Concessions and compromises are impossible to negotiate with the State. Reformist sophistry deceives libertarians into believing that direct action is avoidable. The truth of the matter is that tyrants will never be satisfied until all principled opposition to their rule becomes chilled dissent.
Two years ago, Elizabeth Ploshay wrote an article published by Bitcoin Magazine, which openly admitted that there were secret behind-closed-doors meetings that took place between the Bitcoin Foundation and federal regulators. Ploshay writes:
“Monday’s meeting with regulators was spearheaded by an invitation to a private conference held by FinCEN in Washington, D.C. Regulators included high-level representatives from FinCEN, IRS, FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security and more. Foundation attendees included [Marco] Santori, Patrick Murck, Peter Vessenes, Brian Klein, and Jim Harper. Foundation attendees spoke for an hour on Bitcoin the protocol, bitcoin the currency, regulatory challenges, enforcement and investigation methodologies and took questions…Foundation leadership views this first meeting as one to develop a relationship in lieu of pushing for particular policy in the present. As Bitcoin continues to develop, we can hope that this strategy for relationship building will buy time prior to any further regulatory action on behalf of FinCEN and additional regulatory agencies.” [emphasis added]
When I tried to bring this to the attention of Derrick Horton and other libertarians this past January (more than a year after the fact), it appeared to fall on deaf ears.
When a man understands the tax plantation he lives under, that reformism cannot be used to strike bargains with the State, and that living without rulers coincides nicely with an absence of servitude and restraint, then the appeal of a hypothetically limited government begins to lose its alluringly folksy charm. Before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, it would be worth examining how the current functions of government, particularly the judiciary, might work if they were privatized within the context of a truly freed laissez-faire market. Might the continued existence of the human species, such as it stands, utterly depend upon whether the irrevocable transition away from government takes place at all?
Yet another example of doom porn would be what the author describes as the argument from apocalypse (AFA). As he puts it:
“The basic argument is that if we accept proposition ‘X,’ civilized society will collapse, children will die in the streets, the old will end up eating each other, and the world will dissolve into an endless and apocalyptic war of all against all…[h]owever, prejudice against anarchists – much like prejudice against atheists – is one of the last remaining acceptable bigotries in the world. We cannot judge any group negatively – except a group that relies on reason, evidence, and nonviolence.”
Yeah, I can totally sympathize with that frustration when statists, and even minarchists, have used the AFA against libertarians. Whether it be about the electrical grid, courtrooms, or the damn roads, those authoritarians who believe in the legitimacy of government itself usually tend to not only be economically illiterate, but also very superstitious in their nihilistic fantasies of “doomgasms.” I tolerate natural prejudice and individual bigotry, yet I also appreciate the irony of libertarians advocating for everyone to be able to speak and publish freely, even if in the exercise of those freedoms statists abuse them through defamation, libel, and slander towards those very libertarians laying their own necks on the line as the primary opponents of censorship!
“Commander, if you had been there twelve years ago when we liberated that camp, if you’d see the things I saw. All those Bajoran bodies starved, brutalized. Do you know what Cardassian policy was? Oh, I’m not even talking about the murder. Murder was just the end of the fun for them. First, came the humiliation; mothers raped in front of their children, husbands beaten ’till their wives couldn’t recognize them, old people buried alive because they couldn’t work anymore!”
– Major Kira Nerys
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (“Duet“)
Today’s meme is a reminder of what happens when you are surrounded by authoritarians.
I decided to give “screen recording” a try, since I’m noticing more and more vloggers on IdiotTube doing the same. Cited sources are listed below the video, which was originally uploaded onto TheLastBastille.com.
Liberty, as defined legally, is an absence of servitude and restraint. American dissidents typically believe in the philosophy of liberty, even if only inadvertently. If it is true that the anatomy of the State is entirely geared toward the coercive suppression of human liberty, then it would be fair to say that the inherent purpose of government is to violently impose restraint, even servitude, upon the hapless citizenry.
Anarchy, etymologically speaking, is defined as being without rulers. As Matthew Reece wrote last year regarding the concept of fake libertarians:
“Thus, libertarians who include pacifism inside their definitions of libertarian are fake libertarians…libertarian postmodernists are fake libertarians… [and] those who call themselves libertarians but explicitly reject anarchism are fake libertarians.” [emphasis added]
This is rather intriguing, for libertarians are those individuals who adhere themselves to the ethical precepts of non-coercion and self-ownership. Given that the State is entirely composed of rulers forcibly imposing servitude and restraint upon its victims, then it would just make sense that once there is an absence of servitude and restraint, there would also be no rulers. If one necessarily follows the other, then it would be accurate to say that liberty and anarchy, properly understood, compliment each other as parallels.
Today’s meme is a reminder to the Tea Partiers that perhaps they should actually bother learning the philosophy of liberty, instead of war-mongering all the time.
“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
– Narcotics Anonymous
Reformism, as I’ve mentioned before, is an unsound anti-empirical strategy whose goal lies in reducing the power and scope of government. Implicitly, reformists endorse both central planning and the tragedy of the commons, because artificially steering the conversation towards whatever concessions and compromises can be made with those who falsely imagine themselves to be our rulers unfairly limits the range of conversation to only the political means of making money. It is primarily because of reformist sophistry that not more libertarians engage in direct action.
“We assess the use of arson by anarchist extremists to specifically attack urban development sites they perceive as ‘gentrification’ is an escalation of tactics against this target set and a departure from more traditional targets of violence – symbols of globalization, political and economic summits, corporations, military recruiting offices, and law enforcement. I&A judges that anarchist extremists are likely to replicate this tactic due to their history of sharing tactics, repeating targets, and the relative success of prior attacks. We have moderate confidence in this judgment because the incident information and historical patterns of criminal activity are credibly sourced and plausible even though the number of new cases is limited.”
What if authoritarians chose to speak honestly about their raw brutality and lust for power? Such a curiosity has plagued libertarian daydreams ever since the dawn of the State. Given that statists are not prone to honesty, much less virtue, it is left up to the culture jammers to expose tyranny by adopting the persona of those who falsely imagine themselves to be our rulers.
Written from the perspective of a honest statist welcoming a new politician into the structure of the State, the author’s satirical take on just what might be said in those behind closed door smoky back rooms reveals the nature of government as it is today. Ranging from topics such as public education to central banking, the dark humor permeating throughout is a testament to the wild successes of tyranny. It begins thusly:
“Hey – seriously – congratulations on your new political post! If you are reading this, it means that you have ascended to the highest levels of government, so it’s really, really important that you don’t do or say anything stupid, and screw things up for the rest of us. The first thing to remember is that you are a figurehead, about as relevant to the direction of the State as a hood ornament is to the direction of a car – but you are a very important distraction, the ‘smiling face’ on the fist of power. So hold your nose, kiss the babies, and just think how good you would look on a stamp. A stamp for mail…No, not email, mail. Never mind, we’ll explain later. Now, before we go into your media responsibilities, you must understand the true history of political power, so you don’t accidentally act on the naïve idealism you are required to project to the general public.”
The rest of the handbook is a simple elaboration upon that foundation of absolute control and hegemonic domination over the entire human species.