“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy.
Why do I write this blog?
My political evolution went like this:
- A conservative voter. I’m sorry.
- A green party voter. I’m sorry.
- A libertarian voter. I’m sorry. (I have old posts dedicated to the 2008 Ron Paul campaign as I was an enthusiastic supporter…then I evolved. Stupid moral principles.)
- A minarchist. I’m sorry. (Minarchism leads to totalitarianism as agnosticism leads to religion)
- A voluntarist a.k.a an agorist a.k.a an anarchist (yikes!)
What is anarchy? I don’t like to do that word as it has been co-opted by the State/Media cartel to mean unhygienic thugs running around blowing up buildings and injuring/killing people. If that’s the definition of anarchy, I want no part of that. However, I can’t talk to someone for any length of time as a voluntarist without them saying, “OMFG! Oh noes! You’re teh anarchistsssstsstss!”. :) <— Caution! Public education at work!
Turning to dictionary.com, it seems they have conflicting definitions. For example an anarchist (retrieved on 06/24/2010) is:
Okay. I do not advocate violence, so (2) is out. I don’t promote disorder, although disorder does occur and can be remedied by people’s ability to organize, so I’ll drop (3). What does (1) mean? Turning now to the definition of “anarchy” (retrieved on 06/24/2010) is:
- Doesn’t say whether or not that society was better or worse off. It also doesn’t state whether or not that society had positive behaviour encouraged and/or deterred negative behaviour. Market ostracization can be remarkably effective. Just ask prisoners.
- Makes me laugh. The death of the king was following by an unprecedented year of peace and prosperity as no economic wealth was removed from the Kingdom by force. Maybe they got to enjoy the fruits of their labour without having it taxed away!
- Whoa. That’s for me. Why didn’t dictionary.com define an anarchist as someone who believes in that? See the confusion that abounds around the word “anarchy”?
- Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith? Does that mean he had an unprecedented boosts in learning, critical thinking, and intelligence once he stopped believing in some spook writing messages on stone? Maybe he realized minarchy leads to totalitarianism as agnosticism leads to religion.
You can witness my evolution (I was an avid Ron Paul supporter back in 2007-8) of poor writing and falsely believing a predatory tiger like the State can be restrained by a paper cage (i.e. a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, or whatever).
I invite you to join me in the evolution too.
Welcome aboard.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 13, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Brian Martin
Just wanted to make contact. I haven’t had the time to read much here, but from your G&M posts I can tell you are on the right track.
September 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Charlie Cunningham
Hey,
I’ve read all your stuff here, and I’ve just finished watching Aaron Russo’s movie. Thanks for all the good info and please keep up the good work.
regards,
Charlie
December 5, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Cleaner44
You rule baby, yeah!
December 23, 2007 at 9:28 am
Tron Denver
Tell us how you really feel, bankers.
December 27, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Geoff
Where did you get the quote for “US Bankers Magazine, Aug 25, 1924″
I’d really like my own copy of this – where can I find it? Can you send me a picture of it?
December 27, 2007 at 10:54 pm
abcrane
Money (currency,cash,etc.): symbolic wealth.
Real Estate: real wealth.
The Symbol is in the Mind,
The Reality is in the Body.
It is our Minds that Dominate and control the Body.
The Illusion skews the Logic!
of both the Leader and the Flock!
December 28, 2007 at 6:30 pm
ryan
Great stuff here. I thought I was the only Canadian excited about Ron Paul. Guess not.
Keep up the great work. If the doctor succeeds it will be an excellent template for doing the same in Canada.
Liberty is addictive!
November 24, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Jeff
In reply to (the other) Geoff, I got this from a friend.
The Bankers Manifesto of 1892
Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota before
the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of
1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.
“We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for
the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion.
Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the
popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare
our designs without fear of any organized resistance.
The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United
States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take
immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt
them.
At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must
attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such
antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the
present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis.
Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (
conspiracy) and legislation.
The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and
mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the
influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power
of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among
our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world.
[that would be "our" governments]
While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political
antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known
as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the
common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so
generously planned and successfully accomplished.”
November 26, 2008 at 9:52 am
Mr. R
Interesting articles about banks you have here. especially the part about banks with no required minimums. I’m currently wrestling with various banks for a new mortgage and quite frankly am getting tired of the whole process. I even started wondering what was required to start your own bank as that is what someone had told me they had done many years ago.
http://www.21rpm.com/blog