And were back!

Evolution of the Government Racket

Once humans could generate more than needed to sustain themselves, it became worthwhile
to exploit them.
Oh hello opening line to a book defending socialism! Havent seen you in a while!
Most human relations have been cooperative and nonviolent, but the desire to control others
by force evolved from the first temptation to steal to the modern governments we know today.
That seems like an idiotic and undefended statement. Im pretty sure that the modern government
today derived from the need to establish rule, order, and property following the establishment of
civilisations after the agricultural revolution. Im pretty sure it had fuck all to do with the average
Joes desire to control others by force.
If government is defined as rule by force, we might have never experienced a state of nature
without government.
Does that mean that the private police forces that protect private property are also a government?
With the development of agriculture, people could create far more food than they could
consume and could support a whole variety of specialized labor, including the unique
profession of the government leech.
It makes this guy seem rather shitty that, given all the activities of governments back in the period
hes describing, the worst example he can think of is the acquisition of excess property.
With the rise of industry, the productive output of the individual increased dramatically, and
so did societys overall ability to support people who were completely unproductive, or even
counterproductive. If governments took half the income of primitive peasants who could
barely get enough food to feed themselves, they would all die or revolt against such massive
theft. However, if governments take half the income of modern industrial workers whose
salaries can feed ten families, then use some of it to convince them its for their own good,
they might even vote for higher taxes.
Thats a long quote, but I needed the whole thing in context. This guy seems to believe that taxation is
an institution that takes from the productive (who he seems to think are the workers, which is very
socialist of him) and gives to the unproductive. However, this is total bullshit. Capitalism is a system
whereby the workers produce something of 100% value; the capitalist pays the worker 40% of the
value and sells the other 60% to keep all the administrative business ticking over, while paying
themselves a healthy salary. Taxation maybe takes 5% value from the worker (it certainly doesnt take
half the average workers earnings). Taxation is the institution that takes money from the capitalist, in
order to give some of it back to the worker. Capitalism takes money from the producers and gives it to
those who produce nothing at all; taxation goes some way towards mitigating the effects this process.
I also like how the government can, Convince them its for their own good but whenever a worker
decides that its in their interests to work for a capitalist its because voluntary interactions are
always mutually beneficial. You cant have it both ways: either unjust relations are solely and
invariably sustained by the threat of force never by something more subtle or nuanced or there is a
wide range of approaches that can be taken when it comes to bring about a free society.
As a result, governments have used education and mass media to make us think that the racket
is essential, or even beneficial, but the effects are in decline.
Still havent explained why on earth we should accept that governments are knowingly and
consciously deceiving people. Pretty sure governments just write the education syllabuses that they
see as important. Maybe it shows government as being necessary education will generally do that
but this isnt because theyre choosing to be intentionally deceptive.
We have come to demand more control over our own decisions, and to go about our lives
without being robbed or assaulted.
Hence why people are beginning to question the unjust power relations imposed by the force-backed
maintenance of private property? I hate when a worker enters an area to produce and are promptly
beaten up by security guards and kicked out. Goodness me, I might never tire of pointing out how
99% of what neoliberals say in no way distinguishes them from 99% of other beliefs.
The history of government has been defined by two arcs: the development of our capacity to
tolerate theft, and our awareness that we deserve to live without being robbed. The first arc
will continue to grow exponentially with technology, but the second arc will eventually
outpace the first. This can be seen in the development of modern participatory democracies.
Of all the various forms of government, this is the last one before achieving a truly free
society.
Oh agreement. Is there any point with this anymore? Yes, people will eventually realise that
controlling their own labour through denouncing absentee ownership maintained through violent
protection of private property is the best way to go. People dont like being robbed eventually they
will realise this and overthrow the boss who demands the vast majority of their productive capacity. I
also agree that modern democracy is an important step along this road, but not because its getting
closer to destroying the government, but because its making the government more accountable to the
people.
Shameless plug: You know, Im currently writing a book about how socialism could provide us a
great deal of freedom in our modern situation. I dedicate the first 200 pages of that book twice the
length of this entire book page-to-page addressing my issues with neoliberal free market capitalism
when it comes to providing liberty. I had to be selective in my arguments to reduce the case against
neoliberal capitalism down to a mere 200 pages. This guy has ranted about freedom for a good couple
of pages now, and he hasnt once admitted that the definitions hes using are up to some debate.
If we only look at the current period, we might see it as a struggle for democracy. Fighting for
equal participation in the forced control of others prevents us from achieving the greater
goal of a society that respects self-ownership. Democracy is a way to pretend that we are all
equal slave-owners.
Its possible for democracy to exist without the institution of taxation. I support a democratic system,
but one based simply on protecting the basic rights of every citizen, while accounting for the fact that
morals may vary over time. Having said that, we havent seen much in the way of defending this
claim that simply having a government makes people slaves. I guess this is preaching to the choir?
The reality is always going to be far less than the champions of democracy promise, because
it is based on a fundamentally immoral ideal. No one has the right to force a leader on anyone
else and no mandate from the majority gives any leader the right to use force against anyone.
Undefended normative ethical contention. People have the right to feel safe and secure. Billions of
people prefer the existence of a limited state to the threat of absolute chaos.
Democracy is the justification for most of what the super rich were going to do to everyone
else anyway. If anything, it provides a very convenient cover for them to do whatever they
want, because democracy allows them to say they are doing it according to the will of the
people.
Capitalism fucking sucks.
Patriotism
People have always derived a sense of identity from affiliation with groups. We compare
ourselves to lesser groups to boost our sense of self-esteem. This inherent feature of the
human psyche has been widely exploited to manipulate societies into tolerating oppression.
True All true. Ill leave this in just to make it clear that this guy isnt a total lunatic.
The original grouping we all seek affiliation with is family. There is a natural, healthy instinct
to see those who gave us life as superior to anyone who didnt.
What a God-awful way to describe familial relations. I dont regard my family as superior to other
people. I love my family because I have good cause to believe that theyll consistently seek to help me
and take care of me if I need them to. Giving somebody life doesnt automatically mean they should
be indebted to you. Is this good ol fashioned capitalist property rights Im seeing here? It isnt about
who caused who to exist. Its about love, compassion, forgiveness, understanding.
When a family or a tribe is threatened, this instinct can be very helpful, even essential to
survival. When there is no threat, fear of outsiders can block cooperation.
Are you going to argue against the claim that the tribal nature of humanity prohibits the cooperation
that youre describing? I dont personally believe that human nature contravenes cooperation, but
its a pretty big indictment that you bring up natural tribal instinct and then dont address it as an
actual argument against your position. You simply state its bad. Great
Many governments directly exploit this tendency by trying to get people to think of their
country as a family and the political leaders as parents.
There goes the government, manipulating people while being fully aware of their own insignificance.
This term is often defined as love of ones country, but when that country is defined by
lines drawn on a map by politicians, wars, and circumstances of history, that love is for a false
sense of group identity created and supported explicitly to strengthen the psychological grip
of governments over their victims.
This is good.
The most insecure and vulnerable people are most likely to be the most enthusiastic patriots,
and thus governments always have an interest in keeping us afraid of outsiders, disconnected
from the rest of the world, and stunted in emotional maturity.
And this is good. Fascism is bad. It tricks workers into accepting radical and violent capitalism based
on appealing to nationality as a superior moral force to basic control over ones labour.
Governments rely on a sense of patriotism in their victims to get them to go along with
policies not in their best interest. They need us to believe we are sacrificing for the common
good when we are really aiding our victimizers. They need us to go along as part of the herd.
Ok, so this guy doesnt like fascism. Im left wondering, though, how would he react if some Jew-y
communist came along and tried to enact socialism? Obviously every fascist in the world would
oppose such an attempt to impose socialism, given that socialism is diametrically opposed to fascism.
Is anyone else not convinced that these neoliberal right types wouldnt be that adverse to allying with
neo-Nazis if it meant acting upon their blind, ignorant rage against socialism?
Propaganda
The development of mass communications technology enabled governments to assemble
massive armies of poor men, not only to fight and die in rich mens wars, but to do it
enthusiastically.
Im pretty sure poverty has been a good way for the government to assemble massive armies of poor
men. Especially in a modern context incidentally, a context where communication technology is at
its peak, but standing armies are relatively miniscule in most countries most people who do join the
army do so because they need the money. In fact, if there arent any wars in libertopia, what happens
to all the people who make a living by involving themselves in the military? I assume they enter into
the booming private security guard industry, because those socialists are going to have a whale of a
time exploiting the governments inability to defend private property.
Not only could they take over broad segments of the economy by seizing private property,
they could get people to believe that without governments, society couldnt function!
Oh hey its a capitalist! I was wondering when you were going to show up. It would be nice if
having actually demonstrated your capitalism by taking issue with the seizing of private property
you showed that this was a bad thing. I suspect that you actually dont know what private property is,
but well see.
Religion has long played a supporting role in oppression, as governments will promote
religions that advocate obedience to government.
Hmmm? Religions dont advocate obedience to the government. They might be apathetic towards
state power, but they rarely say support the government unless in a theocracy. However, in a
theocracy theyre really saying, Support the religion, which happens to run the government.
Through sponsorship (and in some places takeover) of education, governments can strongly
favor those who reinforce their narrative. Governments and their sponsors give credibility to
their propaganda by supporting think tanks.
Guess what. If FREEDOM by Adam Kokesh was mandated reading material for every school in the
western world, and every possible bit of exposure was given to anarcho-capitalism (right up until the
point when it was on the verge of becoming an anarcho-capitalist propaganda machine itself) people
would still support the government. People dont actually need convincing to support the government,
especially when this is the alternative being offered. I would note that perhaps, if some anarchist
literature by Kropotkin, Godwin, Bakunin, Goldman, etc was mandated reading material, then maybe
people would largely become anarchists. However, thats because left anarchism actually makes sense
and has a robust theory underpinning it. Ironically, anarcho-capitalist (the only ideology that seems to
confidently assert that everybody would be an anarcho-capitalist if they just heard the message) is the
one political movement that would probably make no political impact at all if everybody had to read
their message. They dont really have much of a message.
To put into perspective the reality of the anarcho-capitalist message gaining exposure, I give the
anarcho-capitalist message exposure for fun. I tell people what anarcho-capitalists believe as a joke,
because Im confident that people wont say, Oh thats a good idea actually. I dont even
manipulate. I just say, You know, there are people who believe that there should be no government
and everything should be controlled by free market capitalism. They think law enforcement should be
provided when you buy law insurance and corporations should be allowed to have private
militaries. If I ever, by some miracle, became leader of a socialist revolution in large parts of the
world, I would sure as shit teach kids about anarcho-capitalism, because it is the best example of how
moronic capitalists can be.
Staged conversations between preselected talking heads are a common tactic of propagandists
because the best propaganda is the kind the targets dont recognize A third option is not
considered or is presumed irrelevant.
Im a European and what is this? Most democratic systems have a wide variety of parties. In the UK
the most recent election was won by a minor far-right party that came out of nowhere. In every liberal
democracy other than the USA it is incredibly easy for new approaches to affect the democratic
system.
Government VS Technology
Technology has allowed governments to be far more destructive than they would be without
it. In many ways, technology is now empowering us to challenge government power.
I think I realised why this book is so short. He wrote down notes for chapter ideas and then
accidentally pasted them all into the book. I mean seriously? Neither of these claims is addressed in
anything like the detail it ought to be. It would be like opening up the Lord of the Rings and seeing:
Bilbo throws a party. Frodo and Gandalf talk about the ring.
As long as we are susceptible to the racket, available technology will determine the nature of
the oppression, but eventually technology will empower the general population to demand
self-government and render the psychological roots of statism irrelevant.
So confident. I hate it.
Excess productivity makes government possible. The development of agriculture suggested a
racket centered around various forms of tenant farming. The development of industry created
a much more regimented and coordinated economy that suggested taxing income.
I actually like this argument. Excess productivity does indeed make government possible, although
the entire social phenomenon of government is a little more complicated than that.
Technological development leads to wealth development. By increasing the capacity of the
average laborer, technology raises the standard of living (despite government always taking
larger portions of our output).
Uhm The government doesnt simply take the money. This is a very manipulative and outright
deceitful way to argue your point. The government takes a portion of our output and then provides
many services. It may be that you think these services would be better off privatised, but arguing
against the government based on the description of the government as something that simply takes
money is obnoxious. Im going to stop mentioning the fact that there are models of socialism where
the government doesnt take money at all, but by all means bear that in mind.
When people barely had the ability to feed their families and pay off their landlords, they
didnt have time to organize protests. With the development of a wealthier society overall, the
level of individual empowerment has increased along with access to information.
This is the point where a more interesting person might discuss the complications of this assessment.
We know that wealthier and more secure people are less likely to be revolutionaries, as they fear
losing what they have. By contrast, the reason why poor university students are happy to protest for
radical socialism is because they dont have anything to lose. This is the same reason why poor
citizens in Iraq are happy to join militant groups, because theyve nothing to gain from attempting to
live in a more peaceful and less turbulent society. Comfortable people fear change.
Despite the rapidly-developing internet, some politicians think they can still get away with the
old deceptions. Sometimes, politicians will say one thing, then say the opposite thing in
another town the next day, only to find video of the two statements edited together online the
day after.... The worst government atrocities are now viral videos. The new conversation does
not favor governments.
Many would argue that this simply leads to more accountable governments that will inevitably
improve as technology gives citizens more accessibility to the actions of the state. Im sure you reject
this assessment. Im sure theres a very good reason for that in your head. Id love to read some of
your reasons for your beliefs at some point.
Because governments depend on an enforcement class to do violence against people who are
acting peacefully, the ability to limit and control information that gets to the enforcement
class is very important.
You mean like workers peacefully keeping the produce of their labour? Workers peacefully going
to work even after somebody has threatened them with violence in order to prevent them doing so? Or
is that not violence, because everything about property theory is totally not up for debate? It must
suck living with the knowledge that youd have no problem with slavery if youd lived in a time when
that was the commonly accepted property theory.
It is easy to convince a soldier to kill someone if he can be convinced his victim is somehow
less than human. It is much more difficult if they can video chat online.
Heh. Wow. Also, arent gender neutral pronouns one of the top priorities when it comes to
establishing syntax in political literature? Im sure hes done this before, but this is the first time Ive
noticed.
Able to connect like never before, we are already developing the relationships that will render
government obsolete.
Maybe, but it wont be anarcho-capitalists who influence that change.