Dismantling “minarchy”, “constitutionalism” and other forms of slavery-lite

thumbnail

While I personally don’t like using labels to lump groups of people into specific categories, as regardless of whatever similarities people might have to one another, there are also many differences, and each and every individual is a unique expression of who I/we always and already are, as infinite and unlimited consciousness and potential.

However, labels can be aptly used either for ease of general reference, and in that sense I have seen numerous people who are against all the bullshit and the technocracy that’s attemptively unfolding in our current age, but who have yet to go all the way into breaking the shackles of the indoctrination they’ve been fed their entire lives.

Specifically, I am refering to people who still prefer “a little bit” of slavery in the form of a particular brand of “limited government”, namely “minarchists” and “constitutionalists”, or any other people with a general mentality of being against the current paradigm, but instead of seeing that the very foundation of it is fucked up, they insist that it’s only because it’s become “corrupted” or that the people in office have distorted it.

Everyone who believes in any form of “government” or so-called “authority” of any kind, no matter how severe or mild that may be, still believe in one form of slavery or another. In this article, I’m going tackle some of the “arguments” (or rather excuses) that I’ve seen people with that mentality use, and I’m also going to briefly explain why “minarchy” and “constitutionalism” is still slavery.

  • “Limited government” is still slavery

Often times, even though they might be against the current “system”, minarchists and constitutionalists make the claim that there supposedly is such a thing as a “legitimate government”, but are quick to tell you that it’s only in a “limited” form, and only for as long as it supposedly “protects individual rights”.

This is blatantly contradictory, because it still assumes that trying to force or coerce people into doing something against their expressed consent is somehow “protecting their rights”. Minarchists and constitutionalists are then quick to say that they fully agree that violence is wrong and that their “limited government” would never infringe upon the individual.

Then, when asked if there would be such things as the extortion racket called “taxation”, a majority of them would immediately start justifying it and would say that it’s “for a good cause” or “it’s going to be invested to the benefit of the population”. So, in other words, if I come to you and steal some of your stuff, and then “invest” it in buying you something I deem useful to you, with or without you actually needing or wanting that thing, they somehow believe that’s okay. It is fundamentally immoral, and even if 100% of the value of what I’ve stolen from you is “reinvested” towards something that “benefits” you, I’ll have still stolen from you and I’ll have attempted to infringe upon your freedom of choice with regards to how you want to make use of your own resources.

Oh, most of them would be quick to say that, yes, what I’d have done in that case would be immoral and wrong, but somehow still erroneously believe that if their “limited government” did it, it’s somehow magically okay. Theft is still theft, no matter who does it. Likewise with murder, coercion, violence, aggression and so on. Likewise with all that is good. Both right and wrong are still right and wrong, no matter who commits them.

  • The “mediator” or “protector” bullshit excuse

In some cases, a number of those who believe in “minarchy” or “constitutionalism” may very well realize that “taxation” is theft and slavery and may openly admit it, and even outright say that their version of a “limited government” would not steal from people, which is a step above those who still believe that it’s okay to rob you.

However, they still show their tendency to cling to the indoctrination they’ve been spoon fed all their life, when they claim their “limited government” would only act as a supposed “protector” or “mediator” in order to “help keep things fair”. Psychologically speaking, these are people who have yet to overcome their inner trauma, and are still looking for a proxy “mommy” or “daddy” to take care of things for them, because they’ve yet to develop their own morality and conscience enough to realize that every individual is responsible for their own lives.

Their rhetoric may seem “noble” at first glance, and perhaps they even believe their own words, when they say that they want to keep things fair, because there are still bad people who would exploit other people’s nescience or ignorance, or who outright would try to steal from, and murder people. That much is accurate, and often times they’ll try to follow up with the argument of “well, without any “government”, evil people who have more weapons may try to impose upon those who are unarmed”.

However, my question is: what’s to stop your “limited government” from doing the exact same thing? How many times has “government” abstained from doing so, in written human history? Not once. NOT. ONE. SINGLE. TIME. Why? Because no matter how well-meaning the rhetoric may sound, “govermnent” and “authority” are always slavery. It’s not a matter of context or situation. It’s a matter of concept. If anyone claims that it is “moral” and “okay” for them to impose their ideology or methods on another, that is slavery.

At this point, most “minarchists” and “constitutionalists” would once again repeat that they’re supposedly against violence and that their “limited government” would be there to prevent violence, through acting as a “protector” or “mediator”.

At that point, I ask that if they are against violence and deceit, the supposed “protection” or “mediation” would be voluntary, before saying that if it is voluntary, then it’s not “government”. You can have a private individual or group that has decided to specialize in armed combat, and who offer their work for whoever wants to hire them, be it an individual who decided to pay them for their efforts, or a group who decided to voluntarily pool together some of their resources and pay them in exchange for that added protection.

Or, in the case of mediation or fraud prevention, you can have a private individual or group who has decided to specialize in project management, market research or any other kind of study that would help themselves and others in the attempt to reduce the risk of theft, cons, frauds and deceit. Again, they would offer their work and effort in exchange for whatever they and their “client” agree on, for as long as they agree on it.

Or, better yet, we could have a society where most people will have overcome the belief in “money”, and would instead help themselves and each other grow and evolve for the sake of doing so, which would be a far better world than what we have today.

Either way, the interactions would be voluntary and if someone decides to refuse the private mediator’s or militia’s assistance, the latter would just say “Okay, give us a call if you change your mind. See ya.”

In contrast, what any “government” – however mild or severe – would do, is that it’d try to have a monopoly on those so-called “services” and would look to interfere with people’s lives and personal dealings, and would try to penalize people if they refused and didn’t want to be a part of it. Which people should obviously not accept and should retaliate against, as they should against any violence, theft, coercion and deceit.

Besides, each and every individual is responsible for their own choices and their own lives. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help each other. Quite on the contrary. What I am saying, however, is that nobody should be “forced” or coerced into either “helping” others or accepting “help” they neither want, nor need.

Aside from that, no matter what hardships and hurdles, as well as joys, ease and effortlessness we may experience, it’s always because we – as soul and spirit – have chosen to have those experiences, as a way of growing and evolving in both consciousness, conscience and expressed ability.

Both successes and mistakes are opportunities for growth and evolution. No mistake is ever a failure, unless you fail to learn from it. How do you expect to learn from your mistakes, if you just erroneously try to “outsource” the responsibility for it to whatever so-called “mediator” or “protector”?

It’s one thing to organize with other beings, voluntarily helping yourselves and each other grow and such, while distributing different tasks to people who are more interested or/and skilled in doing any particular endeavors than others in that group, and a totally different thing to be an iresponsible prick (or priquette) who just waits around for their proxy “mommy” or “daddy” to come and “fix things” in their stead. Oh, and try to “force” or coerce others into doing things the way “mommy” and “daddy” want to do. My, my, aren’t you a just a prissy bunch of “grown-ups”? Who’s a pretty wittle “adult”? You are! Yes, you are! Fuck off, ya piece o’ shit!

The only way in which any “government” or so-called “authority”, or any other slavery system, ever acts as a “protector”, is in the same way that an industrial meat farm would “protect” their cattle from being stolen or killed before they’ve outlived their usefulness to the meat farm. It is also only a so-called “mediator” in the same way that a slaver on a plantation would try to prevent the so-called “slaves” from either being stolen by another slaver, or from being too overworked of abused to be of any use on the field.

Either way, it’s still slavery and it should never be accepted.

An appropriate and accurate analogy would be that full-on “statists” are kinda like slaves who, in their ignorance and complacency, are okay with getting lashed across the back seven days a week, while “minarchists” and “constitutionalists” are like slaves who only want to be lashed 2-3 days a week, and maybe less harshly. Either way, both are advocating for the continuation of slavery.

Anarchy, on the other hand, is the complete abolition of all slavery. I know the word has been thoroughly butchered and grossly misinterpreted in modern times (I say purposefully), and that there are many “anarcho-this-ists” or “anarcho-that-ists”, or any other variants of so-called “anarchists” who are more or less anything other than that. However, the original meaning of the word “anarchy”, from the prefix “an-“ meaning “without; in absence of” and “archos; archon” meaning “master; ruler (in other words, slaver)”, literally translates to “no slaves, no masters”.

In other words, “do what you want, so long as you don’t impose it on anyone”. It is not a method of societal organisation. It is a spiritual, philosophical and natural principle that can pretty much be summed up in the phrase: “Live and let live. Do no harm, but take no shit.” The feminine principle of non-aggression (do no harm) and the masculine principle of self-defence (take no shit).

If people can generally agree, both in theory and in practice, that it is wrong to initiate violence, theft, coercion and deceit on other living beings, then any resulting society would naturally be freedom and liberty oriented.

Of course, there are levels of conscience beyond being only moral (which just means “don’t deceive, steal from or murder other living beings” for reasons that relate to your own conscience), such as being ethical in the spiritual sense, helping both ourselves and each other grow in consciousness, conscience and whatever else, for the sake of doing so.

  • No. The system is not “corrupt”. It’s operating as designed.

People need to get to grips with the idea that all that “government” is, it’s slavery. By design. It’s not “corrupt”. Corruption typically means something doesn’t proceed as designed, intended or expected. In that sense, corruption can manifest something more limited and bad compared to the original design, but it can also deviate and create something better and more advanced than what was originally intended.

With “government” there is no such thing as “corruption”, in the sense that it was never intended as something to be used for the betterment of anything. Violence, theft, coercion and deceit are crutches and hindrances, and in addition to the erroneous belief in it, they are the main things on which it relies to even exist, as an institution.

A society where people and whatever other entities organize themselves without those things would, both esoterically and exoterically, be a genuinely liberty oriented and actually prosperous civilisation. That would be an actual (and good) corruption to the idea of “government”.

Imagine that, a society that doesn’t rely on either acute, nor chronic violence and deceit to exist. I think we can do that, if we actually care to do so, and put our actions where our words are. I know we can do everything we choose, if we actually choose to do it.

  • “Oh, b-but there is much less violence going on now, than it was in history. W-we’re not executing people on the street for disagreeing with popular opinion.”

First off, that is not a very accurate statement. Our society, in terms of “government” and everything derived from the belief in it, is either just as, or even more violent than before. Often times, the most violent and psychopathic “people” are the ones who get in “office” because, due to their puerile and traumatised, self-loathing ego, the idea of getting off over the illusion of “control” over other people, that they delude themselves into believing they have, appeals to them.

Secondly, the belief in “government” amplifies the psychopathic tendencies of people, who wouldn’t typically go out looking to “impose” their beliefs on others, but are okay with if someone is doing it in their stead.

Thirdly, slavery, violence, rape, human trafficking, war, deceit and all the rest of that bullshit is still a thing in our world. Both overtly in some parts of the world, like Saudi Arabia, some parts of India, China, Korea (both North and South), Russia and basically all other openly tyrannical dictatorships, and especially behind closed doors, as well as covertly when it comes to the rest of “western” society that I assume most people are going to be reading this article from. What changed is not exactly a reduction in evil, as much as it is a change in the methodology, along with copious amounts of “prettying it up”.

Thirdly, what the actual fuck are people “thinking” (if anything at all) when they come up with excuses like “oh, but it was worse before”? Suppose that it even was “so much” worse before, why do some people believe it’s somehow “okay” now, just because it was shittier in a previous era? Ignorance, unresolved trauma and cowardice. Those are the main reasons, in a nutshell.

It’s like someone who has gangrene looking at someone with leprosy, and then believing that they’re so much better off, and then using that belief as an excuse to remain in a state of gangrene. When someone comes and suggests that actual health is a thing, the gangrenous bunch just lash out in what’s basically a temper tantrum, because they don’t want to face the notion that they’ve become addicted to their disease.

Likewise with our society. Just because it’s not (yet) the most violent thing in existence, doesn’t mean that it’s magically okay. If an abusive person beats up their spouse daily, or if they only do it once a week, twice a month or even just once every few months, it’s still abuse; and it should never be accepted. If a couple of abused spouses gather around and say:

 “Well, I let my husband beats me up only twice a week, and with a wooden stick instead of a crowbar like yours does every day, so… I guess I’m golden.”

“Really? Wow! You have such a good life. I’m jealous.”

“Yeah. We should really have other husbands beat their wives like mine does.”

I’m like… no, you fuckin’ self-loathing, retarded bitches! You’re still letting yourselves abused, and you’re also calling for other people to be abused, as well. How about NOT accepting ANY abuse, whatsoever?!

That is the same mentality, albeit in a different context, of people who want to – wittingly or unwittingly – see themselves and others abused, but in their preferred way, as per their indoctrinated belief system. Fuck that shit!

Freedom is freedom. It is never given, nor is it ever taken. If we want to express the more conscious and good aspects of ourselves as infinite and unlimited consciousness and potential, we are to NOT ACCEPT ANY FORM OF SLAVERY AND IMPOSITION, WHAT-SO-FUCKING-EVER!

And ya know where that starts? It starts with self-love and self-respect, which grows to self-knowledge and self-comprehension, which naturally translates into our behaviours towards other living beings, and actually giving a shit about doing what is right and assuming full responsibility for our own lives, our own choices and for changing ourselves for the better. Responsibility which we always have anyway, but I mean consciously acknowledging it and in-so-doing, we then naturally translate to changing the world. Not just saying that we want change, but actually doing something to manifest it. Not necessarily for the world itself, but because (as is my case) to express the more conscious and elevatory aspects of myself as infinite consciousness, being good, honest, intuitive, intelligent, spiritual and so on for the sake of being so. Whatever manifests in the world, I honestly don’t give that much of a shit, because I know it’s an illusion.

That said, I do want this illusion to be a good one though, and a good place for other souls to come and have a better experience in it, than those of us who came here before them. Plus, when you genuinely grow in consciousness, you never really go back to a lower level than your current one, so there’s that.

  • People need to grow the fuck up

Oh, and I definitely don’t mean that in erroneous sense of the retarded notion of “adulthood” that our modern society has generally adopted nowadays, which basically translates to being a mindless drone of the slavery system, when you strip way all the layers of fluff and euphemism (or rather, “emasculation” would be a more accurate term).

No, I mean genuine maturity, which comes from – among other things – nurturing and growing inner child and inner beauty that we all have within ourselves; the innate intuition and intelligence of the heart, the spirit of rebellion, unbound curiosity and will, playfulness, joy, passion and everything that is good and conscious. Then, as we genuinely mature our heart with creativity, love, intuition, kindness, strength of will and so on, we also develop our mind with intelligence, knowledge and unbiased comprehension, thus growing our inner child and becoming the genuinely mature adult, always going with the heart, while also taking our mind with us.

“The creative, rebellious and honest adult is the child who survived and who is now thriving, no matter what.”

Through intuition (remembrance of who we are as both individual and infinite consciousness, as well as unlimited being), we expand our awareness and knowledge, and then with intelligence we come and comprehend. The mind always grows in conjunction with the heart, and intelligence always grows in conjunction with intuition, and soul with spirit.

When we genuinely grow in consciousness, we realize that we always create our own reality, on every levels and beyond the very concept of levels. This also means that both infinitely and individually, we are always responsible for everything we create and experience. Therefore, if we want to see the world change for the better and turn our society into a genuinely freedom-oriented, actual civilisation, then we are to become the change we want to see manifested in the world. Not for the sake of the world, but rather for the sake of growing and elevating ourselves, in life and beyond life.

When we love and respect, know and comprehend ourselves genuinely for the sake of doing so, it is then that we actually feel love and respect towards another. For the so-called “outer world” is a reflection and projection of the so-called “inner world”.

Going beyond that, there is no “inner” or “outer” when we see beyond the illusion.

I and we are all and always everything and everythingness. All the bullshit, all the “meh”, and infinitely more so, all the good and conscious. What we choose to actually manifest through our own unique individuality and conscience, as with everything else, is always a choice.

Nobody and nothing has a higher claim to our lives than we do.

There can be no “chosen” ones. Only we can save ourselves and only we are responsible for doing so.

Freedom is never given. Freedom is never taken.

I/we are all and always free and freedom, imagination, will and intent… infinity, unlimitedness and veyond… among other things…

What we choose to manifest is always a choice, and the choice is always ours to make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back To Top