A Free People Cannot Be Conquered

Without the central machinery of government already in place, what exactly can an outside enemy conquer and control? While there is still the potential for plunder, in an anarchic set up of society, there would be no way for a gang to assert their authority over a free people.

This is a main criticism when people hear that you want no government: “but what if a cartel comes in and sets up a government?” So worst case scenario for eliminating government is that we end up with a government again? Interesting.

But while we would still need a market for repelling invasions of theoretical armies set on rape and looting, there would be no such risk of a central takeover. Because there would be no central thing to take over. Currently, couldn’t you imagine ISIS marching into Washington with some heads on stakes and telling the government they are in control now? Is your congressman going to tell him no? Nah, mine niether. Mine would probably beg to be the new head of the IRS (Islamic Revenue Service) for the USI (United States of Islam).

Then the attackers could just issue their orders, and the hierarchy we have created through the America government would creak back to life under new management. Except now cops would be telling you to praise allah instead of praise the state. But basically it would be the same thing. More beheadings, fewer shootings I would think.

So the scary possibility that our thieving murdering gang of masters would be replaced with a different murderous gang is in fact more likely now than it would be in a decentralized free land, where no one is forcibly beholden to another.

What would ISIS do without a government to take over? Walk into every single house, and say, we are in charge now? Because a third of those houses are going to shoot back. ISIS may be able to currently subject unarmed people used to being oppressed, but it would not go so well if the people were armed or free: if they were armed and free, forget about it. 100 million of those people that currently submit to the authority of the USA are armed, most with more than one gun. The only reason that is possible, observes Larken Rose, is:

Right now, millions of people are PROUD to be forcibly subjugated and robbed. They call it being a “law-abiding taxpayer.” That is the ONLY reason that a group of about 100,000 bureaucrats (the IRS), only about 2,000 of whom are even armed, can continually rob a couple HUNDRED MILLION Americans every year (tens of millions of THEM armed), to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars every year. Any gang which tried to pull that off with those resources, but WITHOUT their victims imagining them to be “authority,” would be fish food within the week.

Right now, ISIS has at most 50,000 fighters. That’s one ISIS fighter for every 2,000 armed men and women in the USA. Does ISIS have ironman suits? If not, how is one fighter going to keep 2,000 armed resisters in line after the “take over”? The only possible way for a foreign enemy of that size to threaten America is if we already have a centralized group of controllers in power who can simply hand off their reigns to the new oppressors.

The USA has the most powerful military, probably in history, yet they cannot even beat some militants in the mountains of Afghanistan. Russia has got over 3 million soldiers and a crap-load of rusty tanks. Still, they are outnumbered 1 to 10 by armed Americans. The militia style protection of one’s homeland is an effective structure of tyrannical resistance that requires no central organizing authority.

It is another market response. If Russia invaded the east coast, people from California might not come with their guns to fight, but people from Kentucky probably would. And if Russia reached Colorado, people from California would indeed see the writing on the wall, and wish to repel an invasion before it reached their territory. But no invading enemy would even get that far invading a free people. If they decided to go house to house and assert their power, there would be a handful of dead soldiers at every one of the homes. By the time they reached 1 million armed resisters, just 1% of the armed population of the USA, there would be millions of dead invaders and zero moral.

An outside power cannot sustain the personnel and equipment to subject 100,000,000 armed people to their rule, even when those resistors are spread across the vast acreage of the current United States. And even though there would still technically be the opportunity to plunder, a looting force would have to be much smaller than an invading force in order for the spoils to be worth it. This is because invading armies generally use more supplies than they conquer.

So essentially the same outcome would come from an attempted marauding of a coastal city. The first attack might be relatively successful before an entire city of armed free men and women ventilate the attackers. The next attackers will not choose that city, and the first attackers won’t be attacking anyone else.

In short, it would be easier for a foreign enemy to conquer the United States now, with all its central authority in place, than to conquer a free people living in the same geographical area of the current USA. And since the worst case scenario for having no government is that a government is set up in the vacuum (unlikely since they wouldn’t have time to condition us to accept their authority), it would seem there is not much to lose. The only thing that currently keeps us beholden to a small group of conquerers is our submission to our masters, based on their perceived “authority”.

Don’t Fear the Light: Considering New Idea’s While Avoiding Blind Faith

plato

I believe it was Carlsbad Caverns that my family toured when I was going into fourth grade. We were taken deep beneath the earth’s surface, and guided into a large domed cave within the natural underground tunnels. The tour guide told us to put our hand 12 inches in front of our face, and he turned off the flashlight. “Can you see the outline of your hand?” he asked. We all could–or so we thought. There was no light at this depth in these caves detectable by the human eye, and the outline we thought we saw was simply a construction of our brain. A single match was then lit, flooding the ballroom sized cavern with enough light to see every stalactite and stalagmite in wonderful detail.

It seems likely that a humans’ aversion to new ideas is rooted in evolution. If what you have been doing has always worked for survival, changing it could be quite dangerous. Why let someone convince you to go out on a limb that could snap, instead of continuing practices that have always kept you alive? It is understandable that our survival instincts tell us to fear change, and support the status quo. If there were berries and game here last year, there will probably be next year as well.

But in evolution danger lies in too homogeneous a species. There is still much mystery surrounding why, but about 70,000 years ago the human population of earth “bottlenecked” and was reduced to somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. Humans were extremely endangered and essentially almost went extinct. For the people living before the event or series of events or long-term change, there was not much reason to change what had worked for survival. But for some reason, a bunch of humans died off, and only a small group survived.

I don’t know why that group survived. It could have been a genetic variation, or special skills one group possessed, or perhaps, the ability to adapt. While many other humans could not break with tradition in terms of “what has always worked”, maybe a small group was able to reassess their method of survival, and change it in order to survive in the new environment. Whether the new environment was caused by climate, predators, wars, disease, famine, or aliens hardly matters. What matters is the ability to predict upheaval, and properly prepare for that change.

70,000 years ago there were probably a lot of people that knew something was happening, but did not know what to do about it. They probably continued living the only life they knew, and died because of it. There were probably also people who did not see any change coming, and failed to prepare out of ignorance. Others might have continued hunting the hypothetically disappearing game until the very last one was eaten, and then starved, refusing to believe that their way of life could possibly change.

Some humans might have seen a change coming, but prepared for the wrong change, or predicted an event that never came to fruition. But what we know is that there were a select few who were either lucky, or smart. I like to think that the survivors were the ones who were not afraid of the light. It seems that people who were the most open to learning, who could consider new ideas, and adapt to their environment would be most suited to survive, and I don’t think that has changed.

This does not mean any new idea should be seized upon and believed wholeheartedly without proper scrutiny; some of those early humans died because they saw the wrong change coming. But equally detrimental was refusing to see the light, and therefore not adjusting reactions to escalating dangers. The ultimate survival skills lie in those who can objectively and rationally consider risks and rewards. Shutting out a new idea is just as likely to end negatively as blind faith in a new idea, or being convinced that the oldest idea is novel.

Moving into the twentieth century, what humans must do to survive is be vigilant and logical. There are those who stand on their front porch and watch as a tsunami rolls in, and there are those who run to the top of mountains to be rescued by aliens who never show. We want to avoid each category. We should learn about the tsunami and assess the weather report: the risk to an area, the scope and magnitude, and the timing. But there’s no harm in hearing out the would be extraterrestrial pilgrims either; but beware of seeing something where there is nothing. Often your instincts will be correct, and there will be no facts behind the theory. However it does not hurt to listen and objectively consider data, you may be surprised by the result and learn things that seem so obvious in hindsight.

Sometimes we are more comfortable in the dark, imagining our hand is visible, than seeing our real environment illuminated. In a place so dark, it does not take much light to see your true surroundings. Don’t continue to imagine that you see your hand in the dark. Be brave, and light the match; it will illuminate things you never knew were there.

Christie Uses Fear to Attack Paul

In a country where the election cycle never sleeps, Presidential contenders try not to miss an opportunity to batter their opponents. At a Governor’s forum last week New Jersey Governor Chris Christie used fear to defend NSA spying on Americans, criticizing Senator Rand Paul for his Libertarian positions, including Paul’s ridicule of the NSA because of their widespread surveillance policies. Christie has been a middle of the road type, trying to attract votes from each side of the isle, which is especially necessary in his home state of New Jersey. Apparently he thinks this is a winning strategy to capture the white house, possibly failing to see the similarities between himself, Mitt Romney, and John McCain as wishy-washy ideologically inconsistent political opportunists. Christie has exposed the fact that he is actual a progressive, by using fear and sympathy to appeal to voters emotions, instead of logic, reason, and evidence to form policy.

“These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have,” Christie said.

“The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put …” Christie said before trailing off.

According to Politico Christie also criticized a “strain of libertarianism” that he believe is “a very dangerous thought”. His tactics are so obvious to anyone that pays attention. Parade some orphaned children and widows in front of the audience, and anything he says is right: Every time you seek to protect your constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, you’re inviting another terrorist attack! You’re laughing in the face of the children and wives of people murdered by terrorists, just because you want to exercise your measly little constitutional rights! Chris Christie has no problem fear mongering and shamelessly using orphans and widows as his political props to prove a point.

And one of the biggest jokes Christie told was that Americans are safer because of Bush and Obama’s policies!

“President Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. And I mean practically nothing,” he said. “And you know why? Cause they work.”

Except that there have been terror attacks in America since then (Boston Marathon, Fort Hood), Americans have been killed by terrorists overseas (Benghazi), and terrorists have made it past safe guards, and only failed because of faulty equipment (the underwear bomber). Chris Christie might as well have been criticizing Benjamin Franklin for saying that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” I guess Christie thinks shipping American troops around the world and busting down some doors keeps us safer, but in reality it just ensures perpetual war. I guess Christie has no problem with the ramping up of the surveillance state, and of the militarized police state which puts every American civilian at risk.

The fact is you do not need to violate people’s rights in order to keep America safer; that is merely an excuse for power hungry politicians who want control. Which is why I trust Rand Paul’s approach, upholding individual rights and attacking actual threats to our country in a constitutional way. Here’s the statement from Paul’s office in response to Christie.

“If Gov. Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric’, he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Paul, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Defending America and fighting terrorism is the concern of all Americans, especially Sen. Paul. But it can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution and while protecting the freedoms that make America exceptional.”