Wouldn't it be nice if there was someplace you could go and be free? Someplace where no government official would spend your money on stupid crap, where they wouldn't bailout people who made poor judgments, they wouldn't tell you what you could or could not put in your own body, or do to your own body? Someplace where others in your community did not force you to do crap that you did not want to do or impose their morals on you? Someplace where you did not have to pay for stuff that you don't use? Wouldn't that be freaking nice?
I suppose as long as there is politics and arrogant people who think nothing is wrong with stealing your money as long as it is for the "public good" as defined by them, that will be impossible. I think our forefathers would probably be disappointed with the way things turned out.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Unfortunately, if such a place did exist, it wouldn't be around for long. The problem with anarchy has always been that it's so defenseless. And the practical alternatives have marched inexorably toward totalitarianism.
Gone are the good ole' days of the battle chieftain who was nominated for his military prowess and served only to rally the troops when need arose. Eventually someone figured out how to craft more security into the job. Even traditional monarchies weren't so bad, though. The king's throne was only as good as his adherence to the traditions of the people, and there was always some shadow oligarchy waiting in the wings to pull him down if he went too far.
In my more romantic moments, I wish we could go back and try monarchy again, but I don't think it would play out the same way. Traditional monarchs didn't meddle much in the personal lives of their subjects, because they couldn't. The technical limitations were simply too great. Today, I don't think you could have an autocracy that didn't quickly become totalitarian.
The corrupting influence of power, combined with the tools of modern technology, seems to have ruled out any more harmless form of government. Now you simply pick your poison--leviathan that you pretend to elect, or one that you don't.
"pretend to elect"?
Why pretend?
Is it because of the voting machine inaccuracies, or the sales campaigns, or the press coverage, or something else?
Take your pick. I was mostly referring to the illusion that one of two candidates will make a difference. But the factors you list are worth considering as well.
Post a Comment