from the part of the mind that sees a figure in the shadows, the human's mind is always trying to make sense of  their environment.  That is the job the brain does: it hears a sound, matches it to every other sound it has previously listened to and draws a conclusion as to the probable source.

I do not deny that seeking leadership in social orders is also something humans have a propensity for.  Leadership is something different to having government.  The word 'leader' does not imply that you are compelled to obey the leader - you can always leave.  'Ruler' is something different.

The utility of leadership and the propensity for belief in gods combine.  In its earliest incantation leaders adopted or invented religions which then gave them greater validity and power.

Leadership has evolved into the state.  That alone does not make the establishment of the system, aeons old perhaps, the most productive means for humanity to structure society into the future.  No more than murdering a neighbouring tribe, raping young women in the woods, sacrificing babies to a god, abusing prisoners, being whipped-up into violent action by a cunning orator and so on.   These are just things a human animal may have a propensity towards.

It is natural for leaders to want more power and absolute power.  It is not natural for people to want leaders with absolute power (though it can appear so if they are seeking advantage themselves from or within that establishment).

I do not see our modern society as having progressively become more atheistic.  I see that science has progressively dismissed mumbo-jumbo religions and so in turn the state itself, which first just took its mandate from the religions of Gods, has diverted religious belief from being a belief in Gods over to the idea of the state as being real instead.  We still live in an age of religious indoctrination: now one of belief in the state as an entity which warrants man's unquestioning capitulation to its real necessity and its supreme power.

Man is infinity adaptable.  If we were born into the world of being jellyfish we would adapt to that the same as we adapt to being born a king or a slave.   Born into a world of states we accept the paradigm as being normality.

One must separate the issues.  It is no good thinking: 'we must have a state, regardless of its legitimacy, because a state is essential'.  That is cognitive dissidence.  Try a thinking exercise for imagining that there is, already, a known answer for every need of human society without needing a state, (or at least restrain from being overwhelmed by the converse belief when it rises).  Would you still demand the necessity of a state then?  A 'state' without it having assumed the authority to make people do what it decrees is not a state.  So a state must have the ability to use force.  If it has the authority to use force it must do so even without voluntary agreement.  Would a state be legitimate if there was no need for it?

Therefore the issue is not is a question of: is 'the state' legitimate, because clearly it is not.  Its imagined legitimacy comes instead from asking the question: is the state essential despite its illegitimacy. 

The act of freedom happens in the mind: we can never be free whilst our minds are enslaved.

 The only thing one can rely upon in a human society is that generally people will act first in their own self-interest. It may be likely that a majority will act reasonably most of the time but it is improbable that that alone would be sufficient to allow an ordered society to function. I do not see where my proposals rely on anything more than just a realistic level of reasonable action - that we are not all thieving psychopathic rapists, just a few are.

I do think most people are generally reasonable and most people realise that their self-interest is best served by their being reasonable and not by acting in a manner harmful to others. But clearly this propensity for fairness and reasonableness is not going to be a sufficient mechanism alone for an ordered safe prosperous society to function.

It certainly is not realistic that some imagined telepathic hocus-pocus could do this job of ordering society because, as far as we know, such a thing does not exist.

A woodland does not need a central planning committee to order it to be sustainable, for the good of the life that thrives in it. But it does need central control if it is being grown as an ornamental park though that would be a very superficial means of determining the wood's surface appearance. If the woodland management stops it quickly reverts to being a natural environment which is more efficient and robust that the man-made model. We need to stop the action of government impinging on human society and allow society to develop the natural systems in place of the false actions of the state. Human society may change its appearance a little but it would be more robust as a result.

People and human society manage to do all sorts of things without the fundamental involvement of government to manage the various processes. A good example is the production and distribution of food. Where the state is involved mostly the result is a deterioration of efficiency - farm subsidies for example. More efficient is allowing pure market forces to find the most profitable means to fulfil the market's demand. Where government did take complete control in the USSR the result was inefficiency, lack of choice, starvation and shortages.

Indeed most of human activity is, thankfully, greatly free from over interference of the state and works just fine. The more government meddles the more distorted the systems become. All we need are market forces responding to the market meeting needs and self-interests.

I like the thinking that everything mankind does is actually part of a 'natural' process.  If that is building nuclear power stations or genetically engineering a new species based on the original human it can all be understood to be the activity and development of a natural creature - much like termites building a mound or chimpanzees murdering the young of mating and resource competitors.

The evolution of leadership in human society is part of a natural ordering that has evolved just the same.  That would make a seed change towards a society that did not require an authoritarian state using force to implement its mandate part of a natural process too.  It would not be artificial, how could it be imposed outside of just being a next step in the development of human society I am not sure (short of extraterrestrials brainwashing humanity as an anthropological experiment perhaps but even that would be 'natural' within a galaxy wide ecosystem).

I am not suggesting that a human society ordered by a plethora of spontaneously formed, needs-based, non-hierarchical, self-organised, systems developing in response to demand would be without imperfections.  I am suggesting that it would respond to such imperfections rapidly and effectively.  The responses that fail to provide the most efficient solutions would be less likely to be as widely adopted as those found to be efficient and successful.

A reasonable quick outline of this science can be found at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

My proposal is not to do with expecting that a self-organising society will return humanity to some pre-technological style of existence.  That humans are natural creatures living in a natural world does not mean they would not continue to cause market forces that utilise the best of advancing methods.  The analogy with a self-organising ecosystem is intended to only be analytical in that a modern human Societal ecosystem, (whilst still a complexed counterbalanced series of relationships, with causes and effects), can nevertheless include whatsoever advanced solutions service and goods providers find market forces indicate as most advantageous for their commercial success.

Far from government providing a 'firewall' between the weak and the exploitive and to muster initiative at times of duress, the state is the most exploitive mechanism kept at the behest of an elite oligarchy to funnel tax and power to their interest and the state is the predominant cause of violent death by way of war and holocaust.

The Establishment Plagued with Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Useful Idiots
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/29/the-establishment-is-plagued-with-sociopaths-psychopaths-and-useful-idiots/

DEMOCIDE: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT
Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

A clear mind can not condone this corrupt system.