Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

The Enemy Of The State

Recommended Posts

someone needs to take a scythe to the State else Britain becomes bankrupt

link

What the State Is Not

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

History as a Race Between

State Power and Social Power

Just as the two basic and mutually exclusive interrelations between men are peaceful cooperation or coercive exploitation, production or predation, so the history of mankind, particularly its economic history, may be considered as a contest between these two principles. On the one hand, there is creative productivity, peaceful exchange and cooperation; on the other, coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert Jay Nock happily termed these contesting forces: "social power" and "State power."[41] Social power is man's power over nature, his cooperative transformation of nature's resources and insight into nature's laws, for the benefit of all participating individuals. Social power is the power over nature, the living standards achieved by men in mutual exchange. State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production – a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers. While social power is over nature, State power is power over man. Through history, man's productive and creative forces have, time and again, carved out new ways of transforming nature for man's benefit. These have been the times when social power has spurted ahead of State power, and when the degree of State encroachment over society has considerably lessened. But always, after a greater or smaller time lag, the State has moved into these new areas, to cripple and confiscate social power once more.[42] If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up – with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

In this century, the human race faces, once again, the virulent reign of the State – of the State now armed with the fruits of man's creative powers, confiscated and perverted to its own aims. The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained.[44]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone needs to take a scythe to the State else Britain becomes bankrupt

link

The rise of the State is surely an evolutionary process, its benefits far outweigh its disadvantages, for example, the concentration of resources in combatting disease and the development of medicine. The acknowledgement of the importance of education and its delivery to every child, the protection of its citizens from external political and military sources.

I might suggest that the failure of the State , and this applies to all failed states from the classical Greeks onwards, has been ignorance, ignorance of the wishes of its citizens and the failure to consult them about the issues that matter to them, and by them i mean the majority.

Our system of democracy, first past the post, means that all governments elected have no real mandate in the true sense of the word, they will achieve maybe 30-35% of the national vote in a general election and as a result they do not truly represent the people.

we need a constitution, real democracy, not this sham in which we are democratic every four or five years, at the whim of the Prime minister who exercises the right to choose the date of the election.

We need more democracy, and better, representative government, the alternative is all too easy to see in the absolutely evil people that govern us now.

i rhink the alternatives suggested in your writings suggest anarchy and that would be criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: if you're a central banker maybe.

i understand your scepticism, and i dont blame you given the revelations of the last few weeks and months, but for evil men to govern good men simply have to stand by and do nothing,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i understand your scepticism, and i dont blame you given the revelations of the last few weeks and months, but for evil men to govern good men simply have to stand by and do nothing,.

Only evil men want to govern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sworn enemy is the state, like all individuals I am the states worst nightmare, a human being. All states are evil incarnate. All states hate their citizens, all states eventually impoverish and murder their citizens. Any right thinking individual wants the state smashed into tiny pieces before it can wreak it's damage on the individual and their family. You cannot have freedom whilst any state exists. Our government is no better than any other armed gang. No state has ever done any good, no government benefits the individual. Just say "no" to government. Ignore them, it will make you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My sworn enemy is the state, like all individuals I am the states worst nightmare, a human being. All states are evil incarnate. All states hate their citizens, all states eventually impoverish and murder their citizens. Any right thinking individual wants the state smashed into tiny pieces before it can wreak it's damage on the individual and their family. You cannot have freedom whilst any state exists. Our government is no better than any other armed gang. No state has ever done any good, no government benefits the individual. Just say "no" to government. Ignore them, it will make you feel better.

your sworn enemy will be the man that takes away your possessions, destroys your home, abuses your trust, lies to you and is deceitful, he is your neighbour, a relative, a work colleague, he could be anyone, and the only thing that stops him is fear of retribution, and where will that retribution come from, will it come from your hand, from your gang, from your local militia, from your organised police force, who will protect you and how will you reward him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state only needed to perform 5 core functions:-

- develop legislation (and none of it should be designed to influence individual's behaviour)

- monitor adherence to SOME of it (much of it can be policed privately by the people who want to benefit from the legislation concerned - eg auditing company accounts)

- defence

- justice

- issue money

And that's it. Everything else can, and should be, undertaken privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is most likely to kill me, steal from me, and generally cause harm, that's right, the state. If you think it is currently protecting you then you are seriously deluded.

But you are correct, me, my family, my extended family, will be responsible, like it always has been, before the nastiest of gangs gathered and called themselves, "a government".

The state is your enemy, always has been always will be. Let me know what they do to protect you?

Only evil men want to govern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your sworn enemy will be the man that takes away your possessions, destroys your home, abuses your trust, lies to you and is deceitful, he is your neighbour, a relative, a work colleague, he could be anyone, and the only thing that stops him is fear of retribution, and where will that retribution come from, will it come from your hand, from your gang, from your local militia, from your organised police force, who will protect you and how will you reward him?

Total facepalm stuff, this.

We need a gang to tell us what to do or there will be gangs..telling us what to do.. :unsure:

Logical.

Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think elements of the state should be voluntry and based on subscription. in essense i would like to opt out of all state systems. i know its not entirely possible. i am also thinking of putting a brass plaque on my door saying state employees including council employees, police, social services and politicians etc etc NOT WELCOME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The state only needed to perform 5 core functions:-

- develop legislation (and none of it should be designed to influence individual's behaviour)

- monitor adherence to SOME of it (much of it can be policed privately by the people who want to benefit from the legislation concerned - eg auditing company accounts)

- defence

- justice

- issue money

And that's it. Everything else can, and should be, undertaken privately.

I see where your coming from, smaller government, I thinks in Greece they have only 1000 laws, once they reach this limit and before a new law can be introduced they have to remove a law from the statute book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do human beings need laws, we are simple creatures, like dolphins, only less intelligent. See my signature for my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Total facepalm stuff, this.

We need a gang to tell us what to do or there will be gangs..telling us what to do.. :unsure:

Logical.

Not.

Your right, just make sure your in the right gang,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the right gang? You mean the most powerful gang? You mean the majority? You mean democracy?

Disclaimer: democracy has nothing to do with it's current incarnation, which could more accurately be described as "ratified dictatorship", it actually mean "self rule", therefore, "no state, and no government".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disclaimer: democracy has nothing to do with it's current incarnation, which could more accurately be described as "ratified dictatorship", it actually mean "self rule", therefore, "no state, and no government".

yes, democracy is power with the people; government is power with the few.

democratic government is a contradiction in terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the right gang? You mean the most powerful gang? You mean the majority? You mean democracy?

Disclaimer: democracy has nothing to do with it's current incarnation, which could more accurately be described as "ratified dictatorship", it actually mean "self rule", therefore, "no state, and no government".

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see where your coming from, smaller government, I thinks in Greece they have only 1000 laws, once they reach this limit and before a new law can be introduced they have to remove a law from the statute book.

Those are the core activities; everything else is a luxury. We could afford once but we really need to trim back. And we need to hypothecate, using compulsory insurance for those in work set at various levels and capable of top-up privately.

Apart from the 5 which would be covered by general taxation, if it was me, I would:-

- privatise education with an insurance levy paid by those in work (lower for those of child bearing age who are childless) leading to a voucher for each child once born;

- privatise the NHS, with compulsory insurance for those in work, set at a low-ish level of minimum cover (A&E plus ambulance cover);

- scrap all drug laws and tax the intoxicating ones (and license their distributors); thus allowing

- halving (at least) the size of the police and judiciary;

- privatise benefits for those in work paid for by insurance with a low-ish level of minimum cover;

- heath and benefits safety net for provided by a state levy on the premiums paid for health and benefits for those who have never worked or fall outside insurance for a reason unconnected with the choice of level of cover.

On taxes, the only fair tax is a tax on wealth, rather than income or spending, other than on gambing and intoxicants. So no income tax, national insurance, VAT, stamp duty, corporation tax etc. And a wealth tax that troubles maybe half the population, if not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are the core activities; everything else is a luxury. We could afford once but we really need to trim back. And we need to hypothecate, using compulsory insurance for those in work set at various levels and capable of top-up privately.

Apart from the 5 which would be covered by general taxation, if it was me, I would:-

- privatise education with an insurance levy paid by those in work (lower for those of child bearing age who are childless) leading to a voucher for each child once born;

- privatise the NHS, with compulsory insurance for those in work, set at a low-ish level of minimum cover (A&E plus ambulance cover);

- scrap all drug laws and tax the intoxicating ones (and license their distributors); thus allowing

- halving (at least) the size of the police and judiciary;

- privatise benefits for those in work paid for by insurance with a low-ish level of minimum cover;

- heath and benefits safety net for provided by a state levy on the premiums paid for health and benefits for those who have never worked or fall outside insurance for a reason unconnected with the choice of level of cover.

On taxes, the only fair tax is a tax on wealth, rather than income or spending, other than on gambing and intoxicants. So no income tax, national insurance, VAT, stamp duty, corporation tax etc. And a wealth tax that troubles maybe half the population, if not less.

Its quite a good manifesto, now all you need to do is get enough people to agree with you, organise a few rallies, obtain some publicity, appoint some representatives, gather some funding for all of this along the way and then put it to the vote, thats democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its quite a good manifesto, now all you need to do is get enough people to agree with you, organise a few rallies, obtain some publicity, appoint some representatives, gather some funding for all of this along the way and then put it to the vote, thats democracy.

voting<>democracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.