One of the most common excuses for statism is that we have to accept "The world as it really is". As if I've ever said otherwise.
Lots of bad things exist. I accept that they exist, and can do so without embracing or using them.
The whole "The world as it really is" thing is a cop-out. It doesn't justify evils. It doesn't work with statism, nor does it work with other bad things.
Rape exists, so according to this type of "thinking", we'd better not speak out or rally against it. That would be Utopian. Embrace rapists and work to make them safer and more efficient. Don't you dare point out that rape is a violation of someone's rights; that nothing can change this fact or make it OK. Just accept that it exists, will probably always exist, and find ways to use this fact to your advantage to get what you want.
Right?
Yes, statism exists. The majority even seems to like it. That doesn't make it right. I can accept that statism exists without contributing to it. Refusing to voluntarily participate in something harmful-- even if you can't necessarily stop it from happening-- is better than justifying propping it up, helping it continue, and criticizing those who won't go along.
until an individual can stop a gang/state... defense requires a group/team to ferociously defend.
ReplyDelete"God made man. Sam Colt made them equal."
Lexington and Concord were statists attacks to take artillery from civilians yearning yo be free. Yet today "laws" deny me my artillery nukes, and kinetic strike from space.
point being, the tools of liberty have been effectively removed from the peasants.
unlesz and until free men have tools to fight evil evil will always prevail.
in 1775, we needed artillery to defend liberty. today?
peasants.
mexico cartels.
Deletehow does non-state individual defend against large group of coordinated violent aggressors?
a) live under protection of state, while making valid philosophical points that ignore physical security.
b) individually confront large group of coordinated violent aggressors- and die quickly.
c) create/join a group of vigorous folks exercising physical security that can stand up to
i) small gangs
ii) organized cartels
iii) nation states.
d) other.
effective physical security is the giant gaping hole not being addressed.
If people can organize to form a state to resist the bad guys, they can also organize without becoming bad guys to resist the bad guys.
DeleteIf not, we might as well just give up right now. Because it's over in that case. Period. Done. Kaput.
As I keep telling "Kill 'em all Anonymous", if you have to act like the bad guys-- adopt the practices and behavior of the bad guys-- to defeat the bad guys there's not even any point. You are the bad guys, too. In that case, no one should "win".
"If people can organize to form a state to resist the bad guys, they can also organize [...] to resist the bad guys."
ReplyDelete"Can". Yet not in evidence anywhere on the planet.
The score is 7billion to 0.
Cartels/states eradicate the ineffective/impractical.
A viable alternative does not exist at this time (did in the past, hoped for in the future).
"If not, we might as well just give up right now."
-OR- create that, enable that, build it.
What are the practical steps to make it so?
If you are wasting time supporting states you'll never find a practical step to fight evil without becoming evil.
Deletesupport? no.
Deleteacknowledge current dependence? yes, i do.
capable of defending against individuals, and small gangs.
but lacking capability against more resilient graft, corruption, cartels.
and lacking cannon/artillery like my fore bearers, lack capability against states.
the state forces the state security apparatus upon us, making us dependent.
i do not want { food, water, shelter, physical security } from the state.
to be free, men cannot remain dependent on a state/gang/cartel/overlord.
Unless and until you are taking care of physical security, then you are depending on others to provide it for you... a tenant on their plantation.
dependence does not make one free.
must create/grow the capability to defend against graft, corruption, cartels, and states.
Physical safety/security is at the base of the "hierarchy of needs":
ReplyDeleteSelf Actualization
Psychological needs: relationships, accomplishments
Basic needs: food, water, shelter, physical security
Unless and until you are taking care of physical security, then you are depending on others to provide it for you; making your security subservient to others- Others who may impose their will onto your entire set of needs, whenever THEY choose to do so.
Relying on an external cartel/gang/state for the base of your entire 'hierarchy of needs' undermines anything else at every other level of the hierarchy. It's a fatal vulnerability to individual liberty and to philosophies that ignore the foundation.
Propose that folks:
1) acknowledge their current dependence on a cartel/gang/state for some basic needs.
1a) acknowledge that lone individuals cannot effectively defend against gangs/cartels/states.
2) get working to create/join a group of vigorous folks exercising physical security that incrementally can stand up to
i) small gangs
ii) organized cartels
iii) nation states
1- acknowledge the problem.
2- fix the problem. provide for food, water, shelter, physical security.
or not...
individuals choose.
The men of Lexington and Concord had militia and cannon, rather than depend on the redcoats for their physical security. Liberty.
Deletetoday, ...