Strike The Root Blog

Highly Recommended Cyber-Reading

Brad Spangler directs our attention to two great online pieces that I highly recommend.

In the wake of all the latest debate taking place throughout the libertarian blogosphere over the issue of whether or not any libertarian should support the Ron Paul presidential campaign, Spangler has posted “The Damnation of Bill Bradford,” an excellent condemnation of voting written by the late Samuel E. Konkin III. Konkin’s piece was a response to the late Liberty editor Bill Bradford’s article “Voting Is No Sin”, which itself was a response to Wendy McElroy’s “Why I Would Not Vote [Against Hitler].”

The other piece to which Spangler provides us a link was written by Charles Johnson (he of RadGeek.com): “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It.”

Contrary to many decades of liberal welfare-state apologist propaganda and conservative preaching about “individual responsibility” (a line eventually co-opted by Clintonian liberals), the state is indeed the enemy—not the friend, not the ally, not the protector nor the benefactor—of the poor. As Charles Johnson eloquently illustrates, the state should just GTF out of their way and let them do what they need to do to live.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized, anarchism, non-voting, welfare, statism, liberty, economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Highly Recommended Cyber-Reading”

zrated Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
voting can accomplish things. if RP is elected the direct consequence will be that innocents in iraq, afganistan and iran will no longer be murdered by u.s. forces.

there is nothing wrong with voting if it is done to reduce the power of the state through a candidate who is demonstrably dedicated to such ends. though it is never a long term solution to anything, it is unquestionable that it is at least possible that state power can be hampered by the election of certain individuals. voting is only morally wrong if the motives of the candidate are anything less than reducing state power.
Robert Kaercher Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“voting can accomplish things.”

Really? Can you state any specific examples?

“if RP is elected…”

Seriously, what universe are you living in? But OK, let’s discuss that hypothetical, if for nothing else than the sake of principled argument.

“the direct consequence will be that innocents in iraq, afganistan and iran will no longer be murdered by u.s. forces.”

How can you be so sure? I give Paul the benefit of the doubt that he honestly WANTS to end the war in Iraq and avert a war against Iran, but what if–assuming that he’s successfully elected–the US Congress goes ahead and enacts what he himself proposed back in ‘03? That is, what if the constitutionally requisite congressional majority passes a legal declaration of war against Iraq? Considering that one of his main objections to the Iraq War was rooted in a constitutionally based argument that Congress never passed a legal declaration of war, he would then find himself somewhat backed into a corner politically:

“Why, President Paul, you did object that Congress never officially declared war.”

“Well yes, but…”

“Well they’ve officially declared war now, so what’s the problem?”

I suppose that he could refuse to prosecute the war, but then that could very likely be followed by impeachment and removal from office. I could just see the congress-critters preaching to the masses that the heartless President Paul was abandoning the Iraqi people in their darkest hour, blah, blah, blah…He’s dishonoring the troops by cutting and running, blah, blah, blah…Impeachment and removal from office would all be very constitutional, and considering that the constitution is a holy document to them, Paul and his supporters would be hard pressed to object. What would then be their strategy for ending the war?

(BTW, Paul actually voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, so your assertion that innocents there would no longer be murdered by US forces is even less supportable.)

“there is nothing wrong with voting if it is done to reduce the power of the state through a candidate who is demonstrably dedicated to such ends.”

President Paul would necessarily find himself negotiating pieces of freedom with the Congress. It’s quite naive in the extreme to assume that we’d somehow find ourselves with a smaller government on net balance after all the trade-offs are settled. It’s an article of faith that is negated by about 200+ years of US history.

“it is unquestionable that it is at least possible that state power can be hampered by the election of certain individuals.”

“Unquestionable”??? Again, what is the basis for this assertion? You say this as though it’s just a given fact of reality. Reality says otherwise.

“voting is only morally wrong if the motives of the candidate are anything less than reducing state power.”

The libertarian candidate’s motivation isn’t the only consideration, and not even the most important one. In fact, it’s utterly irrelevant. The SYSTEM that he’s being elected to govern IS extremely immoral, and that’s the main thing to keep in mind. Electing Ron Paul president is like calling up a buddy of yours to come over to your house to negotiate with home invaders. “Tell them they can keep the TV set if I get to keep the stereo.” OK, your buddy negotiates a deal with the thugs and they leave with slightly less of your stuff than they otherwise would, but they still made off with SOME of your stuff to which they had no rightful claim. So what the hell just happened??? You just gave the thugs permission to steal from you—that is, you have effectively legitimized the immorality of theft—which no doubt only encourages them to steal more, especially after your buddy’s moved on and isn’t around anymore.

In electoral politics, you’re not just giving the thugs permission to steal from you, you’re permitting them to steal from everyone else, too. What right have you to do that? Even if we assume that President Paul could restrain the state’s theft somewhat, the state would still be thieving, and all with your sanction. Is stealing a little less morally preferable to stealing a little more? No, all theft is immoral, irrespective of degree. So regardless of the candidate’s “motives,” voting IS quite immoral.

Liberty is our natural birthright; the state immorally usurps that birthright. Why would you even expect someone else to restore to you what should never have been taken from you in the first place? That person–in this case, Ron Paul—can’t restore your liberty, anyway. It’s not something that can change from one set of hands to another.

Only you can safeguard your own life and property. Avoiding paying taxes wherever and however you can, evading regulations and state edicts whenever possible, earning your bread under the table, etc. A lot of even very little acts of noncompliance can add up and eventually starve out the beast. But voting for a Messiah of Liberty is nothing but a dead end.
zrated Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am
a president can pull troops and pardon any drug offenders. it’s mere speculation that he might be impeached and highly unlikely at that. mind you, i’m saying that things CAN be done, not “will” or “have been”.

it is indeed unquestionable by any reasonable assessment that state power can be hampered by the election of certain individuals. if 535 hardcore libertarians were elected in congress and a hardcore libertarian elected president, state power would most likely be curbed. keep in mind, the word is “can” not “will”.

i can put the argument to rest right now about the consent thing. i will vote for paul in the upcoming election. will i consider the government legitimate? no. will i agree to follow any laws? no. so now it is proven that voting doesn’t imply consent.

attempting to diminish immorality is not immoral, so working inside the system, which in itself is indeed immoral, in order to reduce it’s influence is not necessarily immoral. it may be misguided, but not immoral. the fact is that your consent doesn’t matter. the state will take and do what it wants until it is destroyed regardless of voting or not voting. so if one votes for paul and he is not elected, it doesn’t matter. if one votes for paul and he is elected, that’s better than whoever else would have won. make no mistake SOMEONE will win. it might as well be the candidate who wants to reduce state power rather than the one who wants to increase it.

and this thing about how somehow non-violent methods will work in overthrowing the state is laughable. when the state wants what you have it will take it - period. there’s no way that the state will see 300 million people out there and just give up tyranny because too many folks are simply avoiding coercion. aggression will be stepped up accordingly and it doesn’t matter if the economy collapses. as long as there are people trying to survive, the state will thrive. look at cuba and north korea. i know folks don’t want to hear this, but violence is the only way to stop the state, if that’s even possible.
Robert Kaercher Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“a president can pull troops and pardon any drug offenders.”

Not necessarily. There’s an entire military-industrial complex and a prison-industrial complex that’s got a lot invested in the system that enforces its privileges. They have a lot of congressmen in their hip pockets, and that would be the biggest obstacle for President Paul to clear. A dictatorial executive is perfectly acceptable to them when that executive is enforcing the Establishment’s wishes; an executive who is mounting a challenge to the Establishment will no doubt be faced with a dictatorial congress—which, by the way, is more consistent with Paul’s cherished constitution.

BTW, my hypothetical impeachment scenario wasn’t intended to be taken as literal prophecy. I was merely suggesting that that’s one possible way the Establishment could railroad President Paul, provided that he was sincerely trying to roll back state power. There are a variety of other ways. Or they could simply buy him off somehow.

“it is indeed unquestionable by any reasonable assessment that state power can be hampered by the election of certain individuals. if 535 hardcore libertarians were elected in congress and a hardcore libertarian elected president…”

LOL! What kind of delusional fantasy is this?

If 536 “hardcore libertarians” were elected to congress and the presidency, I would seriously question just how “hardcore” they really were. Even setting aside the fact that these “hardcore libertarians” would be paid salaries coerced out of private and productive hands, the fact of the matter is that in this democracy one cannot win any elections without promising this or that group a considerable portion of other people’s stuff or special privileges at others’ expense, which to my understanding totally contradicts libertarian principle. Paul’s own stand on immigration is one example (there are certainly myriad others far worse committed by other politicians, but this is as good as any other example to point out): He’s pledged to do a better job of keeping more immigrants from crossing the border, which means less competition for “legal” migrants and native-born workers.

That right there ought to tell you how pointless it is to vote for libertarian candidates (or even for a paleoconservative candidate, which is what Paul really is).

“…state power would most likely be curbed. keep in mind, the word is ‘can’ not ‘will.’”

Over 2 centuries of American history tell us that it’s not bloody likely. There have been better and smarter people than Ron Paul who have tried to alter the system from the inside and failed miserably. That’s because a system that is inherently authoritarian cannot be altered to be less authoritarian any more than Rudolph Giuliani can stop citing 9-11 in his stump speeches. It is what it is, A is A. You can’t make an apple into an orange.

“i can put the argument to rest right now about the consent thing. i will vote for paul in the upcoming election. will i consider the government legitimate? no. will i agree to follow any laws? no. so now it is proven that voting doesn’t imply consent.”

Re-read that paragraph a few times. It’s a self-contradicting syllogism that’s just plain silly.

“attempting to diminish immorality is not immoral…”

Agreed, but there’s more than one way to skin a cat. And resorting to immoral methods will only get you immoral ends. The state itself is a great big glaring example of this.

“so working inside the system, which in itself is indeed immoral, in order to reduce it’s influence is not necessarily immoral. it may be misguided, but not immoral.”

There’s more glaring contradiction there, but regardless, you can’t be convinced that voting is immoral or that choosing an immoral means is itself immoral, so be it. But at least you admit that it’s “misguided.” Why on Earth would you want to choose means that you frankly admit is not conducive to the ends sought? And willingly submit yourself to the jury draft in the process? It makes no sense.

“the fact is that your consent doesn’t matter… when the state wants what you have it will take it - period. there’s no way that the state will see 300 million people out there and just give up tyranny because too many folks are simply avoiding coercion.”

This is where you’re just flat out wrong. Your consent most certainly does matter, as government simply cannot function without at least the implied consent of the people. I don’t know what number “too many” is out of 300 million, but if “too many” are actively avoiding coercion, refusing to obey, avoiding taxation, etc., the government simply cannot by nature function by virtue of the fact that “too many” people are refusing to obey it. (Does the name “Soviet Union” ring a bell?) The bureaucrats would effectively be relegated to the equivalent of crazy people shouting out non-sequiters in the subway to which no one pays any attention.

“and this thing about how somehow non-violent methods will work in overthrowing the state is laughable. aggression will be stepped up accordingly and it doesn’t matter if the economy collapses. as long as there are people trying to survive, the state will thrive. look at cuba and north korea. i know folks don’t want to hear this, but violence is the only way to stop the state, if that’s even possible.”

There are a lot of underlying assumptions there that are patently false, but the main thing in that paragraph I would like to address is your suggestion of initiating violence to end statism. That is both immoral and impractical, and anyone who would suggest it would be highly suspect in my eyes. Not only would I be leery of their cheap valuation of human life, but I would be suspicious that what they really want is their own particular version of a state that would benefit them (the communist overthrow of the Russian Czar in 1917 comes to mind). Not only is killing innocent people (as would inevitably happen in the use of violence) for political ends morally abominable (that’s the state’s game – not mine), but it would probably cause the masses to embrace the state even more, so as to be protected from the terrorists in their midst. So not only is violence a morally loathsome method, it’s totally self-defeating as well. The Weathermen and Timothy McVeigh are generally reviled for good reason.

I can’t speak for Cuba or North Korea; who knows why the people in those countries have allowed things to devolve to such a sorry state? I’m sure the answer to that question is quite complicated (though in Cuba’s case, it doesn’t seem that US sanctions has helped much, and US taxpayer bailouts of N. Korea’s regime hasn’t helped that country’s prospects for freedom one iota). At least a good many Cubans have voted with their paddles and made an escape for relatively freer shores.

You seem to have drunk so much of the statist Kool-Aid that much of it still pervades your thought processes, so much so that you actually think state power can be curtailed by taking control of it, and that Ron Paul is Our Last and Best Hope for doing that, as though he’s our Messiah of Liberty.

One thing I’ve smelled among libertarian Paul supporters is this whiff of desperation, that this campaign is IT, this is for the whole kit and caboodle for all time. If Paul the Messiah doesn’t win this election and deliver us to the Promised Land of Freedom (or Quasi-Freedom), apocalypse is upon us! I don’t buy that assumption. Nothing is inevitable but thinking that makes it so. There are myriad ways to circumvent state authority and persuade others to do likewise.

I know that approach doesn’t get you what you really want, which appears to be results RIGHT NOW, RIGHT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, but the fact is no such method exists. Reasoned persuasion of people to voluntarily shun the state is the only moral and practicable method for achieving libertarian ends. Yes, it will take many, many years, maybe even generations (though not necessarily I suppose – I’m no prognosticator). But real freedom simply won’t happen or endure unless people voluntarily choose it of their own free will, and I think it’s our task as libertarians to persuade people by means of reasoned argument to do that.
zrated Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
the president can pardon drug offenders on a whim and has the authority to pull troops. in the short-run (which this is really all about), the MI and PI complexes have little to say about it. i’m not saying any of this “will” happen, only that it can.

it comes down to a situation similar to pascal’s wager: vote for a candidate dedicated to reducing state power or don’t vote. we’ve already agreed that voting is not necessarily immoral if it is done for the express reason of reducing state power, but is only possibly misguided. if you vote and the candidacy is utterly unsuccessful, you’ve wasted thirty minutes in the booth, if it is at least somewhat successful, it was worth it. on the other hand, if you don’t vote for said candidate, there is no chance whatsoever of state power being curbed in the short term. in this case, it is guaranteed that the murders in iraq and iran will continue (or begin, in iran’s case) and that drug offenders will continue to be oppressed. not to mention not having the bully pulpit for the message of liberty-lite. we should keep in mind that many, if not all of us were converted by that message.

i understand that long-term, RP’s presidency will not succeed in stopping the state, but the short-term benefits are too great. i would much rather do something rather than nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of the middle-easterners and RP’s presidency has a decent chance of stopping that for at least awhile. for me, having those innocent people’s lives saved and having innocent drug offenders released from prison is worth it.

jury draft: i’d love to be on a jury! i’ll hang any jury i’m placed on. that will be at least a reprieve for someone persecuted by the state.

on revolution:

i do not advocate the initiation of violence. i do not advocate the murder of innocent people. attacking the state is not the initiation of violence, but the response to it. would it be “morally loathsome” for you to defend yourself if i attacked you? what if i attacked you every day? would it be morally loathsome for you to subdue me? IMO, no. if everyone in this country were to regard the state as illegitimate tomorrow, would suddenly the fear of the state dissolve and we would all stop paying taxes? of course not! if everyone in the nation did decide to stop paying taxes, but refused to defend themselves physically, the state will die - but only after we are all dead. we well know that the state has no compunction about taking what it wants by force or instituting full fledged slavery in order to live off of our backs. how can ultimately non-violent resistance deal with this? i don’t believe it can.
Robert Kaercher Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
“the MI and PI complexes have little to say about it…”

Oh no, of course not. It’s not like they funnel a huge portion of their state-enforced profits into the pockets and campaign coffers of politicians and officials. What’s all this bitching about General Dynamics and KBR and the like? I think that will be the topic of my next piece: “The military- and prison-industrial complexes, contrary to years and years of documented observation, in fact have virtually no influence on gov’t policy.”

“i’m not saying any of this ‘will’ happen, only that it can…”

Paris Hilton can become a nun, but it’s highly unlikely.

“we’ve already agreed that voting is not necessarily immoral if it is done for the express reason of reducing state power, but is only possibly misguided.”

Go back and re-read what I posted. I agreed to no such thing. I only noted that you cannot be CONVINCED that it is immoral. That does not mean that I conceded that it is in FACT not immoral. Truth and what you are willing to admit is true are two different things here.

“i understand that long-term, RP’s presidency will not succeed in stopping the state, but the short-term benefits are too great.”

How can you possibly presume to know this? Are you psychic? You have absolutely no idea what would happen if he were elected.

“i would much rather do something rather than nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of the middle-easterners and RP’s presidency has a decent chance of stopping that for at least awhile.”

You can go ahead and stuff a ballot in a box and then give yourself a great big pat on the back for doing your part to bring peace to Iraq and averting war with Iran, but you’d be allowing yourself a false sense of accomplishment. Why don’t you ask all those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan why they continue to voluntarily execute orders and policies that are morally repugnant?

I understand that Paul likes to brag that he gets more campaign donations from the military than any other candidate, presumably because those troops want to leave Iraq. Well they’re there voluntarily, so if they want to leave so badly, why don’t they just go ahead and leave? Why are they waiting for a president to give them permission to stop being imperialist thugs? Why don’t they follow the example of Ehun Watada and just refuse to fight? History is fraught with examples where soldiers just up and left a war to make the long trek back home.

“for me, having those innocent people’s lives saved and having innocent drug offenders released from prison is worth it.”

If Paul tried to pardon a million drug offenders most of this country would be up in arms. The protests would be massive. What, a million “lowlifes” out on the streets to sell crack to our children? Are you kidding? Float that idea in non-libertarian forums and see what kind of response you get. I’m not saying it’s not a worthy goal, but there’s no way in hell that President Paul would go through with it once he heard the massive hue and cry. Or maybe he would promise to do it in his second term…

“i do not advocate the initiation of violence. i do not advocate the murder of innocent people.”

You wrote: “i know folks don’t want to hear this, but violence is the only way to stop the state…” I apologize for misunderstanding, but you have to admit that statement is open to that interpretation. But again, sorry.

“attacking the state is not the initiation of violence, but the response to it.”

Now I’m confused. That sentence gives me the impression that you DO favor initiating violence against the state, but that it’s OK because technically it’s a response to violence, not an initiation. Please let me know how I’m supposed to interpret this. I’d hate to misunderstand you again. In any case, what I’m suggesting is also a response to state violence but is far more practical than what you’re suggesting (read the following paragraph).

“would it be ‘morally loathsome’ for you to defend yourself if i attacked you? what if i attacked you every day? would it be morally loathsome for you to subdue me? IMO, no.”

Agreed. But it’s a lot easier for me to defend myself against you than it is against an organization of millions of people that has the consent of millions of others to rob them of trillions of dollars each year and has more guns and ammo (not to mention nuclear weapons) than any other group in the country (or the rest of the world, for that matter). How do you defend yourself against such an institution in a logical and practical manner? By “attacking” it with ballots? You’re kidding, right? Neither can you “attack” such a heavily armed monopoly that has so much (even if much of it reluctant) consent in any other way, but by non-consent.

“if everyone in this country were to regard the state as illegitimate tomorrow, would suddenly the fear of the state dissolve and we would all stop paying taxes?”

That’s a pointless hypothetical. Everyone is not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly recognize that the state is illegitimate. That’s part of my point: It’s going to take a lot more time than the next morning. If you want to spend your scarce time and resources campaigning and voting for Freedom Jesus, that’s your business, but I’ll take no part of it, thank you. Liberty is too important to be left to the politicians.

However, when “too many” people (as you phrased it in your previous post) do eventually refuse to pay the various taxes, yes, the state would dissolve, because it would have no revenue stream and few obedient serfs. Is this logic hard to follow? People refuse to obey and pay no taxes, ergo the state receives no income, ergo the state cannot operate.

“if everyone in the nation did decide to stop paying taxes, but refused to defend themselves physically, the state will die - but only after we are all dead.”

It’s not necessary for people to refuse to defend themselves in order for the state to collapse. You appear to have fallen for a common misconception: That the state and the people are one, as though we’re all naturally intertwined into this massive physical organism called “the state.” The fact is that the state itself is a legal fiction that would not exist if millions of individuals did not voluntarily choose to enforce the state’s edicts. Every aspect of the state—from obedience to enforcement—is all voluntary or passively voluntary, which is why the key to defeating it is non-compliance and disobedience.

And since the state is a parasite upon us, not only is it not necessary for us all to die in order for it to die, we’d actually have greater opportunities for the life we want to live once it did die.

Go sing the praises of Freedom Jesus and vote for him if you like, but we’re not all on that bandwagon. And the fact that some of us won’t get with the program doesn’t mean that we’ve effectively brought a thousand years of plagues and darkness upon the land. There are other options.
zrated Says:
January 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am
“the MI and PI complexes have little to say about it…”

they will have something to say, but only after the action is taken. it happens too fast for them to react in order to stop the initial action.

“Are you psychic? You have absolutely no idea what would happen if he were elected.”

you can say this about anything. i think it’s a reasonable assumption to say that he will do what he says he will considering his record and that he has the power to do such things.

“Now I’m confused.”

yes, it is impossible to initiate violence against the state. no need to apologize about misinterpretations, i understand that this method of interaction has its limitations. but i appreciate your candor and expected nothing less from you. indeed, i have great respect for you and consider your work with str incalculably valuable.

“But it’s a lot easier…”

true. it’s probably impossible to defend yourself against the state, ultimately, but for me it’s a matter of principle. of course, it’s far from practical, but that isn’t necessarily my goal. my goal is to avoid bowing down to another man out of fear. the very idea i find abhorrent. the use of the ballot box is no long-term solution to anything, but if there’s a chance in hell that it could do some good, i’ll use it. and, for the record, voting or not, i don’t consent to shit!

“You appear to have fallen for a common misconception: That the state and the people are one…”

it’s hard not to take this as a condescending insult. consent or not, the state will use violence to the point of murder to take from me what is mine. i can non-comply and disobey all i want, but in the end the state will kill for what it wants. it is naive to think that the state will not kill every single one of us if we refuse to defend ourselves physically. so , yes the state will disappear, but only after we’re all dead. look at the former soviet union and china. did the state disappear? of course not, only a particular group lost power, the state itself remained.

i’ve been a market anarchist for a while, i’m educated on the philosophy and have been a dedicated advocate for a long time, but i just haven’t seen a strong argument against voting if it is for a candidate running for the explicit reason of reducing state power. IMO it is useless at worst and at least has a possibility of doing something good under the right circumstances.

of course, i’ll keep reading str and won’t rule out being persuaded, hell that’s how i got here in the first place. i’ll concede to you the last word in this thread and read with interest your response.

thank you for your valuable role in the movement.
Robert Kaercher Says:
January 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for allowing me the last word, because there’s something in your comments that begs clarification:

“it’s hard not to take this as a condescending insult. consent or not, the state will use violence to the point of murder to take from me what is mine. i can non-comply and disobey all i want, but in the end the state will kill for what it wants. it is naive to think that the state will not kill every single one of us if we refuse to defend ourselves physically. so , yes the state will disappear, but only after we’re all dead.”

It wasn’t my intention to be condescending or insulting, I was only trying to refute your claim to the best of my understanding of what that claim was.

I never disputed any individual’s right to self-defense from any aggressor, including the state, nor did I ever claim that it is necessary to become passive in the face of state aggression. Are you thinking of what someone should do in a Ruby Ridge-type scenario? Certainly, if anyone finds themselves accosted by state thugs they have every right to resist the aggression any way they see fit, though even then one has to weigh various alternatives as to the best course of resistance. In any case, this type of scenario is not necessarily applicable on a mass movement scale. We’re not all directly attacked by state thugs 24/7. Statist aggression, while it can and does manifest itself in acts of violence against its subjects on occasion, is usually a lot more subtle and not as in-your-face as having your house stormed by the ATF or something.

Now, if you yourself are claiming that it’s axiomatic that the only way to eradicate statism is to refrain from physically defending ourselves, you’re just flat out wrong (though I see why anyone who would follow such reasoning would reach the erroneous and depressing conclusion that the state will never die until the rest of us are all dead). It is absolutely incumbent upon us to physically defend ourselves from all aggression, it’s just that when resisting—or even “attacking”—state aggression, there are MANY, MANY WAYS to do that without getting involved in a campaign or voting, and any non-electoral means have the extra added bonus of not sullying oneself with statist slave morality.

Finally, the state most certainly does not want “to kill every single one of us.” How can they fleece any sheep if all the sheep are dead and buried? On the contrary, the state needs as many of us to be alive as possible in order to feed its insatiable appetite for fleece. It will and does kill slaves on occasion when those slaves get too uppity, yes, but only to make sure the rest of the slaves get the message that if they also get uppity, there’s a chance the same fate may befall them. (Though I hasten to point out that any slaves who actually believe the state to be an omniscient beast capable of seeing and destroying every single disobedient person in a country of 300 million+ has deluded himself into thinking exactly what the state wants him to think. Such a person is genuinely deserving of being called a “slave.”)

In the long run, the state needs as many living and breathing slaves as they can command in order to keep the inherently evil system of mass theft and murder going. Think about that when you cast a ballot for the Ron Paul Revolution to control that evil system as you somehow refuse it your consent all at the same time.

I hope you do continue reading STR. As you’ve probably seen, not all contributors to this site are of one mind on the issues of voting or Ron Paul - there are a variety of viewpoints expressed here on those topics. Mine is by no means the “official” one of this site.
No Faxing Payday Loan Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
No Faxing Payday Loan…

Payday loan online is good to accomodate visitors close to New York involving huge payments, if folks are around a} eternity consisting of big trouble….
draft protector Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 4:48 am
draft protector…

…
Ki Toy Johnson Pic Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Ki Toy Johnson Pic…

…

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Highly Recommended Cyber-Reading

11 Responses to “Highly Recommended Cyber-Reading”

Leave a Reply