Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 7

  1. The mercantilist policies favored by Trump clearly show that he wants to make England great again.
  2. Republicans: Nothing says “free market” like removing the competition by force.
  3. When you “vote for the anti-establishment,” and they win, they become the establishment.
  4. Republicans are saying Trump isn’t a politician, but he is now that they have made him one.
  5. Politicians and corporate elite tend to stick together. I highly doubt Trump, or anyone else, is going to arrest any politicians. They long ago mastered the art of propaganda, and hardly ever do they sacrifice one of their own. They don’t need to. No matter how corrupt, “the people” don’t ever actually do anything besides “vote.” It might happen, but highly unlikely.
  6. Citing one politician’s crimes does not abdicate another politician of theirs.  It’s one thing to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats, it’s another to be a blind sheep who believes two wrongs make a right.
  7. Anarchy contains elements of both “chaos” and “order.”
    It’s not a guarantee “chaos won’t happen.”  It’s no a guarantee that people won’t be oppressed. Robbing people is not consistent with anarchism as a philosophy, but it doesn’t “stop anarchy” or mean “anarchy doesn’t exist.”
  8. I think it’s pretty creepy to have kids reciting allegiance pledges to “Government” regalia.
  9. At least lots of so-called “illegals” actually work, while politicians stand around signing papers about how you have to live your life.
  10. When it comes to “taxation,” “regulation,” and indeed, “immigration control,”
    The real question is does the state have the RIGHT to 1. charge compulsory dues 2. kick you off for not paying for things you never asked for, i.e. “tax.” If the answer is yes, then you are NOT the rightful owner. If the answer is no (which is my answer) then the State is a thief (which it is).
  11. Republicans by and large seem to have forgotten the real problem of the welfare state, and have been strung along to support these fascist blights on the face of individual liberty known as “tariffs” and “immigration control.”
  12. Republicans spent 8 years rambling on about how government is tyrannical, and now they worship it just the same, even as it’s increasing it’s control. They have a renewed faith in Democracy.
  13. After all the hype, you might think Trump would try to bring charges against Obama for violating the “U.S. Constitution,” human rights, etc., but the Republicans possess very short attention spans and have already moved on to committing their own crimes.
  14. “Libertarians” and “Minarchists” can be the worst.
    At least “democrats” and such start off believing “Government” is a great thing, inherently legitimate, etc. “Minarchists” spend most of their time railing against “Government,” then turn around and support it anyway.
  15. Anarchists believe that the initiation of force is illegitimate.
    No one has the right to use/threaten force in situations where initial force or fraud has not been used.

    Government/”law” IS force, backed by force, etc.
    Every “law” which threatens force on people who have not themselves threatened force or committed fraud is illegitimate.

    “Drug laws” are an easy example of this, but it goes all the way to down “taxation” itself, which is the threat of force to compel people to pay for ‘Government’ even if they do not want or use it.

    Government, as it is based on the initiation of force, is inherently illegitimate.

  16. State worshipers often say that large organizations are not possible without the government. Well, then I guess we don’t have to worry about anyone or any group getting too powerful and taking over.Their claim is actually false, but the inconsistency of their logic is the point here.
  17. Anarchy is not actually an option.
    An option implies there is another choice, but there isn’t.
    Anarchy is inescapable.
Advertisements

Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 6

 

 

  1. To “govern” is to rule, to rule is to control, so who “governs” you?
  2. Anarchism as a philosophy is not the same thing as anarchy.
    Whether an individual adheres to anarchism as a philosophy or not does not change that we exist in a state of perpetual anarchy, i.e. nothing is controlling “society,” there is no “rightful ruler,” etc.
  3. The problem is not “power,” or the literal physical ability to coerce, though that can be problematic. Perceived legitimacy is actually the entirety of the problem. “Government” is just the hallucination that violence is legitimate when “some people” do it, based on their belief in Authority. Without this belief States would not become so “powerful” to begin with.
  4. What’s the worst thing that could happen “in Anarchy?” A holocaust? Some gang trying to control you, like “Government?”
  5. You do not need legislation to have rights.
    You do not need legislation to enforce your rights.
    Legislation does not alter rights, or morality, etc.
    It is irrelevant aside from the case where “legislation” conflicts with rights, which it does inherently, as it implies it can by nature of the concept.
  6. Nobody “governs” you but you. Nobody possibly could.
    Even if a person threatens another with violence and demands they obey, as the people in “Government” and other crooks do, there is a choice. Statists and other “authority” worshipers choose to obey because they believe in “authority.”
    You have a choice, too, and you’re the only one who can make it.
  7. Every single statist wants the state to protect them. They see defense as extremely important, I’m sure.
    Every single statist who thinks they support free markets says they are against violence and monopolies.
    Every single statist supports a violent monopoly in defense,  and claims it’s the only way there can be “civilization.”
  8. Taxation is theft because
    1. The state does not own all the land in the “borders,” therefore has no right to dictate compulsory dues
    2. They dictate compulsory dues anyway, and take regardless of consent or usage. State advocates speak as if “high taxes” are theft, when the quantity is irrelevant to whether or not it’s theft. Do you call the firm with the higher priced commodity a thief? Of course not, because they don’t demand you buy and take regardless of your consent, like the state does. Do you say a person isn’t a thief if he only takes 50 cents without your consent? Furthermore, they speak as if their usage of state “services” has anything to do with taxes outside of propaganda. The state demands you pay before any services even exist to use, and continues to demand even if you don’t actually use it, e.g. “public school,” etc.
  9. The majority doesn’t vote, but these politicians won’t leave us alone.
  10. Voting isn’t actually a violation of the nap in reality, it’s just a superstitious cult ritual which results in people lining up and pushing buttons. Voters don’t actually threaten or do violence “in the world” unless they’re cops.
  11. Communists want to eat your cake and have it, too.

 


Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 5: “Immigration Control”

What right does the State have to tell you that you can’t be “here” ?

 

Immigration and emigration are both false concepts and improper to use in regards to human movement, since countries are false concepts and those words/ideas are entirely dependent on the concept of countries. The proper term would simply be migration.

As countries do not actually exist, that is, they are not legitimate property boundaries or constructs, there are no “immigrants,” only migrants who are being extorted by way of “immigration laws.”

 

Individuals who say they favor “immigration laws” due to the potential threat of “immigrants” either threatening them directly or by way of “voting” for the expansion of State intrusion must logically advocate perpetual “immigration control,” for one can never know who might be a terrorist, Democrat, or Republican.

 

It is true that migrants may one day threaten you, but “immigration laws” necessarily imply a threat against everyone living in the “country” for the potential crimes of others.

 

It’s logically impossible for state borders to be consistent with individual property rights. State borders and “immigration control” are conceptually an assault on private property rights by default, as the State arrogates to itself the “power” to decide who can and cannot live “here,” which includes all properties within their alleged “jurisdiction,” implying that no one but the State actually owns any property.

 

The argument that “immigration control” can be legitimate only rings true when it comes to explicitly “private” communities where such rules as “no advocating communism” are explicitly stated by a clearly defined owner or group of “owners/tenants in common.” Attempting to apply it to the current situation regarding State borders fails since “we” do not currently live in a “private” community, are not “joint-owners” of the “country,” “tenants in common,” or any such thing.

Applying the argument to the current situation can only come about through the delusion that the “country” exists and “we” own it.

 

State immigration control is simply the violent manipulation of the housing and labor markets. The manipulation of “society.”

 

“Immigration control” advocates have gone off the deep end and begun to claim that they are the owners of all “lands” said to be held by the State, but the illegitimacy of “national parks” is not based on the fact that the State is an extortionist, it’s more-so based on the fact that no one actually homesteaded expanses of those lands. Apparently they have completely forgotten about the Lockean conception of property which itself is the logical basis for rightful ownership (production).

A “tax payer” is not justified in stopping an “illegal” from homesteading in some open forest the State pretends it owns, any more than a random “capitalist” or “communist” is justified in stopping people from homesteading such areas.

Are they going to show up in some former “national park” and kick someone out who has already built a home there, because they were robbed by the gang called the united states and he was born “in Mexico” ? Would they do that now, as they are currently being robbed by the state? If so then they are the aggressors, as paying taxes doesn’t mean you own something the State says they own but do not, just because they force you to pay and lie about their ownership. Clearly no one owns lands which have not actually been homesteaded.

If they think they own huge expanses forests because the state robs them, they’re delusional. That’s more of a throwback to feudalism than a Lockean conception of property, as they are making the claim that anyone can own land without actually laboring on it; without actually exerting their will upon it.

 

 

RB