Other recent articles under: Political Theory as of Dec 12, 2008
Topic: Political Theory
Taxation is Theft, War is Murder
What is the origin of the state? A "social contract" voluntarily entered into by the free and sovereign members of society? or conquest and confiscation by a band of violent, parasitic thugs, exploiting the subjugated people and expropriating the rightful property of a dominated populace? by Brutus
(libertarian)
Friday, December 12, 2008
To take a clear and objective look at the tapestry of social phenomena comprising the human condition, it is immediately discernible that custom and habit are often more dominant social forces than are reason and plain logic.
Thus, the widespread acceptance of the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" continued unabated from generation to generation, until finally, a relatively small group of free-thinking individuals was able to apply reason to the prevailing customs, and to express their findings in such a way as to appeal to the better senses of the masses. Similar evolutions can be found throughout human history: Societies pass on a set of superstitions and prejudices from one generation to the next, until finally a small but irate group is able to expose the fallacies to a sufficient extent as to permanently alter the prevailing social paradigm.
Very early on in the history of civilization, the land was sparsely populated, and broken up into hundreds of thousands of tribes and villages, each developing their own unique set of mores and traditions. Inter-tribal trade was a scarce phenomenon at first; individual tribes and families were, for the most part, self-sufficient -- each consumed mainly only that which they themselves produced.
Then, as now, there were only three general ways in which humans could derive sustenance: Self-sufficiency (manually producing everything which one consumes or uses), trade (peaceful and voluntary production and exchange), or plunder (violent conquest and confiscation).
Scarcity, the great and omnipresent problem that is inherent in earthly existence, has always driven the less scrupulous among us to violent remedies. But in the earliest days of human history, men were less sophisticated, and the available avenues for expropriation were very limited. The best that early man could conceive of, was to form roaming bands of warlords, and to set about pillaging their conquered victims. At first this method was very primitive in its execution; the potential plunder was always limited by whatever the village being victimized had on hand to be confiscated. Although it was common practice for the band of pillagers to spare a few of their victims to be kept as slaves, the typical M.O. was kept to the simple three-step formula of Murder, Loot, and Move On.
However, as time passed, the more sophisticated bands of warlords started to come to a realization: that it might be better if, instead of stubbornly adhering to the tried-and-true three-step formula, they altered it a bit, by replacing the initial phase of "murder all but a few slaves-for-the-road," with "murder only those who protect the village," and then replacing the final phase of "move on to the next victims" with "stay and live off the labor of the villagers-turned-serfs."
To the delight of the nomad warlords, the new formula proved successful beyond their wildest dreams. They moved in on their marks, immediately dispatched with only those who dared put up a fight, declared themselves sovereign rulers of all persons and property within the territory (with the chief warlord as the villages new "King," and the territory being divided up amongst all the members of the band). The spared villagers were then left to tend to and cultivate the land, with the fruits of their labor expropriated by whichever warlord held "sovereignty" over the particular piece of land they were cultivating. The serfs were allowed to keep of their produce only what was essential for a bare subsistence.
In very short order, nearly every village and tribe throughout modern-day Europe and Asia found themselves with a new "King" (or "Emperor," etc.) and a ruling class of warlords as their new "sovereign government" being violently imposed upon them.
But human beings are quite socially resourceful, capable of such psychological phenomena as cognitive dissonance, and mass self-delusion. Because life as a serf can be such an overbearing strain on the ego and psyche, people began to adapt by creating social myths and narratives to reconcile their situation with the basic and natural human tendency to derive happiness from existence. Thus, they began to associate themselves with their oppressors; by projecting greatness onto their "King," they could then convince themselves that they were not merely slaves being dominated by violent thugs, but instead that they were the happy subjects of a great and wise ruler who had been appointed by God Himself. Ensuing generations would reason on top of this, that the subjugation they endured was actually a good and necessary social benefit, because the King and his lieutenants scrupulously caused law and order to reign among their subjects, and also kept them safe from the barbarian hordes roaming beyond the village (!)
The produce of their labor that were forced to give up to the King and their men was no longer theft at swordpoint; it was taxation, which every able-bodied villager had a social duty to contribute to.
Thus, our roaming bands of violent thugs and warlords became what we now know of as the State, and their ill-gotten booty became the venerable social institution known of as taxation.
After so many generations of the social phenomena of habit and custom working on the human psyche, people could conceive of no other way of getting on than by being dominated by a State; it was a common sentiment that it pleased God for every village and city to be ruled over by a King.
As is common knowledge, humans easily become drunk with power. It is very rare indeed that a state is ever content with the territory it rules over at any given time. Their tendency is almost universally to expand; and usually that means violent conquest of new territories, which generally are already under the subjugation of another set of state rulers. This, of course, means war; and war always means murder -- as someone must necessarily be the aggressor, and aggressively taking the life of another human being can never be honestly construed as anything else but murder.
But since habit and custom have transformed the state from a band of violent thugs to a benevolent and necessary social institution, state rulers have long been able to indoctrinate their subjects to the very opposite of reality; to wit, people are led to believe that war is defined by the state fighting on behalf of the people, instead of the reality that war is the people fighting on behalf of the state.
In the late 17th Century, small groups of individuals began to finally grasp strands of reason through the giant smokescreen of state-created sophistry, and the mass delusion and self-deception of the public held in place by generations of habit and custom; eventually the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was finally repudiated. Though the period we now refer to as The Enlightenment introduced to the social consciousness for the first time the concept of individual rights and the intrinsic equality of each and every human being, the proverbial Emperor was still able to escape without anyone noticing his complete lack of clothing.
For all John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson's bold and unprecedented breakthroughs in philosophy, they still were unable to think far enough outside the box to take the implications of their doctrine to their logical conclusion: that the state, as such, is an inherently immoral and socially-destructive institution. That any institution that finds it necessary to resort to violent expropriation to sustain itself, is inherently unfit to survive at all. That mankind need not resort to monopoly and parasitism to establish courts of common law and collective defense. And that, despite the sophistry and interested clamoring from those who stand to benefit, taxation is and always will be organized theft on a grand scale, and aggressive warfare is and always will be mass murder.
Hopefully, the next generation that is able to produce a critical mass of free-thinking individuals, will be able to finally see the Emperor for what he really is: completely and utterly naked.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Brutus only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Brutus is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You didn't come to praise Ceasar. You came to bury the S.O.B. It goes without saying that you got a big thumb's up from this Voluntaryist as well. There's one guy on this site I'd love to see this article, if nothing else than to see his head pop like a giant zit after reading it.
The state is a farce and it is disintegrating right before our very eyes. Man was not born to be led around by the nose.
I'm looking forward to more good struff from you. Please keep up the great work.
Your explanations of the "Divine Right of Kings" and "social contract" theories are caricatures. In fact, the first was a theory that the king, as God's steward, had authority to enforce only what God willed; the second, that the king (or legislature, in Locke's version) had authority to enforce only those laws a society requires. Both were in essence theories that government and governors were limited by law, and that those were justified only sofar as they were limited by law.
"...the first was a theory that the king, as God's steward, had authority to enforce only what God willed;"
Right... And who was it that claimed to have a direct line to God, so as to be the only one to know exactly what it was that "God willed"?
Oh, thats right. THE KING. How convenient for him.
"...the second, that the king (or legislature, in Locke's version) had authority to enforce only those laws a society requires."
And who is it that claims the authority to know what exactly are "only those laws that a society requires"?
Yep. That's right. The king (or legislature, in Locke's version). How incredibly convenient for the king and the legislature.
"Both were in essence theories that government and governors were limited by law, and that those were justified only sofar as they were limited by law."
Yeah; I know all about the theories. The reality, however, is something else entirely.
In reality, the king and the legislature recognize and respect no law whatsoever, save for those so-called "laws" that they themselves decree.
In reality, monarchy as well as democracy, it turns out, are both just contrived theoretical machinations to justify one group of humans having arbitrary power to plunder and subjugate all other humans within a codified geographical region.
And who was it that claimed to have a direct line to God, so as to be the only one to know exactly what it was that "God willed"?
The Church; though it wasn't a matter of having a "direct line" to ask what "God willed," but using philosophy and the Bible to figure
Oh, thats right. THE KING.
Wrong. The theory was that the law was NOT whatever the king wanted.
And who is it that claims the authority to know what exactly are "only those laws that a society requires"?
Locke considered it a matter of natural law; which anyone could discover using his own reason. Reason doesn't guarantee infallibility, but it does give some clues.
Yep. That's right. The king (or legislature, in Locke's version).
Wrong again. Once again, the theory is that the law, not the king or legislature, is sovereign; the law is different from what the king or legislature wants to do, and what they can do is limited by it.
In reality, the king and the legislature recognize and respect no law whatsoever, save for those so-called "laws" that they themselves decree.
Well, now, that's not true of all governments. In governments based on these theories -- constitutionally limited governments -- kings and legislatures cannot pass whatever laws they want to, or ignore whatever laws they want to. There's a vast difference between a government like that, and one that isn't limited: between Switzerland and Myanmar, for example. If you argue that there there isn't, then I'd question whether you're descritbing political "reality" at all.
"The Church; though it wasn't a matter of having a "direct line" to ask what "God willed," but using philosophy and the Bible to figure."
Wrong. The theory behind Divine Right is that the King is God's arbiter on earth; that God's will is carried out on earth through the King, thus whatever the King decrees, must necessarily be assumed to be God's will.
The role of the Church was simply to validate, to endorse, to legitimize, to indoctrinate.
It was a partnership. The Church indoctrinates the masses, advances popular acquiesence and docility, general public acceptance of the King's rule -- because the Holy Church says it is right and just and true, then obviously it must be right and just and true. In return, the King showers favors upon the Church, enshrining the Churches doctrine in law, forcing everyone to pay tithes as modern states impose tax. The Church was to the King under Divine Right, akin to what mainstream academia and Washington-based think-tanks are to the State under democracy.
"Locke considered it a matter of natural law; which anyone could discover using his own reason. Reason doesn't guarantee infallibility, but it does give some clues."
But unfortunately, Locke was ultimately unable to think far enough outside the conventional box, to follow his theory to its inevitable logical conclusion.
"Natural Law" describes exactly what its title implies: Justice is a natural, immutable principle. It is not something that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power. No human authority can add anything to it, nor take anything from it. If the state compels anyone to do justice, they add nothing to their right or duty to enforce justice. It is a mere superfluous and idle command. If the state commands or licenses anyone to do that which justice would forbid them to do, it is pure tyranny. If the state prohibits anyone from doing that which justice would forbid them to do, again it is superfluous and idle. If the state prohibits anyone from doing that which justice would permit them to do, it is a criminal usurpation of their rightful liberty.
No matter which way they are interpreted, the commands of kings and legislators are all empty and devoid of authority or obligation.
So why wasn't Locke able to come to the only rational conclusion derived from his propounded theories? That the state is wholly unnecessary, and that indeed, justice requires that no body of humans be given a monopoly on the establishment and enforcement of justice; as this necessarily implies that the "law" is not something natural that any reasonable person can grasp, but rather it is something that must be devised and expounded by a group of humans with monopoly authority to impose binding compulsions and restrictions upon the rest of society.
"In governments based on these theories -- constitutionally limited governments -- kings and legislatures cannot pass whatever laws they want to, or ignore whatever laws they want to."
I will concede that the scope of their authority is limited, though only by whatever villanies and usurpations they are able to impose on the public without provoking widespread revolt.
However, to imply that this social condition is even anywhere remotely close to a condition where state power is limited to the scope of securing and enforcing indiividual rights as held up under Natural Law, is, to say the least, utterly disingenuous.
Taxation is Theft. War is Murder. Yup, I agree totally. It is, without exception, that simple.
I have the honor of being born in the state where the masterminds of massive taxation and war at the turn of the last century conducted much of their business. That state is Rhode Island.The Nelson Aldrich (Rockefeller) mansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Aldrich) is in Warwick, Rhode Island, and the Samuel Colt estate is in Bristol, R.I.I am often reminded of, the once-in-a-civilization-altering-opportunity, that these two men had to amass untold wealth and power through taxes and war. I guess you could say the subject of taxes and war really hit home for me.
For about the last 10 years I have wondered to myself why I have had this deep need to stay connected to my lifelong passion to be a simple commercial fisherman in New England. As the housing boom roared and the economic bubble inflated, most men my age were making fortunes playing the game, and could not figure why I would be happy living simply as a fisherman.
As the world they have spent a lifetime building vanishes into thin air, they are now realizing that if things get really bad, like it looks it may, being a fisherman catching real food starts to look very appealing. The early natives of this country commented about how the white man’s way turned their braves into boys. We see the results of the white man wisdom now, and I can’t help but ask myself, where have all the real men gone? Where are our real leaders?
As many of the legitimate issues such as war, taxes, energy, and the unprecedented worldwide control and corruption of Earth’s resources reaches historical critical mass, I know from being a commercial fisherman and watching nature, that something bigger is brewing. It seems nature may have provided a failsafe, a default, to prevent man from taking their scheming too far.
I believe the major threat we face as a civilization on this planet is the impending peak of solar cycle 24 in the year 2012. Solar storms and space weather associated with this peak in activity on the sun has the ability to pull the plug on the system of control and corruption that this website exposes. The chances of man rectifying this mess before it reaches a critical state, in my opinion, are slim. The masses of the civilized world and their minds are completely enslaved by projections of reality that are feed to them on a daily basis, now on a worldwide scale. This is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The Achilles’ heel of this machine is - it all requires electricity to operate. Tesla, Edison, and Westinghouse could not have imagined their plan for centralized electric power generation and distribution contained a fatal design flaw – that it could be rendered inoperable by storms from the Sun. My website www.FunkfinderRadioLabs.com explains these risks.
As we advance closer to the epic moment of truth between the good and the evil on this planet, the taxes and war vs. the people, I have a certain contentment knowing that there is something bigger out there. I know very well as a simple commercial fisherman that the laws of nature have no regard for the laws of man. I know that the plug could be pulled and the whole sys tem that was built to control the world, and most everything in the civilized world, would cease to exist in an instant. You can’t run modern mechanized wars without electricity. Although, I should still be able to row or sail my small boat out and catch dinner for myself and people in my community, like fisherman have done since time immortal.
Being from Delaware, I can relate to the feeling of being located in the historical Eye of the Storm, so to speak. The address of the Federal Reserve Corporation, Internal Revenue Service corporation, and the odd corporation titled "The United States of America" are all located within a five minute drive from my house.
It is interesting to read your information about solar weather patterns and particularly the significance attached to the year 2012, which -- and this is all just a perfect coincidence, I'm sure -- also happens to be the year which the truly amazing psychic Edgar Cayce predicted would mark the end of mankind's reign on earth as we know it, as well as the year that the almost equally-amazing Myan astrological calender system abruptly and unexplainedly stops.
For the sake of my two young daughters and child-to-be in about three months, I hope you -- and they -- are wrong.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
