 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 608, February 20, 2011 "WTF?"
Holy, Freaking, Bouncing (blond, anarchist, with battle rifles) Bovines! Not Jes' "Holy Cow!"
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle607-20110213-05.html
While I wonder who is this fellow "Who", referred to in his penultimate paragraph, whom, he states, knows if Mr. Hasnas's "checks and balances" will work in his "remedial state" {and why the hell don't we just go and ask Mr. Who, and then we, too, shall know; if, in fact, Mr. Who knows, which I doubt ... (and what in the ever-loving, blue-eyed world does the phrase "remedial state" mean, anyhoo?) A. E.}; I must commend Mr. Bonneau for using a summation paragraph. {And for refraining from the use of the run-on sentence or excessive parentheses. A. E.} To wit (Mr. Bonneau's summation, not my commendation):
If I may paraphrase that first summation sentence; and winkle-out some of the implied meaning: "Maybe it is time for statists and anarchists to stop whacking each other, and for the anarchists to give unconditional and perpetual military surrender to the statists. After all, the concepts of the [un]limited state and freedom (not to mention the officially failed, according to its own advertising "United States of America" experiment) have never really been tested on the forge of adversity; so we really do not know if either of them may work. For the free folk to fail to bend their knees and expose their throats to the aristocracy is to engage in intellectual cowardice; and leave us all wondering whether freedom or slavery is the better system of social organization." To put it bluntly, Mr. Bonneau and Prof. Hasnas are just recapitulating the arguments of Alexander Hamilton for his somewhat broader "constitutional and therefor limited state". All three of these men are trying to make us believe that politicians are gods, or at least angles, and have only the best interests of the common scum at heart. I can think of no more racist position, than to elevate the lowest dregs of our society: the psychopaths and sadists with the most animal cunning to the exalted status of gods. Speaking of common scum, that form of argument has been shown by history to be nothing but religious fantasy from the cult of the state. It is suitable for nothing other than fertilizing crops; and I, for one am tired to death of having to dodge those great, steaming, stinking piles of it. "Holy, Freaking, Bouncing Bovines", Paul! (That is one step up from "Holy Cow". Insert here: a mental image of a pastoral scene of rolling, low hills with some few trees and virulently green grass; in the foreground a group of female Holstein quadrupeds (the black and white kind), with long, blond hair in ringlets with pink ribbons, leaping up and down about three feet into the air and shrieking hysterically. MOO!!!) To start at the beginning (as my Grandpa Jack should have told me, and didn't) your folk (the parasitic class, or the aristocracy) and mine (the productive class, or the common, subhuman scum) have been at loggerheads for the past six thousand blood-soaked years of recorded history—and for the previous four thousand blood-soaked years of prerecorded history as archeology seems to show. Ten thousand years (or, even, six thousand, for the sake of the gods) seems to me to be an adequate time to whack anything on the forge of adversity (especially human cultures, as they evolve much faster than species or continents) and get at least a niggling idea of what might come out of the process. So don't give me this "we ain't given it a good enough try yet" stuff. It is suitable for fertilizing crops. As is the aristocracy, come to think on it. Throughout that time my folk (the productive class, etc.) have produced all of the wealth that there has ever been (except for land, and we did all the improvements thereto) and your folk have Robbed, Raped, Enslaved and Murdered us to the extent that you were able. The above R., R., E. and M. being the four basic (and exclusive, except for advertising to the contrary and a bit of window dressing) functions of all governments, or states, as you call them. During those ten thousand years there have been many different iterations of the state. Some have been more restrictive of freedom in various realms of human endeavor and others less so. There has been a broad range of freedom of economic (trade) activity (countered by taxes, restrictions and regulations) along with an equally broad range of freedom of culture and religion at various times and places. Freedoms in the many realms of human activity have tended to vary together for the most part, making some cultures "more free overall" and others less so. Among all of these "cultural data sets" (a given country in a given historical period) with their broad range of freedom-vs.-government environments, we find an invariable equation: The more freedom and the less government (and they do, in fact, vary inversely) the more wealth, the more even distribution of that wealth, the faster advancement of all of the practical and fine arts and the happier the (common scum) productive folk. Oh, yes, and the less war. That means peace, prosperity, progress and other nice things beginning with "P". The other edge of that sword: the greater the state and the less the freedom as a result, the more we see poverty, massive state rape, slavery, artistic and technological stagnation and war. We also see genocide. In the twentieth century alone, governments (that means states, Paul) have murdered in non-war genocides and on the battlefield well over 305,000,000 people. The ratio between the dead in war and genocide is one to six: that is, genocide killed six times more people than all foreign and internal wars put together from Anno Domini 1900 to 1999. See Dr. Rummel's definitive research on the subject at < http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/ >. Dr. Rummel is an honest scientist (except for his blind spot for the evil of the Unites States, which blind spot seems to be waning) and those people are very conservative about their data and conclusions. While his data set and conclusions are the hardest to date, I would bet money that he is very conservative where the raw data are rather soft, and therefor his final numbers to date and conclusions are probably very low. As for the old wheeze that government (sorry, State) office draws only the best minds in the country and repels the worst; so that the State folks will always obey their own constitutional restrictions and laws; well, we have seen what history hath shown. The present constitution is, in the words of George the Third "just another god-damned piece of paper". Although there is controversy over when it was revoked, the latest reasonable date that I have heard is March, 1933 when the last Roosevelt seized power. We know that politicians are both psychopathic and sadistic. We know that constitutions and common law are no restraint on the activities of politicians. We know that in all governments, constitutional and otherwise, big and small, restrained (see Switzerland) and broad (see England)—the system selects for those qualities of psychopathology and sadism, weeding out all of the normal, just and benevolent people. The war between good (freedom) and evil (politics), in north America between the ethnic Americans (the people of the eighteenth century Franco-Scottish Enlightenment) and the Unites States empire is coming to a head. We anarchists have chosen our side in that war. Soon the minarchists will have to decide the same thing, or a method of staying out of the lines of fire. Your choices are to run away (where?), stand and fight or surrender and be slaves—you and your children. What Mr. Bonneau and Prof. Hasnas are peddling is abject, military surrender, just another brand of robbery, rape, slavery and genocide. No, thank you. I prefer to stand and fight. As to my goal:
After all, history has shown that all that I need and want is provided by private enterprise. I have no use for any state. As to my strategy:
I invented that strategy by combining the work of Jim Bell in his paper "Assassination Politics" with the historically proven "top-down distributed order of battle" to form Fifth-Generation War strategy in 2004; and published it in this magazine. Since then, I have publicly called for falsification of my strategic theory. I have not seen anyone lift a pinkie to do so. All I have heard against it is "I don't like it." and "It is evil." Today I call for either falsification or application. If you just don't like self defense (and that is all that 5GW is), or think that it is evil, then join the Catholic Church, read Lew Rockwell, buy a jar of Vaseline and make a down payment on a coffin. You're gonna need 'em. As to my tactics:
And for his last summation sentence:
Thanks, Paul. I could'na said it better my-own-self.
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next