Email Message
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    The Will to Create

    Entries in the state (4)


    Obama says supporters are doing God's work

    Folks, this is dangerous. Some writers have called the State a new religion, and, considering how statists have fought for expansion of State power since the turn of the 20th century, I'd say they're onto something. In different debates on the internet I've found a certain zeal among statists that's comparable to the zeal found in those who are deeply religious. Of course, there are no gatherings where State symbols are worshiped...well, not like a tent revival...well, maybe during conventions...but the politicians don't heal people...well, aside form Obamacare, I mean. Oh, what the hell, maybe they make a great point.

    So, what is the State? Most online dictionaries, such as Oxford, define State as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".

    This is close to how I define State, especially as a political community. The State, though, is not the nation and it's not synonymous with government. Government props up and makes the State possible because we grant government a monopoly on force. We have a Constitution that's supposed to limit the power of government, thus limiting the power and influence of our organized political community, but that's been perverted. The State is official, also, and our designated officials represent our State, as if it is a person, globally to sign treaties and participate in the UN, IMF, WTO, the World Bank, etc. This representation is as specific as the term usually gets -- most definitions of State are abstract and fuzzy.

    Because Constitutional limits no longer apply, and government basically empowers itself to the extent it can get by with, State as political community (a very nice description) grows in power as government grows in power. Because so much of society is politiczed, this political community called the State grows. The political community entails education, entertainment, media, energy, finance, healthcare, the military/industrial complex, the central bank, on and on. There's no where to turn to get away from the eyes and ears and influence and coercion of the State.

    It's not a vast, coordinated conspiracy, although there is a lot of purposeful design -- it doesn't have to be. Hollywood takes its signals from the primary political party, the Democrats, so they insert their propaganda in plots and dialouges. The central bank understands political realities and acts accordingly, regardless of economic realities -- the financial industry knows the game and plays it to maintain their protected relationship. To empower the State, we have NSA, the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, the EPA, etc. Through this growing network of political connections, the State takes control of everything and sucks trillions of dollars from the private sector to finance itself and expand.

    No, this is not God's work. Minions of the State going out in communities to push a government healthcare plan that will destroy quality healthcare in America and ultimately harm the very people it's ostensibly designed to help is not God's work. This is State work protected by government -- this is the growing political community spreading propaganda and feeding a monster that's grown out of control.


    Can government make our lives better? Part 9

    With relaxed limits or removal of limits on government power, power-seekers find avenues through the State to gain favors and protection, and government uses the dependence of the rent-seekers to control the market. It doesn't take but a little knowledge of human behavior to understand how such a system will be misused by the most dishonest, ruthless and clever among us. The statist system attracts liars and bullies. In order to hide the unsavory deals and the control practices implemented, the managers and players of the system have to concoct a narrative that's palatable to the American people.

    As time goes on, and more people become dependent on government, all that's required is maintainenance of control through repetition of the lies that justify State power. We see this repetition of lies in media, in education, in films and tv shows, in books written by intellectuals who've become employees of the State, and through the many operatives and supporters of the State who work to keep a particular party in power. To make a distinction between government and the State, government props up the powerful State and all its institutions, and when government power is no longer limited then the State continuously builds a complex and interconnected web of control. The powerful State moves beyond the nation and involves itself in the affairs of other nations and international institutions like the UN, the IMF, the Wold Bank, NATO, WTO, etc. The American people and even their representatives have little knowledge of what's done in the name of America by power elites who are practically ungoverned global actors.

    Each year we lose more control and there's no reason to believe the course of the State will reverse on its own. The State is not concerned with anything but its own power and control. The State is not like a local government that's close to the demands and expectations of the people -- the State operates on a level unconcerned with individual rights. Americans have been conned and lulled to sleep. Although there are groups like the many Tea Party groups and think tanks like Cato, and concerned citizens who fight against statism, in comparison to the number of people who don't understand what's happening, it's not much of a resistance. One would hope that the Republican Party would walk like it talks and begin battling in earnest for limits on power and the establishment of the free market, but the GOP is part of the statist system and it doesn't appear the party will change. Even many libertarians choose to use their knowledge and intellectual skills to argue academic points about the circular logic of the non-agression principle, comparing socialist aggression against property rights to the aggressive resistance against socialism's violations of rights -- why they choose to ignore the context is a mystery unless they think such intellectual games are impressive.

    The difference between the intellectual caught up in philosophical mysticism and the thoughtful freedom-fighter is usually that the former believes rights are created by the State, and the latter understands that rights of life, liberty and property are natural to human beings. Throughout history we've learned that humans flourish and advance when liberty is greatest, when rights are protected and when peace and rule of law prevail.

    Can government make our lives better? Only by protecting our individual rights.


    Michael Tanner on paternalism

    Paternalism is practiced with good intentions, yet the longer paternalism is allowed free reign the more it grows into something more dangerous and autocratic. First it's light bulbs to force people to not waste energy, then it's the cars we drive which might soon cover transportation in general.

    Paternalism is not totalitarianism by any stretch of the imagination, but paternalism started in the USSR as something far less than totalitarianism. The danger arises when paternalism is institutionalized and government officials gain the power to direct our choices. The larger the bureaucracy becomes, more and more ideas develope which will be good for the collective, until thinking in collective terms is the only way government officials can think about the public. Individualism and individual rights become  hindrances to the collective's best interest, and resistance to control is seen as a threat to the collective. Iconoclastic individuals are enemies of the collective.

    Paternalism in America should be stopped before it goes any further, but the changes happen so gradually that the public accepts small implementations until the public is either trained to obey the paternalistic State, or it's too late to easily make changes.


    The Power of Cool: Libertarian Image and the 2.0 Candidate

    One thing we know about modern society is that we like cool. Obama won the cool factor in the election, but look who's in the Democrat Party -- Frank, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd -- uncool.

    Sarah Palin had a little of the cool factor, yet the media immediately took care of that and made her a fanatical, moose-hunting, mental lightweight with a clothes fetish. McCain was not cool and everytime he said "maverick" subtracted five cool points.

    The libertarians had the most uncool person on the planet -- Bob Barr. Even the name, Bob Barr, says "bleh!". Ron Paul was cool in his ideas but his delivery and personality are uncool. A candidate has to spur the imagination and inspire an emotional response, either by personality and appearance or by an overpowering gift for speaking and making words come alive. MLK wasn't a model or a funky character but when he spoke he became beautiful in presence and soul -- MLK had the cool factor and spine-tingle factor -- he spurred the imagination and inspired an emotional response.

    The libertarians need a "cool" figurehead. I suggested at Reason that libertarians need a cross between Kevin Rose and Ron Paul, someone who can bridge generations and bring unity to libertarian-spirited people across the country, from the old libertarians who've read Murray Rothbard to the new libertarians who don't know they're libertarians but are searching for something cool, free and techno-centered. The perfect 2.0 candidate. 

    Technology and 2.0, going into 3.0, isn't about spending a lot of time wonking (I realize "wonking" can be taken two ways -- take your pick) politics and spinning a party line -- all its adherents are rushing to the future and don't like roadblocks. Yet, what's not realized is that while they're busy social networking and dreaming in 3.0 clouds, the state is busy networking politically to control this new wave of freedom. The new generation needs representation that understands the value of freedom, honesty, true community and transparency. The Internet Age needs a spokesperson, a new-style politician, a limited government which protects its freedoms and values its ambition and vision. 

    The Internet Age and The State are like oil and water, but this new generation had better understand reality and know that The State will clamp down on too much freedom -- a new Jefferson (male or female) with a tat and attitude is sorely needed.