Great article. I agree that Natural Law is what we should be basing our life choices on. When you read about real history (not the story books they want you to read), you realise that government is the single most prolific killer of humanity ever. Without it war would never happen; there would be no need for revolutions and those who want to steal half our wages wouldn't have the means to do so. It truly is evil.
you misquoted george carlin com[pletely.........what he said was the complete opposite.....he said only those who DON'T VOTE have the right to complain SINCE THE FOOLS THAT ACTUALLY VOTE THESE CRIMINALS IN ARE RESPONSIBLE
Agreed. And getting people to vote is what power wants because it tells them you're still listening to them and believe in some way that your vote matters. If people stop voting the powers that be will go into a panic cause they'll know that people are biting on their lies anymore. Voting is an indication of how well politicians are doing their job, which is mainly to provide a plausible cover story for all the unpalatable things established power is going to do anyways regardless of what the people think. Politicians amount to being actors in democracy theater.
If you don’t use your vote, it makes it much easier for them to use it for you.
Make vote-rigging as difficult for them as you can and eventually when it’s exposed, the revolution will happen.
Remember there should be a lot of options on the ballot paper including smaller parties and perhaps an independent or two.
Failing that, you can always just spoil your ballot. In the UK, every spoiled ballot with a message on it gets read out to all the candidates.
But yes, there should also be a none of the above box - my suggestion is that if NOTA get enough votes, then their candidates are chosen by random selection from the population (e.g. for .25% they get 1).
But if you don’t vote, they win by default. So you really haven’t achieved a damn thing.
Yes, they do - because they just 'make up' the votes. Once you incorporate the fact of 'vote rigging' into your thinking you'll realise what I'm trying to say here. They have a list of everyone who doesn't vote. If they know a person isn't going to vote then they can simply assign them a postal vote, or get someone to pretend to be them, and cast that vote on their behalf for whichever party they need to rig it for.
The other way they rig elections is by removing (or adding) ballot boxes. This, I believe is how they did it in the UK in 2019 - by removing boxes in Labour-supporting wards. And, naturally, adding votes to the Tories (both ballot boxes and postals - the postal vote system being a private company called Idox which is owned by a Tory). Unless people really are stupid (in which case there's no hope) the idea that nearly 14 million people would vote for a lying scumbag like Boris Johnson is not psychologically believable. I think the real result was the other way round.
These methods are why I said if everyone votes then it makes such methods much, much harder to do without being obvious. So what I'm really saying perhaps is that you are assuming that the vote is fair.
If the vote is fair, and the only options to vote for are establishment scumbags, then I might agree with you. Except there will always be 'enough' people who aways vote for establishment scumbags such that establishment scumbags will win, even if the turnout is ridiculously low.
So in the end, the solution is to remove scumbags and replace them with decent human beings - I think in that instance, you might not have an objection to voting. Mind you, if every MP was benevolent there'd be no need for voting because they would all do the right thing without being asked...
In America, though, I think people who wouldn't normally vote should get out and vote for a third party candidate simply to get them over the 5% threshold and fuck up the two party system. At the very least, it would be fun.
No, I don't assume voting is fair. My point stands: when no one votes, it becomes impossible to maintain the pretence that anyone did. As written above, government is the pinnacle of corruption, I want no part of it. I'm not sure you understand the position I am arguing.
I do understand. If I'm reading you correctly you are saying that voting provides 'government' with legitimacy. Sure, but what if it's a government full of benevolent, intelligent people who always do the right thing?
Is your assumption that 'all government is bad by default' - this on its own is illogical, given the existence of benevolent people.
If you are going with the deceitful statement 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' then you are saying that ALL human beings, if given power, will become sociopaths. I disagree profoundly with that statement. I would not become a sociopath and I doubt you would either. The more psychologically accurate version of that statement would be 'the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power'.
So, my fundamental point is that it's a misdirection and mistake to 'blame the system' as if 'the system' has some kind of consciousness and 'will always be bad'. Marx did the same, blaming 'capitalism' rather than 'the people in control of capitalism'.
What I am saying is that it's not 'the system' that is bad - it's the quality or character of the people running the system. I.e. the, let's say 1% of humanoids on this planet (around 80 million or so) who are monsters and they are the problem. The solution, then, is not to necessarily change this or that system, the solution is to eliminate those 80 million monsters. One of the reasons, ironically, why the 99% do not choose this option is not necessarily because they are stupid, it's because they are 'morally good' and baulk at the idea of physical extermination. Or even just rounding them up and sticking them on an island somewhere. This is one of the things that prevents revolution, of course. And the monsters know this and play on it, which is why 'evil always pretends to be good'.
Having said all of that - if we didn't have bad people in the world we wouldn't need 'government' and we wouldn't need 'voting', so on that level, I totally agree with you. Natural law, in that sense, is based on normal people's innate goodness. It's the monsters who are the problem. They used to be ostracised, when people lived in small groups, but now...
Sorry, I should maybe clarify - my sort-of-objection to the proposal of not voting is not a theoretical objection but a practical one. I actually totally agree with you on the theory, about the legitimising aspect.
But here's my practical train of thought. It's a question of a series of if-then statements. If no one (or hardly anyone) voted then, yes, the sociopaths would be exposed. If they want to maintain power they would then have to initiate a boot-in-the-face style fascist system. Which, incidentally, requires an army of fascist psychos (who would, obviously have 'voted'). In which case they are overtly and obviously totalitarian in which case there won't be any conspiracy deniers anymore in which case the people will, en masse, enact a revolution simply out of self-protection/preservation. All well and good. So it's a question of exposure.
But, in order to convince that many people not to vote you are essentially having to convince them that the government is a bunch of fascist sociopaths. In which case, you have already succeeded in motivating them to enact the revolution. You don't need to go through the theatre of not voting. You can just skip that part.
My practical suggestion about actually using your vote was not about legitimacy. It was about voting for a candidate or party of candidates who agree with everything you are saying. If enough people (who would otherwise not vote) voted for that, then this starts a snowball effect. More people hear the message and the next election even more people vote for that anti-establishment party. And then even more, until eventually they either win, or the remaining bad guys are forced to go for the boot-in-the-face option, which, again, provokes the revolution. So my point, really, is a question of 'numbers' - the not voting thing only works if 'enough' people follow that strategy. And if enough people are prepared to do that, because they understand the theory of what you're saying, then by definition they are also prepared to jump straight to the revolution.
And I do agree that there are, in fact, enough people. They just don't have a focus (partly because of Establishment subversion and divide and rule etc.). So it's important to provide them with that focus, but it has to be a practical one.
And I would bet my bottom dollar that if you, or an anti-establishment candidate stood on a platform which included stuff like 'our party will immediately arrest the previous government' or 'we will arrest Tony Blair and George Bush and put them in prison for the rest of their lives' then you would get a massive number of votes.
Or/and 'we will immediately take control over the banking system (e.g. federal reserve) and take away the money power from these sociopaths'. If you give people something practical to vote for they will vote for it. 'We will dismantle and deligitimise the system' etc. etc.
But unless there is enough people to 'not vote' you will not achieve anything practical and the sociopaths will simply keep on laughing at us. And that's something I simply hate the idea of.
Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. Other than these practical considerations, I do agree with you, believe me.
That requires a very long and somewhat philosophical answer. Although there are practical or pragmatic answers as well, IMO.
From a philosophical point of view, nothing justifies the existence of a state or in fact anything for that matter. Certainly not in any human realm - everything is just an arbitrary choice.
Having said that, humans are natural organisms with easily-understandable psychological needs and behaviours and predilections and so on. As a result, it's not that a 'state' is justified, certainly not a 'state' which gives itself the authority to tell other people what they can and cannot do, along with control over resources and the distribution of such resources. But that, I say, is a corruption of the 'state'. It doesn't have to be like that.
A 'state' or a 'government' (at least in the ideal situation) is simply a group of social-decision makers. Social decision-makers have existed as long as human beings had language and needed to make group decisions. Obviously at that time (let's say, for argument's sake, 40k years ago) they would not have called that social decision-maker a 'state' or a 'chief' or a 'president' or whatever, because that person (or persons) did not 'lord it over them'. S/he had already proven their value and merit for making such decisions on their behalf by virtue of their intelligence and benevolence.
So, your asking 'what justifies the existence of the state' is the same question as 'what justifies a small social group of prehistoric humans numbering around 150 people choosing one or a few social decision-makers to make decisions which demonstrably and repeatedly benefit the entire group'. I would say nature and common sense justify that. It's an evolutionary survival benefit.
The difference today is one of scale. Instead of 150 people, we have, say, a province of 15 million. Some of those 15 million will be very good social decision-makers. So I don't think it's beyond the wit of humanity to come up with that kind of system. Remember also that in a benevolent system those groups of humans who wish to live like people used to, in small groups of 150, with no interference from the social decision-makers, would be perfectly entitled to. Again, it comes down to the character of the state.
It's not that anything justifies it, per se, but if humanity wants to fulfil its potential, like reaching for the stars and so on (which a lot of people do - and they shouldn't be denied that opportunity), then that requires large scale organisation beyond a single group of 150 people.
Psychologically, the historical problem has been that sociopaths can hide in larger groups (Dunbar's number limitations), conspire, and then create a state to maintain their social control. In smaller groups, they are detected and ostracised. This is why I am not against a 'state' per se - it's the character of those who operate it that determines whether it is for good or ill. And like I say, a 'good' state would not interfere at all in the liberty of individuals or small groups of individuals.
What justifies the existence of a state is the choice that some humans make to have a state. But if they make that choice, they have to remember to ensure that everyone in that state is a good guy, not a sociopath. That's where things have gone wrong.
Great article. I agree that Natural Law is what we should be basing our life choices on. When you read about real history (not the story books they want you to read), you realise that government is the single most prolific killer of humanity ever. Without it war would never happen; there would be no need for revolutions and those who want to steal half our wages wouldn't have the means to do so. It truly is evil.
you misquoted george carlin com[pletely.........what he said was the complete opposite.....he said only those who DON'T VOTE have the right to complain SINCE THE FOOLS THAT ACTUALLY VOTE THESE CRIMINALS IN ARE RESPONSIBLE
Thanks for that, removed.
Actually, found a better one lol
Spot on! Any chance we could republish it at some point?
Of course! I'd be honoured. Keeping well?
What if they gave an election and nobody came?
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Just say No.
i like that a lot, may I copy?
Of course! 😊
Agreed. And getting people to vote is what power wants because it tells them you're still listening to them and believe in some way that your vote matters. If people stop voting the powers that be will go into a panic cause they'll know that people are biting on their lies anymore. Voting is an indication of how well politicians are doing their job, which is mainly to provide a plausible cover story for all the unpalatable things established power is going to do anyways regardless of what the people think. Politicians amount to being actors in democracy theater.
Yes I could have included this. Voting is a measure of how under the cosh of propaganda you are.
Added it in
If you don’t use your vote, it makes it much easier for them to use it for you.
Make vote-rigging as difficult for them as you can and eventually when it’s exposed, the revolution will happen.
Remember there should be a lot of options on the ballot paper including smaller parties and perhaps an independent or two.
Failing that, you can always just spoil your ballot. In the UK, every spoiled ballot with a message on it gets read out to all the candidates.
But yes, there should also be a none of the above box - my suggestion is that if NOTA get enough votes, then their candidates are chosen by random selection from the population (e.g. for .25% they get 1).
But if you don’t vote, they win by default. So you really haven’t achieved a damn thing.
If no one votes, 'they' do not win by default.
Yes, they do - because they just 'make up' the votes. Once you incorporate the fact of 'vote rigging' into your thinking you'll realise what I'm trying to say here. They have a list of everyone who doesn't vote. If they know a person isn't going to vote then they can simply assign them a postal vote, or get someone to pretend to be them, and cast that vote on their behalf for whichever party they need to rig it for.
The other way they rig elections is by removing (or adding) ballot boxes. This, I believe is how they did it in the UK in 2019 - by removing boxes in Labour-supporting wards. And, naturally, adding votes to the Tories (both ballot boxes and postals - the postal vote system being a private company called Idox which is owned by a Tory). Unless people really are stupid (in which case there's no hope) the idea that nearly 14 million people would vote for a lying scumbag like Boris Johnson is not psychologically believable. I think the real result was the other way round.
These methods are why I said if everyone votes then it makes such methods much, much harder to do without being obvious. So what I'm really saying perhaps is that you are assuming that the vote is fair.
If the vote is fair, and the only options to vote for are establishment scumbags, then I might agree with you. Except there will always be 'enough' people who aways vote for establishment scumbags such that establishment scumbags will win, even if the turnout is ridiculously low.
So in the end, the solution is to remove scumbags and replace them with decent human beings - I think in that instance, you might not have an objection to voting. Mind you, if every MP was benevolent there'd be no need for voting because they would all do the right thing without being asked...
In America, though, I think people who wouldn't normally vote should get out and vote for a third party candidate simply to get them over the 5% threshold and fuck up the two party system. At the very least, it would be fun.
No, I don't assume voting is fair. My point stands: when no one votes, it becomes impossible to maintain the pretence that anyone did. As written above, government is the pinnacle of corruption, I want no part of it. I'm not sure you understand the position I am arguing.
I do understand. If I'm reading you correctly you are saying that voting provides 'government' with legitimacy. Sure, but what if it's a government full of benevolent, intelligent people who always do the right thing?
Is your assumption that 'all government is bad by default' - this on its own is illogical, given the existence of benevolent people.
If you are going with the deceitful statement 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' then you are saying that ALL human beings, if given power, will become sociopaths. I disagree profoundly with that statement. I would not become a sociopath and I doubt you would either. The more psychologically accurate version of that statement would be 'the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power'.
So, my fundamental point is that it's a misdirection and mistake to 'blame the system' as if 'the system' has some kind of consciousness and 'will always be bad'. Marx did the same, blaming 'capitalism' rather than 'the people in control of capitalism'.
What I am saying is that it's not 'the system' that is bad - it's the quality or character of the people running the system. I.e. the, let's say 1% of humanoids on this planet (around 80 million or so) who are monsters and they are the problem. The solution, then, is not to necessarily change this or that system, the solution is to eliminate those 80 million monsters. One of the reasons, ironically, why the 99% do not choose this option is not necessarily because they are stupid, it's because they are 'morally good' and baulk at the idea of physical extermination. Or even just rounding them up and sticking them on an island somewhere. This is one of the things that prevents revolution, of course. And the monsters know this and play on it, which is why 'evil always pretends to be good'.
Having said all of that - if we didn't have bad people in the world we wouldn't need 'government' and we wouldn't need 'voting', so on that level, I totally agree with you. Natural law, in that sense, is based on normal people's innate goodness. It's the monsters who are the problem. They used to be ostracised, when people lived in small groups, but now...
Sorry, I should maybe clarify - my sort-of-objection to the proposal of not voting is not a theoretical objection but a practical one. I actually totally agree with you on the theory, about the legitimising aspect.
But here's my practical train of thought. It's a question of a series of if-then statements. If no one (or hardly anyone) voted then, yes, the sociopaths would be exposed. If they want to maintain power they would then have to initiate a boot-in-the-face style fascist system. Which, incidentally, requires an army of fascist psychos (who would, obviously have 'voted'). In which case they are overtly and obviously totalitarian in which case there won't be any conspiracy deniers anymore in which case the people will, en masse, enact a revolution simply out of self-protection/preservation. All well and good. So it's a question of exposure.
But, in order to convince that many people not to vote you are essentially having to convince them that the government is a bunch of fascist sociopaths. In which case, you have already succeeded in motivating them to enact the revolution. You don't need to go through the theatre of not voting. You can just skip that part.
My practical suggestion about actually using your vote was not about legitimacy. It was about voting for a candidate or party of candidates who agree with everything you are saying. If enough people (who would otherwise not vote) voted for that, then this starts a snowball effect. More people hear the message and the next election even more people vote for that anti-establishment party. And then even more, until eventually they either win, or the remaining bad guys are forced to go for the boot-in-the-face option, which, again, provokes the revolution. So my point, really, is a question of 'numbers' - the not voting thing only works if 'enough' people follow that strategy. And if enough people are prepared to do that, because they understand the theory of what you're saying, then by definition they are also prepared to jump straight to the revolution.
And I do agree that there are, in fact, enough people. They just don't have a focus (partly because of Establishment subversion and divide and rule etc.). So it's important to provide them with that focus, but it has to be a practical one.
And I would bet my bottom dollar that if you, or an anti-establishment candidate stood on a platform which included stuff like 'our party will immediately arrest the previous government' or 'we will arrest Tony Blair and George Bush and put them in prison for the rest of their lives' then you would get a massive number of votes.
Or/and 'we will immediately take control over the banking system (e.g. federal reserve) and take away the money power from these sociopaths'. If you give people something practical to vote for they will vote for it. 'We will dismantle and deligitimise the system' etc. etc.
But unless there is enough people to 'not vote' you will not achieve anything practical and the sociopaths will simply keep on laughing at us. And that's something I simply hate the idea of.
Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. Other than these practical considerations, I do agree with you, believe me.
What justifies the existence of the state?
That requires a very long and somewhat philosophical answer. Although there are practical or pragmatic answers as well, IMO.
From a philosophical point of view, nothing justifies the existence of a state or in fact anything for that matter. Certainly not in any human realm - everything is just an arbitrary choice.
Having said that, humans are natural organisms with easily-understandable psychological needs and behaviours and predilections and so on. As a result, it's not that a 'state' is justified, certainly not a 'state' which gives itself the authority to tell other people what they can and cannot do, along with control over resources and the distribution of such resources. But that, I say, is a corruption of the 'state'. It doesn't have to be like that.
A 'state' or a 'government' (at least in the ideal situation) is simply a group of social-decision makers. Social decision-makers have existed as long as human beings had language and needed to make group decisions. Obviously at that time (let's say, for argument's sake, 40k years ago) they would not have called that social decision-maker a 'state' or a 'chief' or a 'president' or whatever, because that person (or persons) did not 'lord it over them'. S/he had already proven their value and merit for making such decisions on their behalf by virtue of their intelligence and benevolence.
So, your asking 'what justifies the existence of the state' is the same question as 'what justifies a small social group of prehistoric humans numbering around 150 people choosing one or a few social decision-makers to make decisions which demonstrably and repeatedly benefit the entire group'. I would say nature and common sense justify that. It's an evolutionary survival benefit.
The difference today is one of scale. Instead of 150 people, we have, say, a province of 15 million. Some of those 15 million will be very good social decision-makers. So I don't think it's beyond the wit of humanity to come up with that kind of system. Remember also that in a benevolent system those groups of humans who wish to live like people used to, in small groups of 150, with no interference from the social decision-makers, would be perfectly entitled to. Again, it comes down to the character of the state.
It's not that anything justifies it, per se, but if humanity wants to fulfil its potential, like reaching for the stars and so on (which a lot of people do - and they shouldn't be denied that opportunity), then that requires large scale organisation beyond a single group of 150 people.
Psychologically, the historical problem has been that sociopaths can hide in larger groups (Dunbar's number limitations), conspire, and then create a state to maintain their social control. In smaller groups, they are detected and ostracised. This is why I am not against a 'state' per se - it's the character of those who operate it that determines whether it is for good or ill. And like I say, a 'good' state would not interfere at all in the liberty of individuals or small groups of individuals.
What justifies the existence of a state is the choice that some humans make to have a state. But if they make that choice, they have to remember to ensure that everyone in that state is a good guy, not a sociopath. That's where things have gone wrong.
IMO.