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.

Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

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.

Crime and Incarceration In a Stateless Society

At the core of 'the state' is the coercive threat and use of violent force. If 'the state' did not reserve for itself the use of force it would fail. In general people may appear to willingly comply with the requirements of the state but that is either because:

* they would act in that way regardless, (they would generally not want to transgress against other people's property), or
* they would act in a different way to the edicts of 'the state' but do not because of the prospective repercussions, or
* they believe it is moral to comply with the edicts of 'the state'.

'The state' is central to, sets the tone of, modern human society in great part. Because people individually agree that employing the use of force is only moral in defence of self and property and agree that groups of people have no more right to employ force than they do individually, there is an unanswered dichotomy, a dissonance, between the circumstances when an individual can morally use force and when 'the state' makes use of it. There is no moral justification for 'the state' to use force outside of those same perimeters of an individual's moral legitimacy.

When 'the state' employs morally illegitimate violent force it attempts to set itself apart from human morality and instead endows itself with a false morality to break this code. Without violent force at its disposal 'the state' ends. 'The state' is nothing without the use of violent force. 'The state' is nothing but violent force. 'The state' is violence.

This violence, which is 'the state', is the cause of enormous harm that runs through human society as a virus. 'The state' breaks the moral code that is the foundation upon which a harmonious human society should be founded. The overall effect of this violence at the core of 'the state' is that the infection spreads through human society and especially manifests in weak points within the social order.

So how would a stateless society deal with crime? In a fully functional stateless human society crime would be vastly reduced as a result of having taken the use of faux legitimated violence out of the core of society. There would still be crime one can suppose, human nature remains and part of that may be for some to still act immorally, against others and their property, if they can get away with it. So assuming there would remain some crime in a stateless society it would need to be dealt with or the immoral people would simply be unconstrained and encouraged.

The lesson to be understood when accepting the utility of a stateless human society is that: answers to every supposed problem are possible to find and then develop. All the people working toward finding resolutions to the needs of society will develop a plethora of solutions and the best of those will rapidly be widely employed. Further, attempting to predict what these solutions will be is as ridiculous, and likely as inaccurate, as it would have been attempting to describe how society and the economy would appear and function after the abolition of slavery. Slavery was not ceased because a 'slavery-free' future was planed and understood in detail but because the immorality of slavery demanded it was made to end. So it must be demanded that 'the violent state' is made to end too.

I do have many ideas of cause as to how free-market policing and justice would take place in a system offering a level of service and accessibility clearly unobtainable when these functions of human society are usurped and monopolised by 'the state'. I too have ideas for what would replace 'the state' operated penal system. The focus of that would greatly depend on what the free-market demanded and what the free-market judicial system could legitimately find legally sound and therefore moral.

I suppose when people cannot be made, by the threat of violent force, to pay to incarcerate offenders there will be a very different criteria emerge as to what is realistically desirable, such as cost-effective achievable goals for reform, deeper psychoanalytical understanding, life-retraining and so on. People who had to be removed from society because of the danger they presented would need to also be accommodated within a system, but clearly; being faced with an entire population entitled to carry whatsoever means of protection they felt prudent the population of hardened criminals would soon reduce to manageable numbers too.

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.

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'.

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.

Freedom

 

The act of freedom happens in the mind: we can never be free whilst our minds are enslaved.  Once it is truly understood that we actually are already free - that authority is an illusion or rather a mass delusion - then we should: set upon the work of inspiring others to grasp their freedom too whilst denning the edicts of those who continue to suppose to be our masters.

Real slavery is the slavery of the mind.  Chains or laws may hold us to the ground but ethereal chains, those upon the mind, are by far the most treacherous.

As Larken Rose writes in his immeasurably important recent book 'The Most Dangerous Superstition':
'Even most of those who recognise 'government' as a huge threat to humanity speak of doing away with it, as if it actually exists.  They speak as if there is a choice between having  'government' and not having 'government'.  There is not.  'Government ' is a logical impossibility.  The problem is not actually 'government' but the belief in 'government'.
See http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/145075063X

And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

A response to an earlier comment

If I refuse to pay tax it is not 'my' taxes that I refuse to pay, I don't own them. They only become 'my' taxes if I accept them, (if I accept the paradigm of the state as being true, real and correct). I may pay them because I understand the negative consequences I am threatened with if I do not (and I may hand my Rolex to a mugger too but that does not mean I accept he is entitled to rob me - I just don't want to get stabbed).

The threat is not from the 'state' or from the state's 'government'. The threat is from the individuals who would carry-out the threatened consequences under the auspices of their belief that: whilst as individuals they understand they are not entitled to regularly extort from me a proportion they judge correct from my property by threats of violent force and kidnap, with the special office they accept from other individuals, who they believe to be in 'authority' over human society, they are under the delusion they are entitled to act under such irrational orders or mandates.

If nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of the state the concept of the state would not have any effect. It is only the belief in and acceptance of the concept of the state that causes people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

Conversely if nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of Human Society, human society would still have an effect. If people were then introduced to the concept they would say: "Oh yes, we understand, we have one of those. This is the way we already live together and cooperate".
It is not necessary to force belief in and to force acceptance of the concept of Human Society to cause people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

There are many many different choices of political system by which a 'state' can exert its control over human society. If a state charged no tax it would follow that it would not need a robust mechanism to collect such revenues. Conversely if a state required the payment of an exorbitant level of taxation it will need to have a robust system in place. That can be a system of precise evaluation and unstoppable collection. That can be a system of providing justification and public support for taxation. The state has a plethora of such controls at its disposal.

If a state turns up socialism, gives widely approved of and more abundant social benefit, it can turn down its more totalitarian methods. There is a cost/benefit equation to be enjoyed between all of these systems and finding the most productive series of balances is the preferred option. The USSR has shown their totalitarianism, driven greatly by warring political idealogical factions and disparate oligarchies, was not the most productive means by which to function.

China has more recently found a different mix where currently their authoritarianism and global-corporate/capitalism appear rather odd bed fellows.

In the UK the system flips polarity vaguely with a minuscule shifting between socialism and corporatism, the two also constantly oozing closer together and further from the relatively liberal society we once enjoyed.

You state "it would be difficult, if not impossible, for capitalism to exist on a large scale without a state" but you do not expound meaningfully on this outstanding proclamation.

Capitalism is no more than trading between people. It is an innate human quality and the fabric upon which humanity is built. You drive the game to me, I kill it, we share it.

The state is the greatest burden on capitalism. All the functions which the state has usurped greatly precludes entrepreneurship from entering those markets. How can, for example, private education undercut a competitor who takes money via the threat of violent force from everyone regardless of if they have children or not.

How would you like your child schooled by protection racketeers who made every child attend an establishment where they controlled the entire curriculum for at least a dozen years. And you think they would not be trying to indoctrinate their pupils?

How would you like those same racketeers to be handing-out the licences to radio and TV stations (or in the case of the UK owning the BBC and even CNN at one point).

How is it my friend that when it was clear to every thinking person before the invasion of Iraq that the planned war was wrong and the claims of WMD were false yet 'the dog did not bark'. The UK and US went to war when the press and mainstream media should have TORN Blair and Bush into scraps - before the killing and destruction of a nation ever got started. And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

It is corporatism that is dependent on government not capitalism. Corporate owners are greatly granted immunity from their debts and it is corporations who influence government to act in their interest.

Rather than resist what I have to say and defend your way of thinking why not show me you understand the proposition and yet then can argue against it? You fail to do that so I know your resistance is simply because you have not allowed yourself the opportunity to tentatively venture outside of the most basic statist mode of thinking.

Slaves to the Banker State

The missing factor in the housing market equation is the lack of consequences or to express that another way: imaginary limitations granted to lenders and borrower's liabilities.

This is the fault of the state. How? If I lend the capital to a house purchaser and they default I suffer a loss - that focuses my mind as to the real risk and consequence. If my loans to borrowers were made with capital that I did not own but was nevertheless available to me as a result of, say, my substantial and consistent business cash-flow, that would be a risky business strategy, but I could argue I was still not actually 'trading insolvently' because the loan I had made formed an asset on my balance sheet.

How could I take such a risk (knowing if my borrower defaults I cannot pay my liabilities)? Easily if I have a state registered Limited Liability company (Ltd Co) and I measure the potential for profit exceeds the value of my Ltd Co should this loan default and the company go bust (unable to pay creditors). Most Ltd Co's do not see this sort of prospect as making commercial sense even with their directors enjoying Limited Liability protection because they do not see the potential for sufficient return against capital available and the prospect of risk as a viable equation (let alone its questionable legality within the scope of trading insolvently as a Ltd Co).

Yet banks do expose themselves to this risk. Why? Because they can create almost as much money as they require so long as they are either receiving deposits at a sufficient rate, are re-financing loans or are able to enjoy interbank lending to fund the loans they are making. And then the full risk is ultimately mitigated because the central bank will act as 'lender of last resort' should their house of cards threaten to fall. Whilst the beneficiaries of central banks are hard to identify the guarantor is not: it is the state. But what actually is 'the state'? The state is a conduit for the power of the forced taxation of human society.

The only viable and moral solution is to remove the link between the productive, wealth creation, ability of human society and the financial indemnification of all types company owners for their losses - especially banks. Bank's owners will be very focused as to the risk they are taking when they see all their private property, past and future, is at risk. Bankers want the all the reward for themselves and YOU to take all losses. Bankers have used a succession manufactured wars to indebt states to them and to force states to allow the grant of this present banking system. They have created repeated economic bubbles and crashes to force the state to borrow more of the money they create via the permitted wizardry of fractional-reserve-banking.

Whilst we continue to have human society controlled and bleed via a 'state' we continue to allow a means for the banking money power elites to tap-in to the life-blood of humanity, through the power of state taxation, for their own gains at the cost of all others. The only enduring protection is to end the state!

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.