Site Map – Page 4 – Not A Party

Not A Party (NAP) predicts success in Mt. Roskill by-election

Post author By AGENT ORANGE
Post date November 29, 2016

MEDIA RELEASE
Not A Party

29 November 2016

Not A Party (NAP) predicts success in Mt. Roskill by-election

Richard Goode, Not A Party (NAP) candidate in the Mt. Roskill by-election is predicting his candidacy will be a resounding success when the votes are counted this Saturday 3 December. “My message to voters is to stay home, enjoy your Saturday and refuse to participate in the circus being orchestrated by ringleaders Wood and Parmar.”

“This by-election has been dirty so far with allegations of National Party candidate Parmjeet Parmar’s supporters throwing horseshoes at their enemies and Labour’s Michael Wood threatening his National opponent’s husband who made derogatory comments about Wood’s wife at a public meeting. In short, politics as usual.”

This is why Goode is encouraging people to avoid feeding the politicians by taking no part in the process at all. “Mt. Roskill voters have a golden opportunity in this by-election to opt-out of the whole charade. Politicians behave the way they do because voters indulge their own fantasies of wielding power over others by voting for them.” Goode advises, “Live dangerously, not vicariously. Sort yourselves out, don’t expect politicians to run your lives for you.”

“Once the votes are tallied, the largest group of voters in this by-election will be the group that voted for nobody at all,” predicts Goode. “If we truly live in a democracy, shouldn’t we respect the wishes of the majority and leave the seat of Mt. Roskill vacant?”

“My message to voters is just don’t. But if you really must vote then vote for Not A Party (NAP). I pledge that if elected, I’ll be a no show. If elected, I guarantee Mt. Roskill residents a happy new year living in a politician-free zone.”

ENDS

http://nap.org.nz/not-a-party-nap-predicts-success-in-mt-roskill-by-election/

Don't Vote

What is anarchism?

What is anarchism? and what is an anarchist? What is anarchy? These are vexed questions.

According to many dictionaries the term ‘anarchy’ is synonymous with chaos and disorder. Of course, this definition is disputed. In fact, there are no agreed upon definitions of the terms ‘anarchy’, ‘anarchism’ and ‘anarchist’. When it comes to the definitions of these terms, it’s anarchy!

Merriam-Webster, the consensus source of meaning within the dominant paradigm, defines anarchy as: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws; or, a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority. The implications made in these definitions are clear – any absence of authority, structure, or control most surely amounts to confusion, wild behavior, and disorder. In other words, human beings are incapable of controlling themselves, maintaining order, and living peacefully amongst one another. So we are to believe.

Indeed. But this is anarchy in the pejorative sense. So let’s repudiate the dominant paradigm’s dictionary propaganda and instead take to the streets with torches and pitchforks.

What is anarchism? and what is an anarchist? Let’s start with the easy answers.

What is anarchism? Anarchism is a socio-political ideology such as mutualism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-hipsterism, agorism, or anarcho-statism.

What is an anarchist? An anarchist is someone like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (a French politician), Peter Kropotkin (a Russian academic), Leo Tolstoy (author of the novel War and Peace), Errico Malatesta (an Italian troublemaker), Stephan Kinsella (an American patent attorney), Neil Roberts (a New Zealand suicide bomber), or me (Not A Party’s candidate in the upcoming Mt. Roskill by-election).

Easy answers are easy.

But I suppose that a handy list of (some) anarchists is not really the answer you want. You probably want to know what it is that all anarchists on the list have in common in virtue of which they are anarchists. In other words, a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term ‘anarchist’ applies. This is where it gets tricky tho. Extensional definitions are easy. Intensional definitions, not so much.

In fact, there is no list of necessary conditions for when the term ‘anarchist’ applies. There is nothing that all anarchists have in common. What now then?

Wild Wittgenstein appears!

Wittgenstein uses Familienähnlichkeit. It’s super effective!

Wittgenstein’s basic idea is that sometimes things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all. Such seems to be the case with anarchism and anarchists. They bear a family resemblance.

So here’s not a comprehensive checklist of anarchist attributes and agendas. If you sign up to some of these, you might be an anarchist. 🙂

1. No state

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful …

2. No hierarchies

… or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.

3. Voluntary association

Proponents of anarchism, known as “anarchists”, advocate stateless societies or non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Could these three be considered the three pillars of anarchism? See Wikipedia’s excellent outline of anarchism for more info. RationalWiki’s Anarchism is also a handy resource.

4. No rulers

Just a few words about the claim that ‘anarchy’ means “no rulers”. It doesn’t. For sure, the term ‘anarchy’ derives from the Greek ἄναρχος or anarchos, meaning “without rulers” (from ἀν- or an-, meaning “without”, and ἀρχός or archos meaning “ruler”). But to suppose that the meaning of a term is wholly determined by its etymology is to commit the root fallacy.

Christian anarchists are a clear counter-example to the claim that ‘anarchy’ means “no rulers”. Christian anarchists are opposed to worldly rulers, but on the spiritual plane they’re actually monarchists. Jesus himself is sometimes considered the first anarchist in the Christian anarchist tradition. Check out his charge sheet!

Insisting that true anarchists are strictly no rulers likely also excludes the Spanish anarchists (anarcho-communists). As Bryan Caplan explains in his essay The Anarcho-Statists of Spain

It barely took a month for Anarchists to set themselves up as the government of those parts of Aragon under their control, euphemistically dubbing themselves the “Regional Defense Council of Aragon.”

Not my flavour of anarcho-statism, I hasten to add.

Also, surely no self-respecting anarchist is opposed to self-rule.

5. Beards

6. The NAP

Considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is revered by anarcho-capitalists. Aggression is bad, mmmkay? But it turns out that the all-important A in NAP, is defined in terms of a prior theory of property rights. So we can all love the NAP. We just need to plug in our preferred theory of property rights and we’re good to go.

7. Propaganda of the deed

Propaganda of the deed is for violent anarchists. (But we don’t want a bloody revolution.)

8. Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience is for peaceful law-breaking anarchists.

9. Non voting

Non-voting is for otherwise law-abiding non-violent anarchists. Like us, the Not A Party people.

Voting is not a victimless crime, voting is an act of violence.

10. DON’T VOTE 2017

Don't Vote Mt. Roskill By-Election

Not A Party (NAP) announces Mt. Roskill candidate

Post author By AGENT ORANGE
Post date November 7, 2016
10 Comments on Not A Party (NAP) announces Mt. Roskill candidate

MEDIA RELEASE
Not A Party

7 November 2016

NAP announces Mt. Roskill candidate

Not A Party (NAP) announced today that it is entering the Mt Roskill by-election race.

Richard Goode will represent the party, in its first foray into electoral politics.

Goode said he was “chuffed” to be chosen to stand for Not A Party (NAP) in the seat made vacant by Phil Goff.

“Let’s keep the seat vacant,” says Goode. “Let’s make Mt. Roskill a politician-free zone, with the rest of New Zealand’s electoral map to follow suit at next year’s general election.”

Not A Party (NAP) is the forerunner of a new breed of post-democratic political party. The party advocates a peaceful transition to a free, peaceful and prosperous society based on voluntary cooperation. “Don’t look to politicians for answers, they don’t have any.”

“Individuals and local communities know best what’s best for themselves.” Not A Party (NAP) believes in the efficacy of the man in the street. It is at a grassroots level that people understand what they need to achieve peace and prosperity.

Goode strongly supports people’s right to self-determination. So much so, in fact, that the candidate says he hopes to get no votes. “If you simply must vote, vote NAP. But why not stay home on election day and NAP instead?” He goes on to point out the benefits, “You’ll feel better for it, and be more productive.”

“DIY. Be the change you want to see. Don’t pander to the corporate oligarchs in the Beehive.” This is Goode’s challenge to the electors of Mt. Roskill.

The by-election, which was triggered when Phil Goff switched troughs, will be held on Saturday 3 December.

ENDS

http://nap.org.nz/not-a-party-nap-announces-mt-roskill-candidate/

Don't Vote

Annihilation Of The Vape

Post author By SOMEONE
Post date October 27, 2016

Here’s A Violation of the NAP for ya!

“The NAP is a big cloud of vape conjured from some trenchcoat’s bellowing mouth fedora.”

Okay okay …I don’t mean to ATTACK the NAP for it’s sentiment. Because it’s a great sentiment. But that’s all it is. A sentiment. Righteous in all it’s glory.

First of all, what is the NAP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Sounds good huh? Until you get to property rights. Let’s have a thunk about this. For the NAP to be effective beyond anything but sentiment, everyone has to agree on the specifics of some property rights. Whilst it’s not wrong to own things, imagine you’ve come home to your plantation to find me walking out your front door with your TV set and a packet of Tim Tams. This is considered an act of aggression under the NAP, and you are now free to shoot me in the head with a clear conscience. Does this seem right to you? Of course it’s wrong for me to steal your property but there are two quite different values of aggression going on here. The NAP seems to value property rights over human rights. This can’t be not good.

Also – What if the plantation you “own” actually belongs to someone else, some original owners, who never agreed to the social construct you’ve exhaled in a big bubblegum flavored cloud and called The Non Aggression Principle. What if these previous individuals somehow misunderstood the deal to swap the earth itself for some blankets, influenza and syphilis? And what if it wasn’t me, but this guy below who you came home to find yoinking your consumer comforts and confectionery comestibles? Is there a whiff of hypocrisy in the bubblegum yet?

However should we settle such a property dispute? And how far back should we go? Should we make like modern day gentlemen and meet with pistols at dawn on the Gaza Strip?

As well as that …let’s investigate how you gained the collateral to buy your coveted Tim Tams and TV set in the first place. Of course, you don’t own slaves! Omigosh that would be deplorable, not to mention a violation of someone’s property rights (Toby’s body is Toby’s property).

No no no …the good folk who work on YOUR plantation all signed a mutual contract whereby for the exchange of their time and labour, you dutifully and graciously provide them with food,

…accommodation,

…and a small stipend with which to buy clothes.

All perfectly acceptable under the glorious concord we understand as the NAP. Because if these happy go lucky worker bees don’t appreciate it, they are forever welcome to move to Somalia. Or if they’re not too stupid and lazy they can sack up and acquire their own plantation. (heavy sarcasm emoticon)

So anyway, that’s my opinion.

And now this (the other NAP)…

Cannabis Education Government Health & Safety

Why are the Tribal Huk More Effective Than the New Zealand Government?

Post author By PROPAGANDA MINISTER
Post date October 27, 2016
2 Comments on Why are the Tribal Huk More Effective Than the New Zealand Government?

Frustrated by the feeble responses from local law enforcement to requests for help cleaning out crystal methamphetamine dealers from their community, a street gang made up of mostly underprivileged youths takes the problem into their own hands with immediate and complete success, decommissioning a dozen meth houses within 24 hours. Something from the fringes of a dystopian cyberpunk novel like The Verity Key, set in the 2070s? No – this is the small rural Waikato town of Ngaruawahia, population 5,000, in 2016.

Achieving this was possible because the locations of and locations from which the dealers sold were all known. All it took was a public meeting organised by Tribal Huk President Jamie Pink (pictured above), at which he stated that crystal meth dealers had 24 hours to leave Ngaruawahia or they would be physically removed from the town.

This throwing down of the gauntlet has apparently resulted in a town free of dealers of the drug. The question then becomes: why could the Police not have done this?

The least secret reason is that the Police are the army of the rich, and the residents of Ngaruawahia do not make large tax contributions to the upkeep of the New Zealand Police force. Like all poor communities, therefore, they are of the lowest priority for protection by law enforcement.

Moreover, the rich generally do not have problems with P dealers making offers to their sisters and daughters as the rich drink alcohol.

The main reason, however, is this. The Tribal Huk actually has more community support among the disadvantaged than the New Zealand Police. This is a fact widely known and accepted by the poor whose neighbourhoods house the crystal meth dealers, and is much less understood by the wealthy.

The Police are not considered by the poor to be on their side because they put the poor in prison for cannabis offences, and because they give the poor car fines to keep the roads clear for the rich.

The opposite situation occurs in places where cannabis is not illegal and where the Police are properly funded through adequate taxation, such as the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, cannabis users (the proportion of whom in the population is less than 40% of the New Zealand figure) have no inherent reason to distrust the Police as their possession of cannabis is not a crime.

In New Zealand the Police are like an occupying army if you are a cannabis user. Distrust is the natural consequence of the accumulated fear brought on by the possibility that the Police might aggress against you in the enforcement of cannabis laws.

This community support might be a result of the Tribal Huk’s successful ongoing efforts to feed over 500 Waikato schoolchildren, something that the Ministry of Education has not been able to achieve. The Tribal Huk deliver their sandwiches to 25 different schools within the region.

There are no national food in schools programs in New Zealand because we don’t want to pay taxes to feed other people’s kids. There is not sufficient solidarity in New Zealand for such a thing to be acceptable.

Pink himself, in the article linked above, refers to the link between feeling hungry and feeling angry, something that is obvious to any poor child but is a lesson from another dimension to the crusty, distant old men who make decisions in this country.

Anyone with any sense knows that if you are a hungry child, being told to sit down in a classroom on concentrate on anything other than food is going to make you angry. Few adults could handle such a thing without anger.

And yet, despite a full stomach being absolutely necessary if a child is going to learn anything meaningful from school, the New Zealand Government has failed to provide something as simple as sandwiches.

Perhaps the Tribal Huk should have some Police and Ministry of Education funding diverted their way?

The conclusion appears to be that government works best when there is sincere mutual support with the people it governs, and the precise structure or ideology of that government is, next to this, unimportant.

Another way to put this is that government will only work when there is sufficient solidarity between the people being governed and the people doing the governing, and this is true whether the power structure involves the State or a local street gang.

Why are the Tribal Huk More Effective Than the New Zealand Government?

Cannabis Don't Vote

The Solution to Low Voter Turnout is to Have Politicians that Aren’t Cheating, Lying Pieces of Shit

Post author By PROPAGANDA MINISTER
Post date October 12, 2016
1 Comment on The Solution to Low Voter Turnout is to Have Politicians that Aren’t Cheating, Lying Pieces of Shit

There were local body elections in New Zealand last week. You probably didn’t know because no-one gives a fuck except for the control freaks that are fighting for power. They care so much about the low turnout that some of them want to make it illegal to not vote.

This means that if you choose not to vote you must either pay a fine or the Police will put you in a cage (and kill you if you resist). This seems extremely aggressive to those of us who do not benefit in any way from voting.

Take, for instance, my personal situation with medicinal cannabis. John Key will not change the cannabis laws and Andrew Little believes that cannabis use causes brain damage. So, no matter who I vote for, I will have a Prime Minister who thinks it’s fair for the Police to come and smash my head in and put me in a cage for using a medicinal plant they don’t approve of.

It’s much better to not vote and, by doing so, withdraw my consent to be governed by a political system that conducts a War on Drugs against its own people. Especially when the only people who have a chance of taking power under this system have already promised to continue this war to destroy people like me.

This I do not only for myself but out of solidarity with all of the people dispossessed by the current New Zealand political system. If my only choices are to give my power to a cheating, lying piece of shit waving a blue flag or a cheating, lying piece of shit waving a red flag, then I will keep my power for myself!

Dr Bryce Edwards, a Massey University politics lecturer and a heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed man, says “[low voter turnout] is a terrible thing. I don’t think there’s really anyone saying lower voter turnout is a good thing”.

Meanwhile, outside of the ivory tower, paedophiles get lighter sentences from the New Zealand “Justice” System than medicinal cannabis growers.

I’m saying that low voter turnout is a good thing, because it is a sign that the population does not consent to the abuses committed against it by the ruling class.

Is it any wonder we’ve lost faith in a political system that gives lighter sentences to paedophiles than it does medicinal cannabis growers? Why should we continue to vote and give our power to the same political system, and to the same clueless old narcissists that brought this atrocious state of injustice about?

Much better to not vote, and in doing so delegitimise the entire system. This is why the control freaks are ultimately afraid of – a population that does not fall for the illusion heavily enough to give away their power to the control freaks.

Not voting doesn’t just mean not voting – it means having the gumption to solve the social problems that politicians exploit to swindle power before that power is swindled. This means looking after vulnerable members of your community before the control freaks start making laws to ban everything that they have not explicitly given permission for.

It means mowing an old person’s lawn. It means smiling at the crazy guy with the haunted look. It means making a donation of time or money to the RSPCA. It means talking honestly with people you know about what’s really going on in the world.

If we all stopped falling for the lies, we could have a world in which the control freaks would dissipate into the gutter like the filth they are.

The Solution to Low Voter Turnout is to Have Politicians that Aren’t Cheating, Lying Pieces of Shit

Auckland Mayoralty Cannabis

Why Adam John Holland is the Only Sensible Choice For Auckland Mayor

Post author By PROPAGANDA MINISTER
Post date August 17, 2016
6 Comments on Why Adam John Holland is the Only Sensible Choice For Auckland Mayor

Adam Holland is the only one of the 18 Auckland mayoral candidates whose candidacy doesn’t have some kind of gross defect. If the mayoral campaigns were embryos, most of them would be terminated by the mother after the doctor made clear that there was no chance of viable offspring. Holland stands out from this rabble in a number of ways.

The first is that he is the only one interested in using his position as mayor to enrich Auckland, instead of just enriching himself. Holland has promised to “donate every last penny of my salary to various charities as suggested to me by the people of Auckland“. Considering that the salary of the Auckland mayor is NZD250,000+, this represents a considerable sum of money that charities need.

Coupled to this is the likelihood that the mayor would make it fashionable to donate salary money to charity, which is what this ever more unequal society needs. Considering how shallow and trend-conscious Aucklanders are, magnanimity on the order of Holland’s gesture might be worth tens of millions to the various charities of New Zealand.

Many politicians are fanatically devoted to an ideology and are happy to destroy everything in their path in order to force that ideology upon everyone else. Holland is the opposite of this – his suspension of judgment is so strong that he doesn’t know if he is representing Not A Party or Legalise Cannabis Auckland. Perhaps it is both, or even neither.

Holland is the only candidate with genuine philosopher-king credentials. He says “I won’t do a single thing as mayor just as I haven’t done a single thing for the past seven years of my retirement. Decisions shall be left up to the people, not an elected official in a farcical ‘democratic’ ceremony.”

Here Holland is referencing Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, in particular the passage that covers the five forms of government. For those who have not read The Republic, the belief of Plato was that government begins as an aristocracy and degrades over time, passing through the less perfect stages of timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and eventually tyranny.

The astute listener would interpret Holland’s words here as a warning to us about the further deterioration of our society, especially in this age of greed. Once democracy degrades further, it becomes tyranny. It’s possible to read Holland’s words here as a warning against the darker side of human nature, one that has almost surfaced thanks to the short sighted mismanagement of the Key Government.

Auckland is fortunate to have such an extraordinarily educated individual run for mayor.

If the above is somehow not convincing enough, consider the state of the field that Holland is running against. Each candidate was offered a free shot of publicity here, and all of them bar Holland disqualified themselves with their responses.

Mario Alupis – professional wrestler. Attached photo suggests a large number of serious knocks to the head. Can’t be trusted to remember what he’s doing.

Aileen Austin – probably too old to survive the term as mayor. Also, Auckland would never vote for a hippie – this isn’t Nelson, dear.

Penny Bright – “Crooked” Penny Bright is running for mayor to distract the public from her impending imprisonment for dodging her rates bill. Auckland doesn’t need a mayor that shifts their debts onto the public.

Patrick Brown – Couldn’t be bothered supplying a photo. Also a communist.

Tricia Cheel – Another old hippie. Will split Aileen Austin’s votes and vice-versa, meaning that a vote for either is a waste.

Victoria Crone – has claimed to “bring 20 years’ experience running major New Zealand companies to the Auckland mayoralty.” What this means is that Auckland will be sold to the Chinese and everyone working in Auckland will be paid $5 per hour.

Phil Goff – no good unless he has Helen Clark telling him what to do.

David Hay – yet another old hippie, Hay is a former Green and thus probably a communist.

Alezix Heneti – serial failure. Eccentric name sure-fire sign of a rampant narcissist.

Stan Martin – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo, clearly not up to being mayor.

Bin Thanh Nguyen – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo, clearly not up to being mayor. Almost literally nothing is even known about this guy.

Phil O’Connor – Bible-thumper. Hates women. Vote for this guy and you can kiss goodbye to being allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays in Auckland.

John Palino – American, thus disqualified on the ground that we need a Kiwi to be the mayor of our biggest city.

Tyrone Raumati – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo or to respond to social media advances, clearly not up to being mayor.

Chloe Swarbrick – probably the next most sensible choice apart from Holland, wants to use the mayoralty as a platform to reshape the world in her image though and therefore cannot be trusted.

Mark Thomas – a plastic candidate in the John Key/Aldo Miccio mold. Soulless.

Wayne Young – basically a complete bum who would have been euthanised in a less tolerant society.

Many, many people have been saying that these reasons make Adam John Holland the sensible choice for Auckland mayor on 09 OCT.

Why Adam John Holland is the Only Sensible Choice For Auckland Mayor

Psychology

If You Have Ever Obeyed an Authority Figure, You Are Capable of Murder

Post author By PROPAGANDA MINISTER
Post date August 4, 2016
4 Comments on If You Have Ever Obeyed an Authority Figure, You Are Capable of Murder

The title of this article is the subject of today’s psychology lesson. When we read about history, and we read about the sort of thing that humans are capable of doing to each other, we often come to ask ourselves how it came to be that humans are so willing to do terrible things to each other, and if there is any way that the rest of us could prevent it.

Almost implicit in this line of reasoning is that we, ourselves, would of course not have done such terrible things had we been there. We would not do those evil things because if an authority figure told us to, we would simply refuse. Simple as that, right?

Evidence suggests that this line of reasoning is based on a flawed understanding of human psychology. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of people will obey almost any order given to them by someone they consider an authority figure, even if that order is to directly cause the suffering of another human being. This was demonstrated by the Milgram experiments conducted in the 1960s.

The most surprising thing about the Milgram experiments may not have been how willing people were to hurt other people on command from an authority figure. Arguably more surprising was the fact that very few people, not even those with an education in psychology, anticipated this result. The vast majority of people believed that very few experiment participants would go as far as inflicting a high voltage electric shock to someone who had already been electrocuted unconscious, merely because the person telling them to do so was wearing a lab coat and therefore looked like an authority figure.

The truth is this: human beings are, for the most part, craven, arse-licking cowards. Mostly it’s our own egos that prevent us from accepting this fact.

If this argument is not fully convincing, consider the following thought experiment.

You are at war. You have not slept for 72 hours as you have seen constant combat. Your body is agony from adrenaline shock. The inside of your pants are covered in sticky shit, as you shat yourself when a shell went off near you yesterday and the shockwave almost stopped your heart, and you haven’t had a chance to do anything about it. Every time you catch a moment to breathe, you see an image of your buddy who had his head blown off about 200 metres back.

Your squad has taken some men captives, and your officer is trying to work out if they are combatants or the civilians they say they are. The people you have detained are young men, some probably teenagers, just boys.

Then a message comes through the radio. Your forces have suffered a setback on a nearby ridge and your company is to be pulled out from their current location to plug the breach. There is no longer any time to determine if the men are combatants or not, and if you let them go they might come back and kill you or your buddies.

Your commanding officer decides that most of them are of fighting age, and those who are not soon would be anyway. The next thing you know, the captives are up against a wall, you’re looking at them over the barrel of your rifle, and your commanding officer gives you an order to fire. The last thought you have before you hear the order is that there are certainly some innocents among them.

In that situation, do you pull the trigger?

If you know much about human psychology, you will know that fewer than one person in ten thousand would refuse to pull the trigger in a situation like that. Not out of hatred, not out of sadism, not out of inherent malice or anything like that.

Because it isn’t hatred that leads to mass murders. It isn’t prejudice. It isn’t things like saying that blacks have low IQs, or that Asians are cruel, or that Europeans produce an inordinate amount of sex offenders.

The human quality that leads to millions of innocent people being stuffed into gas chambers is obedience.

If you believe that any other person has the right to decide who you should kill and when, you are already a murderer in potential if not in deed.

If You Have Ever Obeyed an Authority Figure, You Are Capable of Murder

Don't Vote Government Larken Rose The Most Dangerous Superstition

Government Does Not Exist

Larken Rose is an anarchist author best known for challenging the IRS to answer questions about the federal tax liability of citizens, and being put in prison with no questions answered.

Most people believe that “government” is necessary, though they also acknowledge that “authority” often leads to corruption and abuse. They know that “government” can be inefficient, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive, but they still believe that “authority” can be a force for good. What they fail to realize is that the problem is not just that “government” produces inferior results, or that “authority” is often abused. The problem is that the concept itself is utterly irrational and self-contradictory. It is nothing but a superstition, devoid of any logical or evidentiary support, which people hold only as a result of constant cult-like indoctrination designed to hide the logical absurdity of the concept, It is not a matter of degree, or how it is used; the truth is that “authority” does not and cannot exist at all, and failure to recognize that fact has led billions of people to believe things and do things that are horrendously destructive. There can be no such thing as good “authority”– in fact, there is no such thing as “authority” at all. As strange as that may sound, it can easily be proven.

In short, government does not exist. It never has and it never will. The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed “authority” is not. And without that “authority,” without the right to do what they do, they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term “government” implies legitimacy – it means the exercise of “authority” over a certain people or place. The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of” government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule (”authority”), there is no reason to call the entity “government,” and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. And that, in reality, is what every “government” is: an illegitimate gang of thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body.

(The reason the terms “government” and “authority” appear inside quotation marks throughout this book is because there is never a legitimate right to rule, so government and authority never actually exist. In this book such terms refer only to the people and gangs erroneously imagined to have the right to rule.)

All mainstream political discussion – all debate about what should be “legal” and “illegal,” who should be put into power, what “national policy” should be, how “government” should handle various issues – all of it is utterly irrational and a complete waste of time, as it is all based upon the false premise that one person can have the right to rule another, that “authority” can even exist. The entire debate about how “authority” should be used, and what “government” should do, is exactly as useful as debating how Santa Claus should handle Christmas. But it is infinitely more dangerous. On the bright side, removing that danger – the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced, in fact – does not require changing the fundamental nature of man, or converting all hatred to love, or performing any other drastic alteration to the state of the universe. Instead, it requires only that people recognize and then let go of one particular superstition, one irrational lie that almost everyone has been taught to believe. In one sense, most of the world’s problems could be solved overnight if everyone did something akin to giving up the belief in Santa Claus.

Any idea or proposed solution to a problem that depends upon the existence of “government,” and that includes absolutely everything within the realm of politics, is inherently invalid. To use an analogy, two people could engage in a useful, rational discussion about whether nuclear power or hydroelectric dams are the better way to produce electricity for their town. But if someone suggested that a better option would be to generate electricity using magic pixie dust, his comments would be and should be dismissed as ridiculous, because real problems cannot be solved by mythical entities, Yet almost all modem discussion of societal problems is nothing but an argument about which type of magic pixie dust will save humanity. All political discussion rests upon an unquestioned but false assumption, which everyone takes on faith simply because they see and hear everyone else repeating the myth: the notion that there can be such a thing as legitimate “government.”

The problem with popular misconceptions is just that: they are popular. When any belief – even the most ridiculous, illogical belief – is held by most people, it will not feel unreasonable to the believers. Continuing in the belief will feel easy and safe, while questioning it will be uncomfortable and very difficult, if not impossible. Even abundant evidence of the horrendously destructive power of the myth of “authority,” on a nearly incomprehensible level and stretching back for thousands of years, has not been enough to make more than a handful of people even begin to question the fundamental concept. And so, believing themselves to be enlightened and wise, human beings continue to stumble into one colossal disaster after another, as a result of their inability to shake off the most dangerous superstition: the belief in “authority.”

The Most Dangerous Superstition

Don't Vote Voluntaryism 101

Taxation is theft

Taxation is theft.

It’s a sentiment shared by most voluntaryists. (Voluntaryists advocate a social system based on voluntary cooperation. Not A Party people are voluntaryists.)

But is it true? Taxation is theft, it’s a sentiment, but is it a fact? Is taxation really theft?

I’m going to give some reasons for thinking that taxation is theft, and then a couple of reasons for thinking that it isn’t. And then ask you to please feel free to make up your own mind.

Here’s the basic argument for the proposition that taxation is theft.

1. Theft is when someone takes your money or property without your consent.
2. Taxation is when the government takes your money or property without your consent.

Therefore,

3. Taxation is theft.

Seems legit.

Consider the following progression (due to theologian J. Budziszewski). Is taxation theft?

On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.

Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.

Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who acts as bagman.

Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.

Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.

If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft. Expropriation is wrong not because its causes are wrong, but because it is a violation of the Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.

Consider the following progression (due to Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano). How many men?

Is it theft if one man steals a car?

What if a gang of five men steal the car?

What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?

What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?

What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?

The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual’s property becomes the “democratic right” of the majority

Now, here are a couple of reasons for thinking that taxation isn’t theft.

The first objection is a pedantic one. Taxation isn’t theft, because the government doesn’t take your money, you give your money to the government, albeit under duress. Taxation isn’t theft, it’s extortion!

Well, I see where the pedant is coming from. But I still think that taxation is theft in a broad sense of the word ‘theft’. Theft is when you acquire something that doesn’t rightfully belong to you by immoral means. Robbery, fraud, extortion, even inflation—these are all forms of theft in the broad sense. Taxation is theft!

The second is an objection to the basic argument I gave above. Yes, it’s theft when your money is taken without your consent—except when it’s the government doing the taking. The progressions above don’t work, because at some point the taking stops being theft and starts being taxation. How’s that supposed to work? Well, so the objection goes, you implicitly consented to be governed simply by living here in New Zealand. And you’re bound by something called the social contract.

I think it’s not a good objection. I think we already dealt to it. Try not to leave civilisation.

But here’s a better version of the objection. It’s the best objection I can think of to the proposition that taxation is theft. Ready? Here it is. The chunk of money the government takes out of your income (as income tax) or out of your grocery bill (as GST) was never really yours in the first place. So taxation isn’t theft, tax evasion is!

It’s an objection worth considering. Is it a good objection tho? To answer that question we need to consider another. What is property? And that’s for another time.

A final thought. Just because taxation is theft, doesn’t mean that you don’t have some sort of personal obligation to help pay for some of the social services (health, welfare, etc.) that the government currently provides, if it’s within your means to do so.

Do you think George ought to help? Voluntarily, of course.