Government is based on lies; small wonder that lying should be so common within it.
It is a pity that kbolino no longer graces us with his presence. I’ve been sliding more and more toward near-anarchy as the only justifiable “governance”. Really it is still minarchy, but so much more minimal than our federal or state governments would ever deign to accept. The hitch is, it won’t work because of the very people that make government necessary in the first place, and the masses that are all too content to shove some amount of shit down everyone’s throats. Oh sure, they’ll argue about what particular shit, but not about the absolute necessity of shoving some down your or my throat.
I’m going to blame Nietzsche, even though the poor soul did nothing but make me think. So, in some previous writing, I discussed politics as decision making and in particular decision making that is binding on those that didn’t even participate in the decision. This is important because our entire system of government is premised on the consent of the governed, yet there is no good argument about when that consent was (or is) granted. If you’re naturalized as a citizen, there is a clear demarcation about when you chose to give your consent – you immigrated, resided and applied for that citizenship; you passed a test and swore allegiance. That is as clear a sign of consent as can be imagined. But if you are born here, your consent is implied1, in a not entirely different manner as one was born into slavery (prior to the Civil War and Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments); which doesn’t cast citizenship in such a glorious light. While you are not prohibited from leaving (as with slavery), doing so requires the permission of the nation-state to which you might remove yourself (just as legally immigrating to this country does). You can only renounce your citizenship once you have left (and presumably taken on an alternative citizenship and thus consenting to the governance of your new residence).
When this country was founded, the authority of government was already assumed to simply exist, though we did add a somewhat radical spin on it in that we argued the fundamental nature of government is that it is instituted amongst the people, who thus grant it sovereignty. Prior to this Enlightenment conceit, Sovereignty was arguably granted by God [without any great explication as to the mechanism] to kings (and properly only to the male descendants of monarchs, queens being regnant only until proper order could be restored). Hobbes2 argued that it wasn’t so much God, as the People desperate to escape the war of all against all that characterized the state of nature, that granted sovereignty. Once established this sovereignty was then captured in the person of the king, and his descendants, unless he failed in his duty to his people (at which point the people were legitimately to rebel and bargain for a new monarch). So our revolution really only changed the recipient of this power, republican/representative legislature vice monarch.
The question elided by both Hobbes and our Founders – just where does this sovereignty actually arise? How can this power (and make no mistake, that is all we are talking about here is power) that doesn’t exist in any one of us, exist amongst all of us? I cannot compel you, under the threat of death, to do my bidding – nor in the reverse can you do so to I. So if neither of us can do so (at least with any legitimacy3), how do the both of us have the grounds to do so to anyone else? Or, they to us? Lacking this property in ourselves, it is impossible for us to grant it to anyone else to use in our name. Sovereignty of the people is thus a sham, just as much as a king claiming the divine right to rule.
Nietzsche did consider this and answered it thus – we all have the will to power, the desire to dominate others. It is innate and only restrained by morality, in particular the slave morality which demonizes this will except as exercised by the priestly caste (or at least in accordance with their values). In a master morality, dominating others is treated as an expression of what is good, and Nietzsche was fond of pointing to classical Roman culture for this. I don’t think Nietzsche was quite right about this, but he also wasn’t entirely wrong, and I’ll return to this thought shortly.
Unfortunately there is one brand of political thinker that actually has an answer: the fascists. Power doesn’t arise from the individual (the weak reed, easily broken), it is an emergent property from the collective (the bundle of those reeds, tightly lashed together). It is important to understand the nature and heritage of fascism – it is an outgrowth of Marxism4. It is exceedingly difficult to point to any fascist that wasn’t first, at least a little bit, a Marxist. Marxism itself is an outgrowth of Rousseau and his conceit about the General Will5, filtered through Hegel. This clearly answers the objection to consent of the governed based on their assignment of a power they do not individually possess – at least on the assumption that we reject the use of coercion between individuals. The power arises because of their numbers, or in the alternate formulation – might makes right. Even worse, this isn’t wrong, because it is those who win wars that rule and write the histories glorifying their deeds. This isn’t some principle or logic, it is just reality. The clever demagogue (or as Hoffer calls him The True Believer) doesn’t draw people to him, he finds a mob nearing critical mass – which has a gravitational attraction to demagogues; the mob is begging for leadership and far too undiscerning about how their numbers will be put to use. The True Believer knows how to use that latent power.
Of course emergent properties are difficult things since they defy our deconstructionist view of social mechanics. There is also the matter of how all organizations operate, and that is that the leaders have authority (and make decisions for the organization as a whole). There is a significant break though between authority and power. Authority actually does operate on consent of the members of the organization, and that consent can be withdrawn. Power doesn’t recognize consent, just obedience, and demands a degree of compliance generally beyond what mere authority may command.
There is nothing existential about the nation-state as a necessary aspect of human life. We existed for millennia without it and just a few centuries with it. Even less is there any reason to believe that a single world government is either achievable or desirable. Nor can government cease to exist by virtue of some revolution (as promised under Marxist theory). If government, in particular the nation-state, is ever to be replaced it will be based on evolution and historical contingency – the same forces that gave rise to it in the first place.
Government can only be reduced in importance (i.e. scope) when the people governed stop asking government for solutions. And make no mistake, government does exist because people demand that it exist. There are benefits of at least some minimal government, just in terms of consistency and efficiency in some key areas of natural human conflict. We aren’t utterly irrational in having government, but we aren’t nearly rational enough in understanding where the limits to it should lie. It is amazing to contemplate just how much faith exists in governing.
For all of the attention that Nietzsche focused on the morality of coercion, and that a master morality and slave morality represents the great split between the employers of coercion and those oppressed by coercion, he barely noticed the dichotomy of coercion and cooperation. This is the signal difference between power and authority – the former maps to coercion and the latter to cooperation. The vast majority of human life is marked by cooperation, not coercion6, but ironically our largest current institution of human life is the one based on coercion. Authority is also more easily checked through accountability than is power. To forthrightly express domination, as Nietzsche presumes is a fundamental part of us, power is far preferable to authority (though both aligned is an even more powerful combination). The catch is that the desire to dominate isn’t really part of post-Roman Western values (which as Judeo-Christian, are a slave morality per Nietzsche). This is one reason he argued for the transvaluation of all values (just as the J-C transvaluation had overthrown the classic Roman values that had fueled the centuries of Roman expansion and domination).
Now you may ask yourself, this is interesting but how is it relevant. It once again demonstrates that reality doesn’t care about theory. The theory of government is just a profane justification for doing things we can’t do individually, but can do when none of us is actually responsible for the outcome. Now, ask yourself, how on earth is that something you could ever trust?
- Lysander Spooner, No Treason Vol VI The Constitution of No Authority is a pretty thorough demolition of consent and the tissue thin premise of a social contract. ↩︎
- Hobbes was as influential in the positive as he was the negative – drawing Rousseau’s great (and greatly mistaken) effort in his Second Discourse. ↩︎
- There is of course the Mario Puzo formulation of “an offer he couldn’t refuse”, and though that may exist in some cases it fails the legitimacy aspect that is necessary for society-wide acceptance. ↩︎
- In truly Hegelian terms fascism could be viewed as the synthesis of the liberal-capitalist thesis and Marxian antithesis. Which in turn becomes a thesis for a subsequent antithesis and some future, to be defined, synthesis. Hegel originally conceived this as a tool of analyzing history, not predicting the future. ↩︎
- Itself a contradiction to the grounds established in his Second Discourse. Rousseau was anything but consistent, even if he was consistently in error. ↩︎
- Here is the real refutation of Hobbes (and thus Rousseau) – the vast majority of human interaction is cooperative and not cut-throat. ↩︎
–Pterry
Well danggit ji you have terrible timing. I’m fixing to shut down and get on the road and be out of hand for like the next 8 hours. But thanks anyway for the writing on a thread in which I’d liked to have been able to participate. Good day everyone.
Drive fast. Take chances.
Hell, I wrote this some time ago (for my ‘stack) and popped it over here (with some mods) in response to the latest beg for content. Blame Tonio for the publication timing!
Do comment when you get the chance, I’m interested in your thoughts.
I consider myself a bemused nihilist.
A budlhist?
An analyst and a therapist?
An analrapist.
I’m growing found of the idea of a king of a people. If he doesn’t defend the people the people, we hang him and try a new one. Democracies go crazy and Republics go corrupt.
Sadly, benevolent despotism is as rare as revolutions that produce stable governments.
Went on X to check the news the day Kelce and Swift got engaged.
All of the “OMG, I’m so happy for her!” made my misanthropy kick into overdrive.
ron73440:
It’s even worse here since Kelce is from here. There were at least a dozen stories about a Cleveland wedding, house hunting for the couple, and other bullshit stories.
No kings. No queens. No lords. No ladies.
Fuck the very concept of royalty.
*Stands next to Neph.*
This.
Never understood the fascination of people – much less Americans – with the tittle-tattle drama of the British royal family. “Oooh, look at Megan Markle’s dress! Oh em gee, Prince Harry is having an affair!”
Some people really, really need hobbies.
You don’t think we have our own version of aristocracy in this country? Of people the masses idolize?
My boss stayed up late to watch the last royal wedding.
I told him there were things I cared about less than the wedding, but not many.
ji:
Oh, I know there are people who treat our celebrities as if they were royalty. I am not among them.
I’m well aware I’m in the very small minority when it comes to this.
It is exceedingly difficult to point to any fascist that wasn’t first, at least a little bit, a Marxist.
Fascism = goal oriented Marxism?
socialism with style?
Fascism really just throws away the ethereal end-state that Marxism is supposed to produce.
Quote I read attributed to Hitler, no source connected to it so take it as you may. “National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.”
Early 20th Century Euros were marinated in socialism. Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party until expelled. Then he advocated “revolutionary nationalism” transcending class lines. Socialism lite + nationalism. It worked pretty well for a while.
Hayek talked about the immediately pre-Nazi era and how easy it was for fascists and communists to switch sides. It was not a fight of opposites; it was a nit-picking fight between two very, very similar ideologies.
Fascism = National Socialism
Marxism = International Socialism
The theory of government is just a profane justification for doing things we can’t do individually, but can do when none of us is actually responsible for the outcome. Now, ask yourself, how on earth is that something you could ever trust?
I trust the government to do what is in the best interest of those who control government.
Who re-opened the USAID money spigot? Obvious color revolutions in Nepal, Serbia, Georgia, and Indonesia.
Meanwhile we are about to invade Venezuela because drugs? (But really because they signed an oil deal with China). I thought Trump was trying to get a handle on this shit?
Oh, was that part of the Big Beautiful Bill that he promised was the source of all good things? Has any person actually gotten a handle on all that was contained therein?
Probably. All that stuff took a break for about 5 or 6 months, then came roaring back. All in places where globalists benefit from the mischief.
We are still finding out what’s in Obamacare!
It isn’t affordable healthcare, we learned that much.
I’ve been sliding more and more toward near-anarchy as the only justifiable “governance”.
Sometimes I think ad hoc government in which people come together to solve specific problems and then disband to go about their ordinary business (like lynch mobs) would be the way to go. The problem with such mob rule is obviously getting the mob to disperse.
I was promised burbclaves, I would be very happy with burbclaves.
I prefer The Burbs.
“You’ve had that thing in yer trousers ALL DAY??”
They’re ruining that too.
This might actually be pertinent.
Another mass stupidity event
Chelsey Garrison said her husband acted in self-defense to protect himself and others after Sturgill had struck him on the head.
“I know what his intentions were,” she said, adding that the injuries required him to receive about a dozen staples.
Crystal Sturgill, 39, said her uncle was the one who had to defend himself after being provoked by a group of people. She said the video shows that Eric Garrison had a chance to fully leave any perceived danger but chose not to.
Instead, she said, as police officers were approaching, Garrison went to fetch his gun from his vehicle, without being pursued by Sturgill, and returned to fire the fatal shot.
All over “disrespecting” (I hate that word) a goddam war memorial.
How can people be trusted to fend for themselves without the guidance of benevolent overlords when they do idiotic shit like this?
We evolved in a world of shortages and fierce competition for resources. Evolution has so thoroughly ingrained that into our nature that we still behave as if we are in that world even though it is unnecessary. We can easily produce an abundance of resources yet here we are.
^my last ciomment on last night’s thread ^
I will add now that you are correct JI. Part of our strategy for winning out in that fierce competition was social cooperation. That too is so deeply ingrained that we cannot let any man go unyoked. Very few people can even imagine it or have ever even thought things could be otherwise.
We are still in the monkey stage. We know what civilization is and we give it lip service but the vast majority of us are bound by our primal nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1Qu2Ik458
Suthen, as to your comment from last night’s thread, I’ll respond with Thomas Sowell’s first laws of economics and politics; i.e. there is always scarcity and politics ignores that.
I do think anarchy, or a state so minimal as to be near that, is possible – for a very limited subset of people – and in splendid isolation from the rest of humanity. Whether or not that could be sustained for 5 generations or more is debatable. It could never survive being in near contact with other humans where a large mass of stupid people could be used to overwhelm it.
The key lies in the definition for scarcity.
There is what is needed and what is wanted and those are very different things.
Me: “Why cant we have allodial title?”
Whoever: “Because we need people to have incentive to make best, productive use of resources”
Me: “So….you cannot exploit me if I own myself completely. Got it.”
Suthen, don’t confuse the needs vs. wants of an individual – because there is no politics for individuals either. Economics and politics are all about groups of humans and their interactions.
Who enforces any property title? Government does. Perfect justification for having govt – securing property rights. Now, how do you pay for that (and not just you as an individual, but as a group that wants property to be secure)?
Yep.
Her uncle was also very vocal about not liking the federal government and may have had undiagnosed mental health issues. “It was always, ‘Screw the government. They’re all out to get you.’ That type of thing,” she said.
Still, she said her uncle kept to himself and deserved to be left alone that evening.
Radical right wing extremist confirmed.
They are merely perceived failings.
A Gruesome Murder in North Carolina Ignites a Firestorm on the Right
Security footage capturing the unprovoked stabbing in Charlotte became an accelerant for conservative arguments about the perceived failings of Democratic policies.
NYT – Paywall – https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/charlotte-murder-conservatives-crime.html
Just perceived failings mind you – not actual things like dead young women.
That’s almost as bad as the left trying to pin the high murder rates in Memphis or Saint Louis on “red state policies”.
Honest question: do you think published crime data are accurate? I sincerely do not think they are in Europe. And they still look pretty bad.
It’s well know that most state and federal police agencies in the United States cook the books on crime rates. I can’t imagine that it’s different in Europe, or anywhere else.
You heard them. It ‘became an accelerant for arguments about perceived failings’ as opposed to ‘illustrated perfectly’.
I’ve seen that video posted to X. I refuse to watch it. I wouldn’t be able to un-see it.
Same.
Wise man.
I would point out also that what we see as a failing of democratic policies and as a horrific tragedy the Democrats themselves see as a victory. This young woman’s murder was exactly the outcome they were hoping for with the soft on crime policies. They are guilty of murder as if they held the knife themselves…in fact that evil monster was the knife they wielded.
Foreseeable consequences are not unintended, eh, Suthen?
It could never survive being in near contact with other humans where a large mass of stupid people could be used to overwhelm it.
So what you’re saying is we should shoot our hand picked expeditionary force into space.
the unprovoked stabbing
How do we know it was unprovoked? She might have looked at him wrong. Or maybe she refused to look at him at all.
She had her back to him the whole time, and with the earbuds in she never heard him whispering sweet nothings to her.
I refuse to watch the video, but still images I’ve seen show her feet on the seat in front. I’ve no idea if that is a reaction to being stabbed.
My pet peeve is people putting their feet on seats on public transportation.
I don’t think that’s a seat in front of her. There doesn’t appear to be room enough for a seat facing the opposite direction. I think it’s just a barrier between the steps and the seating area.
What Jamie said. Plus, she didn’t put her feet up until she was cowering from the attack. Prior to that, she sat with her knees crossed and foot on the floor, very ladylike, if we can still use that term.
some people have faces just begging to be stabbed.
White?
I read this and it didn’t change my outlook as much as solidify it.
I loved to ask my mom questions based on Spooner when she would start going on about the government doing things that were completely illegal that she supported.
She never had an answer and one time called me “radical”.
I tried to get her to read it, but she was “pretty happy with how I am”.
I tried to get her to read it, but she was “pretty happy with how I am”.
And that right there is about as normal as normal gets. We are such a bunch of weirdos!
It always drove me nuts.
My mom was crazy smart, she started as a hotel room cleaner and ended up managing the whole thing, but she never wanted to learn anything.
radical is a step up from nazi which is wht you most likely are called today buy de zoomer lefties
I’ve been sliding more and more toward near-anarchy as the only justifiable “governance”
justifiable don’t enter into it. it is more what can somewhat work among the options. and anarchy is not among the options.
That’s kind of where I am… I can’t think of a justification for coercive government being OK without the unanimous and ongoing consent of every single person (which becomes rare once your population exceeds one and impossible once you get merely into the dozens).
But I’m also not entirely sold on the arguments for how police, courts, and military would work. The AnCap national defense may be morally right, but the reality is that it would be quickly and easily overrun by a larger, more centralized military force as soon as that leader decided that it would be nice to own the land and resources of AnCapistan. And there is of course private arbitration, but that depends entirely on both parties agreeing to use that arbitrator in the event of a dispute. Some kind of coercion becomes necessary when we’re dealing with outlaws who commit aggression and refuse to come to arbitration.
Another thing I don’t know is how you could permanently fix a government at some ideal minarchist spot. In a couple generations, everyone would forget why it was so important to keep it there, insist that the people who made it that way were too dumb to foresee all these modern problems we deal with, and end up right back at square one.
Just about the only thing I’m sure of is that this current level of government is way too much and needs to be reduced, and that’s kind of more important than figuring out when to stop reducing it and how to keep it at that level.
That’s basically how we got here.
Voluntarism would be the way, with people forming mutual groups and having their own ways of picking leaders and rules. That way those who want their true socialism can go in a group and finally get what they want while leaving others alone.
I also think that it would only last for a generation or two, unless there was a frontier for people to pack up and move away to.
But I’m also not entirely sold on the arguments for how police, courts, and military would work. – I do not even go that far. the current world will not go into any orderly anarchy cause it would never be allowed. To many centers of power to fall. The only way is an epic bronze age style collapse, which will bring much death and destruction and a brief anarchy replaced with some warlords or other. Large scale human societies always end thus. The historic example of anarchy were always marginal. SO even if it would work great, it is not in the cards.
Another thing I don’t know is how you could permanently fix a government at some ideal minarchist spot – you cannot. it will always be like a pendulum swinging to and fro. One can only hope it is in a good spot in ones lifetime.
Just about the only thing I’m sure of is that this current level of government is way too much and needs to be reduced, and that’s kind of more important than figuring out when to stop reducing it and how to keep it at that level.
Yet this is a minority opinion, a small minority at that. As soon as you actually suggest cutting some specific thing – even the most principled conservative is going to develop objections, because they are conservative, not reactionary let alone radical. “Well now, is it really that important to cut that, maybe we could cut something else (which turns out to be nothing else)”.
I’ve long since given up wasting very many brain cycles on the way I think things “ought to be”. The fact of the matter is all of us are way outside the mainstream so we have to find ways to improve shit but staying within reality.
“The fact of the matter is all of us are way outside the mainstream so we have to find ways to improve shit but staying within reality.”
I once said that to a fellow Libertarian and was ripped on for compromising. If you want liberty, you have to introduce it in increments because if you run on eliminating public education, while that may be morally right, people aren’t going to go for that. School choice while not perfect is the best we can do for now.
I generally agree with you, but also agree with “the ratchet only goes one way.”
I don’t think you can hold out for perfect, but I think you have to take some big steps, incrementalism doesn’t work.
As an example, housing crisis. Sure, tweaks in zoning, and eliminating parking minimums, and etc all help. But not really. We need an acceptance of property rights and a pretty radical overhaul of zoning to get any kind of real traction. Yeah, I would prefer eliminating zoning altogether and a true free market in construction, but, you know a giant step to half way is probably good enough.
I would prefer a minarchy, the Feds spending somewhere south of 5% of GDP. But, I am realistic, and have said I will shut the fuck up about spending if we are below 15%. That would be good enough. And its a pretty big step from where we are today and we aint getting there thru incremental cuts in spending.
But if you are born here, your consent is implied1, in a not entirely different manner as one was born into slavery (prior to the Civil War and Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments); which doesn’t cast citizenship in such a glorious light.
It is even a bit worse if you are not yet born and the whole inter-generational solidarity nonsense. Most “civilized”nations saddle future generations with countless obligations they had no choice in, pensions debt etc. Then again no one chooses to be born.
This is where it is incumbent upon the present generation to do a good job in educating the next generation – to teaching the values that keep government minimized and non governmental institutions maximized.
Lacking this property in ourselves, it is impossible for us to grant it to anyone else to use in our name. – you didnt build that government did 🙂
It is amazing to contemplate just how much faith exists in governing. – almost as much as in TheScience
The Science and the Government work hand in hand to increase that faith.
keep the faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZQyVUTcpM4
I don’t really have the time to give this the attention it deserves. I’ll throw in a couple of quotes from Game of Thrones for discussion.
“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me – who lives and who dies?”
“If power lies with the men who carry swords, why do we pretend that kings hold the power?” Power is ephemeral, a shadow – “power lies where we think it lies.”
Power – over yourself – comes from being willing to give up anything you have to keep your life. That’s why we have had and probably always will have slavery (in one form or another). If I’d rather die than be a slave, I’ll never be a slave.
And yet, there is a spectrum. You may never be a chattel slave but you might end up as a drafted soldier. Are you willing to give up 20% or even 50% of your income to keep your freedom and your life? Where is your line?
Exactly why I said, in one form or another.
What is the nature of “consent of the governed” when I have no way to withdraw that consent?
“Power – over yourself – comes from being willing to give up anything you have to keep your life.”
I think I would have said almost the opposite – power over yourself comes from being willing to sacrifice anything, even your life, for what you choose.
I’m not sure how I could tell your formulation from “complete powerlessness”, that is, threaten my life and I’ll give you anything and everything.
RC – we’re saying the same thing from opposite perspectives. If someone says “do this or die” and I value my life over everything, then I’ll do it, right? Whereas if I value my liberty and conscience over life itself, then I’ll die in defiance. In the latter case, I’ve preserved power over my fate, I haven’t ceded it to someone else by acquiescing.
Kill’m all. Take everything.
Happened often enough in history.
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1965429179169579219
Cracker Barrel – “We’re very, very sorry.”
They still need to fire their CEO.
There’s a recent interview with the founder out there. He said they need to fire the CEO and marketing team, and concentrate on food and service.
Fat Electrician says that was 50% a deliberate marketing stunt. He backs that up by saying the “remodeling” was done in a tiny number of stores and those were the least-performing.
I have been listening to the Revolutions podcast for the last year and a half or so.
I am at the last of the liberal revolutions, the spasm of revolutions in 1848. This is season 7. It will turn Marxist after this one.
The one takeaway from all of it is that we got lucky. The American revolution is just different from the others.
For those wondering, the seasons (which vary greatly in number of episodes, French has uncountably many) so far:
1. English Civil War
2. US Revolution
3. French Revolution
4. Haitian Revolution
5. Bolivar
6. July Revolution of 1830 (France)
7. Revolutions of 1848
The American revolution is just different from the others. -it did not want to radically replace the existing order in the country.
Replacing the King with a Republic seems pretty radical to me.
a distant king. And the order of the land, the general system of law, property etc was not meant to be changed. Just a distant nuisance removed.
Pie is 100% correct. In that way it was a conservative revolution, which is a contradiction.
Yes. Unlike some of those revolutions, the leaders of the American Revolution didn’t lose control during or shortly after their revolution.
Drake, about that coup 11 years after the Declaration of Independence…
Drake:
*clears throat*
Well… kind of.
Because ours was waged to protect slavery, or something. At least that’s what I learned from the 1619 Project.
Outstanding work, JI. Thanks for the mighty thoughty piece. (No sarc.)
“The vast majority of human life is marked by cooperation, not coercion” <– This. (Nearly) All we walk through in life, 'everything' around us, was built and came together through cooperation. "I, Pencil" is a fantastic example to share with others to help them see the unseen cooperative forces that 'somehow' bind us together. ($$) Everything product in my Walmart, from idea, design, production, shipping and sale, is the demonstration of literally millions (near-billions?) of people coming together, despite not 'knowing' each other, and likely fundamentally *hating* every other cog in the 'machine,' to buy and sell.
It really is gorgeous. We are *social* primates. The way 'we' 'decide' to organize our groups, clans, tribes, cities and beyond, is a fascinating topic. How much 'trust' people have in their culture and government is vital to 'the machine's' operation. Trust = Lubrication. When a people doesn't have any, they really don't have a 'society.' Or a Gypsy culture, at best.
(STEVE SMITH MACHINE GOES NO LUBE!)
The Media and TPTB only focus on coercion and violence. (If it bleeds, it leads.) Humans are frightful creatures, and even or especially in safe cultures, we always focus on the nastiness. Being wealthy adds to this. More comfort, more time to think. Our brains find ways to happily nestle in negativity.
Ugh.
Just got tariffed for a product made by a 1-man company in Norway.
$61 on a $285 item.
That doesn’t make America better or richer.
you sound like some sort of anarchist who hates the country
You caught me.
Maybe you should buy domestic lutefisk next time.
He said 1-man Norwegian company, not major sector of the Norwegian economy.
It’s artisanal lutefisk.
From the ded thread since it’s now ded:
Maybe someone can refresh my memory: Where do we email “what are we reading” blurbs?
whatarewereading at [this site domain] dot com?
I’m in an odd place with regard to this now. I’ve spent much of my life going around and around about the justifications for, forms of, and limits on government. But the thing is, as you have frequently pointed out, people like us here are very much the oddballs, and we are NEVER going to be the ones writing the rulebook, or picking the leadership. That has more or less brought me to a fairly cynical place* where all I really care about is:
1. Are the borders reasonably secure?
2. Are we removing criminals from society when we identify them?
3. Is the economy stable enough that I, and those I care about, can thrive?
4. IF 1-3 are answered yes, then how likely is this state of affairs to continue?
1. Is a no moving toward a yes
2. Is a no, with competing trends toward a tentative yes, and toward a hell no
3. Is right now a yes, but with the massive caveat that it’s a house of cards and the table it’s built on has gremlins sawing off al four legs in a race to see who can bring it down fastest.
*I say this as though it distinguishes me from someone, but it really doesn’t. People have a lot of masks and frills they dress things up in but in the end not being murdered or robbed, and being able to afford necessities and some luxuries is what most of us really worry about.
Yeah, this article wasn’t particularly practical about anything. I just get tired of hearing platitudes that are really nothing more than lies.
The chaotic evil left’s success at attracting millions of useful idiots to attack 1, 2, and 3 is nothing short of astonishing. It is no surprise that most of them are maladjusted children suffering from various mental abnormalities.
The one thing that I will never become is a citizen of the world.
https://x.com/avidseries/status/1965443810403778657
importing violent criminals to protect people where the criminals came from.
winning argument.
Just wait until we ruin another Heinlein novel!
if you run on eliminating public education, while that may be morally right, people aren’t going to go for that.
Muh free babysitterz!
“A future where we can see what can be unburdened by what has been”
-a person millions of Americans voted for in the last election
[head desk]
The unburdening of what has been
https://c8.alamy.com/compde/hjg5d3/gedenkstatte-die-killing-fields-choeung-ek-museum-kambodscha-massengrab-der-opfer-von-pol-pot-khmer-rouge-phnom-penh-kambodscha-hjg5d3.jpg
https://www.n-tv.de/img/54980-1242682084000/o/1536/1536/Jeder-kann-als-potenzieller-Volksverrater-liquidiert-werden.jpg
I think we are largely kidding ourselves with this discussion.
The cold hard truth is we get the government that maximizes its power through force. The limiting factor is not what people think or agree to but the limits of how much we are willing to be coerced. How much bullying will we tolerate? That is the limit on government.
How much bullying will we tolerate?
A whole fucking lot . . . . so long as “public health” is involved.
Then I guess the question becomes, “Is libertarianism a hopeless cause, or is there some way to get more of the populace to toughen up and guard their rights with more ferocity?”
Personally, I was shocked by how many people were cheering for more during the COVID tyranny. I knew we didn’t live in a nation of Rothbardians, but holy shit, I just wasn’t prepared.
Now, I am in no way saying that the COVID tyranny was remotely close to the Holocaust in severity. But I fully believe that we saw a glimpse of the same formula that made people OK with rounding up undesirables and shipping them off to certain death: Convince people that everything wrong is because of bad people in our society who could be your own family, friends, and neighbors; convince them that they deserve what they get because they are destroying the world through their terrible actions, etc.
Wasn’t there a poll showing alarmingly high support for “requiring the unvaccinated to live in government-run quarantine facilities unless they agree to get the shot”?
Yes, there is a way. You dont want to go down that road. It is the road of last resort.
Oh, but they’re really sorry now. Fuck their requests for amnesty or forgiveness for their actions during the lockdowns. They can start by making restitution, that should keep them busy for the rest of their lives. I’ll also accept no further penalties for them on three conditions:
1) They give up their right to vote.
2) They give up their right to run for any office, or work in any government position
3) They shut the fuck up about anything touching on politics
It is also a rather lonely road Suthen, we won’t have lots of company.
How much bullying will we tolerate?
The vast majority of people will cheerfully surrender freedom and uncertainty for peace and quiet and a free lunch.
Oddly enough, the Glib logo is NOT standard:
https://duparquet.com/products/solid-silver-cookware-12-1/2-in-saute
I’d also describe myself a minarchist. The State needs to exist, sadly. One will form, regardless, and I’d rather it be put on paper rather than shouted in the ‘hood, which is where we’d all live without a State, state, city, nation, etc. Tribes would naturally form, mostly based on geography. Historically, religion and language would assimilate by force or cultural sway.
What The State should do: Justice System. <– Primarily for violent and property crime. Recognizing property rights is the State's foot on the scale to foster trust in the institutions that protect such. Reactions to violent crimes are reactions. Necessary ones. A system to process and determine guilt is crucial for both The People to be 'satisfied' with governance, and to give credence to The State itself, and hopefully demonstrates why it needs to exist and be trusted, accepted, 'believed' in.
(Always with Trust, eh? Social primates require it to remain sociable.) The State's hopefully DISinterest in each squabble is necessary because otherwise other social primates will just 'figure it out' themselves. (That ends well!) Having formal, official settings is powerful for humans, be they religious, political, or on a podium after winning the Gold. If trusted, the closure sates the public. (We want refs outside The Game, and they *best* not be easily-bribed.
(*Constant Vigilance enters the bar, eyes the room, wondering if anyone missed His absence*)
Other legit uses of The State: War, for sure. War and Justice, the latter (usually) far more important, are about the only things govt should do. Immigration, sure, and I'm sure a couple other oddities. But Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Governments are unavoidable. Social primates will create them, or they will form, rather, in any group of humans. It is impossible for it *not* to occur. Even a couple or a family living off the grid has rules and order. They suck and I want more pie. Give it to me. Now.
*bro punches Ev in the face; parents separate us; a 'naughty you!' to Colin and 'That's not yours!" to me. Inescapable. (Well. Stop stealing, ev.)
Great piece, JI.