26 October 2008

Reply to an Anarcho-Capitolist

One really can't see the voluntaryism of anarcho-capitolism working, because it depends on human nature and the strength of culture to replace the total state.

Currently we live under what the late philosopher Sam Francis called a centralizing anarcho-tyranny.

There is no rule of law, because the men in black skirts interpret the law to their own satisfaction.

Laws, particularly the Constitution, exist to protect the people, not promote issues or enhance the stature of politicians.

We actually call politicians "law-makers," as if that were their job.

So we live in tyranny with laws that have no means of enforcing themselves.

The well-known philosopher and science fiction writer, Jerry Pournelle writes,

"We do not live by rule of law, because no one can possibly go a day without breaking one or another of the goofy laws that have been imposed on us over the years. No one even knows all the laws that apply to almost anything we do now. We live in a time of selective enforcement of law."


The managerial state replaces the whole of society and makes it all a part of the state. The state controls our schools and highways, what we eat, watch and listen to.

It has become our life.

Take Joe the Plumber. The Corporate Media sneers at him, because he has no plumber's license.

Why does a piece of paper make him a plumber, in their eyes? Because that piece of paper comes from the state, instead of from the local community which employs him.

The state is sacred to the Media, just as culture, religion and nationality used to be sacred to all Americans.

In order to win, we must escape the shackles of the centralizing, Internationalist state, by defunding it, deprogramming ourselves and assisting our fellow Americans in doing the same.

It will take years of patient toil to regain the sovereignty of the states, and the cut the empire of D.C. down, at the knees.

We cannot win straight out elections, even on a local level, because the government, party system and the media are all against us. But we can win on ballot initiatives like the Eminent Domain issue. State bureaucrats knew this and feared a win in November, which is why they were so eager to stifle the petition on a slight technicality.

There is currently an online petition to end the personal property tax, which we hope will soon be approved by the MO SOS office.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/end-personal-property-tax-in-the-state-of-missouri/signatures.html

Running for minor offices, some of them non-political like the up-coming Cooperative Extension Council elections, will gain advantages for us, because these are elections which we can win.


We can win on taxes. We can win ending the party system and re-instituting the rule of law. We can win on stifling bureaucracy and re-building community and localist culture.

The American people, especially the younger generation, are tired of the two parties and their pretensions.

It will be a long, ugly knifefight, but we can at least achieve parity and some concrete results. Big Government's adherents have only limited stamina and have never faced a serious challenge before.

As members of the Campaign for Liberty, we should probably be considering our long term goals.

We cannot yield to nostalgia, and try to make things as they once were. Turning back the clock won't accomplish anything, because time always goes forward anyway.

Some practical goals, one might venture to suggest, are as follows.

1. Implementation of the genuinely free market Austrian System of Economics. The Free Market Theory of Economics and Banking championed by Ron Paul, has NEVER been tried before.

2. Ending the Political Party System

3. While one cannot see the practicality of eliminating the Constitution, one must note that many of the Found Father's feared that it was too weak a Document and time has proven them correct.
The Constitution has been relentlessly trampled upon, since 1800 and is in need of an over-hauling in order to strengthen it.
One would not suggest that the Constitution should be changed in event of another Constitutional Convention, but that its language should be made strengthened and made impermeable to attack.