_____
I can almost hear them now...
"Oh Gosh. Really? Eliminate government? But, but... Don't we need it? For this, that, and the other thing?"
Yes, really. And no, we don't. I didn't start out as an anarchist, but the more I looked, the more I saw that, beyond being unnecessary, government is generally a bad idea.
I'm not saying we wouldn't have problems if we didn't have government. What I AM saying is that all our biggest problems are caused by it. You may ask, "Is there not some form of government we can adopt, that will only be beneficial and can never be corrupted?" As an answer, I would ask if you have ever heard of such a government, and whether you really think that's possible.
Out there in our galaxy, the other sentient beings must have come to some kind of collective understanding. Being more advanced and more experienced than we are, if not more intelligent, we can assume that they learned their lessons about government long ago. Maybe they have some kind of system they can teach us, that actually works...
...and maybe that system involves personal responsibility and self-governance.
My 1967 edition of Webster's defines anarchy as "the complete absence of government and law." Chaos, on the other hand, is defined as "any great confusion or disorder." Somewhere along the line, people began to equate anarchy with chaos. In fact, if you go to Dictionary.com, you will find "Political disorder and confusion" as one of the entries. Then, if you use the thesaurus feature, you will find 'anarchy' and 'chaos' as the first synonyms listed for one another.
Something tells me that government encourages us to think that life without it would be chaotic. Certainly they approve of the word 'anarchy' holding a negative connotation. And, though several examples of successful anarchies exist in history -- their downfall invariably being the introduction of government -- we can't expect our children to learn about them in government-sponsored public schools.
If they didn't have governments to play with, how could the power elite wage wars?
Please read The Argument From Morality (Or how we will win...) by Stefan Molyneux here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html
Quote: "The ability to wage war requires that politicians retain the right to steal from certain citizens to pay other citizens to murder people."
Cities exist as corporations. They are run much like businesses, and it is not difficult to imagine them continuing on in the absence of a State and/or national government. In many municipal areas, citizens are not taxed for water, sewer, police and trash collection, but pay monthly fees. Their transition from municipal government to 'municipal services corporation' should be a simple one.
You might ask how roads would be built, and who would maintain them, without government. Toll roads would be one solution, but that goes against our basic freedom to travel. Would large corporations not step up to sponsor highways? Could advertisement sales not pay for maintenance?
My point is that an anarchic society does not have to descend into chaos. People are very resourceful. Imaginative solutions will be found for the new problems we'll be faced with.
The larger a government becomes, the tighter its grip will be on its people. Where the State professes to serve its people, the opposite becomes true, and the people become unwitting slaves of the State.
Please read Who Are the Realists? by Roy Halliday here: http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f41h2.html
Quote: "It is precisely because we are aware of man's moral weakness that we want to make the powerful machinery of the state unavailable to evil men."
Right now you might be wondering about the title of this blog. Nation of Earth? Can we have a nation without government? Yes, we can. The first definition in my '67 Webster's for 'nation' is "a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, culture, and language in common." The third is "a people or tribe." We may not all speak the same language, or use the same currency, or enjoy the same culture -- and we probably don't want to -- but our shared territory is the surface of Earth, and like it or not, that makes us one people.
We need not fear other Earthlings just because they are different. Fear in general, for that matter, is something to be avoided as vigilantly as government. Governments prey upon our fears in order to exact their rule over us.
That, by the way, is the definition of 'terrorism'.
Phil Smith
December 11th, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I always believed we could have justice without law, security without enforcement (I think this is called mutual respect and understanding) and the freedom to choose our own way of living providing it did not infringe on another person's freedom to live as they pleased. I never imagined my fellow human beings would automatically go out and commit murder if it was no longer illegal, nor that they would wish ill on their neighbour without reason. The people who cause harm and behave in a criminal way probably would do so regardless of consequence or lack of consequence. I think we are foolish in believing that we need to be governed - what we need is some sort of ability to communicate through a central point in order to better manage shared resources. The government was never meant to control us - they were meant to represent us.
This is my instant reaction to your piece, just thought I would send it while it was fresh.....now I will go back and re-read more thoroughly. Namaste and happy festive season to you and yours Tina x
Post a Comment