Archive for plutocracy

The Right to an Un-Stately Existence

Posted in The R-Evolution of Political Philosophy with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1st, 2008 by mrdirt

I walk on a bed of salt.

The white spreads in front of me, blinds me.

Here there is no road

 

 

Owing to the fact that the so-called mandatory “education” is nothing more than the calculated attempt by states to produce citizens, it is no wonder that very few people have a clear understanding of what life was, and can be, in the absence of states. 

The first state was created some 350 years ago. Before the invention of the state, societies still existed and functioned perfectly. These societies were divided into the local population, who were free men, and the foreigners who were captured at war and became slaves. As Kingdoms began to increase in size, there was a dire need for Kings and the aristocracy to discover someway that would allow them better control over the land they commanded so as to avoid the diffusion of power. It was this need that slowly diluted the concept of slavery. As the ruling class slowly eroded the freedoms enjoyed by the local population, the boundaries faded and a new class of slaves appeared. This happened early in the dark christian ages when the feudal system was introduced. This system ensured the concentration of power to the hands of the few, condemning the local population to what can only be described religious slavery. Using the power of religious terrorism and rendering education impossible, the feudal lords (warriors and priests) claimed a divine birthright to freedom. Everybody else was a serf, a stylized version of slavery, with forced labour substituted by taxation. The taxes that serfs had to pay were so high that working 16 hours a day, 365 days a year, was barely enough to pay the taxes and have some food left over so you would not starve to death. This system lasted for about a thousand years until the invention of “citizenship”, the new and improved version of slavery.  

Citizenship came about with the emergence of the “state”. There were two main reasons for the creation of the state. The first was to pacify the people who after thousands of years of suffering begun to demand certain rights. This saw the system of plutocratic aristocracy replaced by plutocratic “representative” democracy. Although the first states appeared within the small Germanic kingdoms, the most notable “evolutions” of kingdom to state  are the French and American Revolutions. In France, the uprise of the revolution of the mob without any real direction and understanding resulted in the overthrowing of one aristocracy only to be replaced by another (Napoleon). In America, the refusal of the people to pay taxes to the English king, resulted in “independence” and the formation of a “representative” democracy. The so-called forefathers of America were masons, that elite group of merchant, traders, bankers, businessmen, who grabbed this opportunity to create a true plutocratic establishment based on capital. Capitalism anyone? As for “representative” democracy, who would you vote into Congress? The plumber who lives next door, or some rich bastard whose family has been Congressmen for the past 300 years? It is no wonder that the father of both these failed revolutions, Thomas Paine, is nowhere to be found in school textbooks. 

And this is how we ended up where we are today, living in a representative plutocracy. We still pay taxes like serfs, but instead of a King we have a Congress whose job is to find ways to “legally” direct the flow of money to today’s feudal lords. $700 billion dollars to bail out the bankers who destroyed the money market by making too much money? How insane is that? Wars to feed the military-industrial complex, the petroleum industry, the food industry, the cosmetics industry etc.      

The second reason for the creation of the state was to streamline and raise the efficiency of the system which those in power use to monitor the people, i.e. to create all this bureaucracy that we now consider to be necessary for the running of a state. The insanity of this system is so remarkable that people stop questioning it. They think to themselves “the government must have a reason to do this because it is so insane”. Here’s one of my favorite examples. I pay the government money to build roads. I pay the government money to hire traffic wardens. I pay the government money so that I can take a test that proves I am capable of driving. I use my own money to buy a car. And yet, I am forced by law to pay an insurance company money to be allowed to drive. And to get an MOT test! I find this the most disgusting  form of exploitation. With what right does the government enforce on me that I need to have the money to pay for an accident in case it happens? Using the same logic, an insurance company should have enough money to pay for all their customers in case they all got into an accident. Banks should have enough money in their vaults to pay for all their customers savings. Which of course they don’t. It seems to me that when cars were first invented some smart banker down at Wall Street came up with the idea of car insurance and persuaded some of his Congressmen buddies to pass a law that would force you to have an insurance. Its a money making scheme. The government forces the population to give the bankers money and all we get in return is 1% of what we paid. There are thousands of examples of state insanity and exploitation like this one.    

So what exactly is it that gives legality to a state to enforce this exploitative system on to me?   John Stuart Mill’s refutal of the “First Cause” argument comes to mind. Mill, an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century, was taught by his father that if there has to be a first cause, and God created the universe, then who created God? The question of course cannot be answered and therefor the “First Cause” argument cannot stand as a theory. 

In the same pattern, states claim that they are legal entities. But their legality does not come from above, since they are the highest legal entity. Therefor, their legality must come from the bottom. And it is the case that every state talks of its legality coming from its citizens in its constitution.  What I imply is that since there is no “divine” legality to the existence of the state it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that I cannot lead an un-stately existence. Just like I accept that people have the right if they so wish to organise themselves into large groups with a central authority, so should they accept that I do not wish to be a part of any group, be it nation or state. And yet I have no legal right to this. I cannot travel unless I have documentations which prove that I belong to a certain state. I cannot buy a piece of land without that piece of land falling within the borders of one state or another. But even though the state is the highest legal entity, it is not the “first cause”, and as such has no legal or moral justification over the “ownership” of territory or labour.

It is my fundamental right as a first cause to live free.

Advertisements