There are some things that seem so obvious to me, but seem to create considerable consternation when mentioned in public. Perhaps my fellow Steemians can offer some insight and help explore why these observations are so controversial?
Remember, what Charles Manson did on a small scale is identical to what politicians do on a large scale.
This is not exactly a new concept. In the 5th century AD, Saint Augustine expressed a similar sentiment in The City of God saying,
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
Augustine believed that a Christian ruler could alter this comparison by enforcing justice, but he did not understand the nature of government. It is consistent to say that government is organized crime, taxation is extortion, licenses are racketeering, wars are mass murder, and every victimless crime law is criminal. The nature of political power is corrupting, no matter how virtuous the intent of those who wield it, and it is a siren song to those who are already corrupt.
Government borders are not analogous to property lines, and the government that claims those borders is the biggest threat to your property.
Again, this is my response to "alt-right" claims that try to make government look like a protector of libertarian values. If my argument is correct in the first point, government borders are analogous to gang turf boundaries. I know people argue that elections and the Constitution mean we are represented by government, and government is just exercising our rights on our behalf through the authority it was granted by the democratic process, but political representation is a lie, and democracy is a myth. As Lysander Spooner wrote in his 1886 Letter to Grover Cleveland,
You have not so much as the honest signature of a single human being, granting to you or your lawmakers any right of dominion whatever over him or his property. [...] These votes were given in secret solely because those who gave them did not dare to make themselves personally responsible, either for their own acts, or the acts of their agents, the lawmakers, judges, etc.
These voters, having given their votes in secret (by secret ballot), have put it out of your power—and out of the power of all others associated with you in the government—to designate your principals individually. That is to say, you have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you, or who voted against you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are bound, on every just principle of law or reason, to confess that you are mere usurpers, making laws, and enforcing them, upon your own authority alone.
In short, government does not represent you, so its territorial claims are not an extension of Lockean property rights.
Dictatorships are anti-liberty, period. Neither Pinochet nor Stalin was a hero.
It's hard to believe this is a controversial opinion, but I personally know members of the "alt-right" who claim that Pinochet's tyranny was justified because he targeted communists, and I know socialists who idolize Stalin as a hero. I certainly oppose attempts by Communists to seize political power, but I also know that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I am hardly a supporter of the Russian monarchy, but I can't support Stalin's brutal regime or misguided centrally planned economy either. How is it rational to imagine that "right wing" totalitarianism is better than "left wing" totalitarianism, or vice versa, and that acceptance of totalitarianism won't backfire?
If nothing else, consider the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This means don't be a tyrant if you don't want to be subject to a tyrant. Don't support political plunder or police brutality against your adversaries if you don't want your adversaries using such means against you. Be consistent rather than petty and vengeful.
Do you agree or disagree with any of these arguments? Comment below!
As I read this, what came to mind was part of a comedian's (I forget who-- might have been Eddie Izzard?) talking about how we are horrified by murder, and horrified by a serial killer who offs 30 people...
But when it comes to the likes of Stalin or Pinochet and deaths go in the millions, we bump into our collective "reality threshold" and it's no longer real. Sure, 20 million died... but Stalin didn't personally pull the trigger 20 million times. It becomes vague and institutionalized.
It's strange... people don't THINK. And people become apologists for those causing harm, if that harm is done in name of a greater ideology that supports their life perspective. And they believe lies. And they believe they are except from cognitive bias, while those on the opposite side are declared enmeshed and "beyond hope."
And the right and the left do the exact same thing... over and over... even though few on the far left OR the alt. right are 100% bad people (as they like to make each other out to be).
Having an individual direction is scary... so adopting some form of collective direction becomes more palatable.
It's impossible for government to not be corrupt... UNLESS we live under a miracle where everyone has the SAME vision and opinion. I also have a fresh crop of unicorns for you....
Could have been Bill Hicks or George Carlin, too.
Gotta Love Hicks: Choose Love instead of fear.
Free Will runs the Universe... Any system which is counter to that fundamental principle will eventually fall apart. Peace brother.
Gotta LOVE Hicks and Carlin,,, they are the BEST !!!!
I don't see anything controversial here. Did you leave a part out?
If it doesn't seem controversial to you, maybe you're trying to be intellectually consistent?
Maybe, I don't watch enough TV. :)
What government often amounts to is the State is everything and the individual is nothing.
That's what it always amounts to. In the end, the assertion is always that the people in government matter, and you don't.
Great post Jacobtothe! I left another comment here that expresses my opinion. Resteeming and followed!
Hard pill to swallow because we elected these people!
Did we really? Do we really believe after all thats come out about the election-rigging that we actually elected them? Nah, don't think so. Its a club with a very high price to pay and its a corporation and these Congress Members are employees of USA, Inc.. Period. Just look at their voting records! People like ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) have exposed this as whistle-blowers this at the expense of their careers. https://www.newsbud.com is a great resource
I upvoted your comment because it is largely relevant, but I am uncertain of McKinney's record being worthy of support as a whistleblower.
Did we? I didn't vote for them. Did you? Even if you did, how can you rationally say they represent you?
"We" did, you might not have but the overall views of the people are brought to light by the people they put into power.
That makes no sense, because the vast majority objectively did not vote for the politicians who were elected to government. There is no societal support, just the illusion of such.
I use to believe in voting,,, but after 20+ years of it,,, with nothing I vote for ever coming to be (with the exception of CA Medical Marijuana) i've realized the follie in my ways.
Voting is the biggest "OPIATE of the MASSES" as it fools people that they have a say in policy. (In the uSA you only vote for your Representatives,,, then they vote and make laws that serve them and their big money Corporate Interests, not the common man.
I'm with you on that. I still have some faith in state Ballot initiatives where the people vote directly, bypassing the legislature. However, the "people" here in Colorado actually had a ballot initiative that will make it harder to get future initiatives on the ballot... and it passed. So sad.
Proof that democracy is not a virtue.
yes, that is a tragedy!
Posted on FB..... Thanx for resteeming @dakini5d !
I agree there is a cult of personality and emotional attachments. A small minority can actually recognize that and remove themselves from it. Enjoyed the post
Well said!