The next presidential farce (er, race) is already starting to heat up, and it promises to be great entertainment. I admit it, I absolutely love good theater. The presidential campaigns are reality TV at its best — a year-and-a-half of nonstop lies, gaffes, chest-pounding, and some of the best slapstick comedy America has to offer.
Granted, it also can become boring, because we’ve heard all the lines so many times before. For example, it’s 100 percent guaranteed that every troglodyte who seeks the dictator’s job will, with a straight face, promise to “stimulate the economy,” “create jobs,” “level the playing field,” and initiate both “immigration reform” and “tax reform.”
We also know that there will be nary a mention of shrimp on treadmills nor the all-important question of why lesbians tend to be obese. No sir, none of the new crop of power seekers will so much as hint at wasting your money.
Of course, neither will they be specific when they promise to cut rat-hole programs from the budget. As always, the entire eighteen-month production will be all about hyperbole and vagueness. Substance, as always, will be missing in action.
But the most certain thing of all is that not one of the candidates will pledge to end slavery, because an end to slavery, by definition, would mean an end to government, which in turn would mean an end to the criminal class’s power over others and its unfettered access to your money.
What makes slavery possible is legislation, which legalizes organized violence. It therefore follows that the conditions of people can improve only through the abolition of laws that promote organized violence.
Which reminds me of what Lyoff Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist, had to say about the abolition of government. Tolstoy put a lot of thought into how this most evil of all of mankind’s inventions could be eradicated from the face of the earth.
He started from the premise that slavery results from laws, laws are made by governments, thus the only way slavery can be totally abolished is through the abolition of governments. True, some people in government, pressured by abolitionists, freed American blacks from slavery in the nineteenth century, but that did not prevent government from continuing to enslave citizens in other, more subtle, ways.
And as recent events in Ferguson and Baltimore demonstrated, blacks are still very much enslaved. But the nice thing about it from government’s point of view is that they don’t even know it.
In fact, they have been brainwashed into believing that more government involvement in their affairs would make them free. And yet, in their low-information state of confusion, they turn to violence to vent their anger against government.
But as Tolstoy pointed out, throughout history all attempts to rid the world of governments through violent measures only resulted in new governments being established in their place, more often than not governments that were more oppressive than those they replaced. Thus, violent overthrow of governments, however appealing such a sport may be to some elements, does not work.
The problem with violence is that it is used to compel people, against their will, to do the will of others. And that’s about as good a definition of slavery as one can come up with. Which is why all attempts to abolish slavery through violence is like trying to extinguish fire with fire.
It’s how the Russian Revolution produced Lenin, then Stalin, then, finally, more and worse violence, while the French Revolution produced Robespierre, then Napoleon, then, finally, more and worse violence.
Where Tolstoy totally missed the mark, however, was that he believed the days of government were numbered because it was just a matter of time until people would realize that government is inherently evil. He felt that eventually people would simply refuse to furnish governments with soldiers and money, without which they would be rendered impotent.
Tolstoy’s naïve vision presumed that men would become enlightened and moral enough to refuse to take part in any governmental activities, including those carried out by soldiers, tax collectors, jurors, and elected officials.
Instead, throughout history the opposite has happened, which is to say that the people themselves are the problem. Rather than becoming enlightened, they fail to understand that their participation in the criminal activity of government, whether in the form of labor, money, or military service is not a patriotic act, but an act that harms both themselves and others. The call for patriotism is, in reality, nothing more than a call for the populace to submit peacefully to slavery.
The sad truth is that a majority of people ignorantly assume that civilization cannot exist without governments, that the disappearance of government would lead to chaos and anarchy, and that people would revert to barbarism. But it’s preposterous on its face to assume that people cannot arrange their own lives as good as politicians and unelected bureaucrats arrange them.
If public works are needed, why should we assume that free people cannot, without resorting to violence, raise the money necessary to create something that is a genuine benefit to society? This includes roads, bridges, police and fire departments, and just about anything else that is a positive addition to a community.
Has government done such an outstanding job with Amtrak and the Postal Service that private industry could not possibly do as well? Hardly.
While robbers generally focus on plundering the rich, governments favor plundering the poor and protecting those rich who assist them in carrying out their crimes. Throughout history, they have relied on pariahs like Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds to help them plunder at will. That’s why the average person’s wages have declined over the past twenty years and the wealthy have become wealthier than ever.
So, dear reader, I suggest that you sit back and enjoy the upcoming campaign festivities for the next year-and-a-half. They promise to be reality TV at its best.
Your biggest challenge is to not get so caught up in the playacting that you begin to take it seriously. After all, no matter which scoundrel ends up winning the throne in 2016, you already know, based on past history, that there will be no fundamental changes in the way government operates. Guaranteed!
And if you’re wondering about the fate of shrimp on treadmills and obese lesbians, rest assured that they will once again become important political projects right after the current presidential soap opera comes to an end.