It's inauguration day, and Donald Trump has been elected to head the American Empire, the biggest State the world has ever seen. As so, a fine quote by the prolific liberty-lover, H.L. Mencken, is finally played out:
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will
reach their heart's desire at last..and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
His address was one of the most absurd bits of statism I ever heard, but, to be fair I don't listen to politicians too much. My last bout of being infuriated was, I believe, was watching "the debates" for little over one minute. But I had to know nonetheless what He said; it's pertinent to the political path this country is headed.
If anyone tuned in to see Trump speak today, it was obvious that statism is a religion. People actually take this joke of a political show seriously. Like any religion, it must have ceremonies and swearing-ins and elections and open-entry into the government, etc. There needs to be chanting and weeping. These events must make it appear that formal processes have been developed that make this "government" fair and justifiable in doing whatever it is they dream of doing to us. The facade of democracy, as Murray Rothbard called an "ideological camouflage", is needed, too, for to deepen everyone's conviction that the State is the servant of "the people."
It is widely accepted without question everywhere that the State is a fact of life; that there's no way of getting rid of it even if we wanted to, and that it's a given not to be questioned. Democracy is the best and only way to organize society, and those who challenge this notion are to be seen as ridiculous; uneducated or sleeping during civics class in the government-schools.
The theory of the origin of the State, by conquest and exploitation or by voluntary contract (the "social contract"), is irrelevant for this short discussion. What matters, more, is that it exists; and that it claims a right over this given territory, from coast to coast of a section of Northern America, to subjugate the living population into a union within these arbitrarily drawn borders that no one consented to being a part of.
Obviously, the present government does not have the "consent of the governed", in which it supposedly derives its powers. And it may be argued that the government has (1) over-stepped its limited bounds, and is therefore illegitimate; or (2) it is a government of unlimited power, again making it illegitimate. Anyway you look at it, the U.S. Government has no right to exist if it ever even did.
Statism—which is the enactment of socialism—doesn't rest on anything close to a firm economic or moral footing. Morally it's characterized by initiating violence against innocent people and their property; economically, taxation is a transfer from producers and contractors of property to non-producers and non-contractors of property. Anyone should be able to reason the effects of such an action: that it increases the cost of engaging in the former, wealth-producing activity relative to the latter activity of consuming capital, rather than generating it. Statism/socialism is inferior to anarcho-capitalism.
Contrary to the claims made by those socialists concerned with the poor, disabled, or less fortunate, states engage in redistribution not for egalitarian motivations on their end, but because buying the public support for which it rests on is necessary. Without duping "the public" and giving them a share in the loot, clearly the looters would be seen for nothing more than criminals sharing in the consumption of property which they did not acquire voluntarily all to themselves.
The matter is then purely psychological one, and this is what's important. It is not good enough for the State to have all the guns. Though inherently aggressive, it ultimately rests upon public opinion. Their existence not only depends upon coercing natural owners of property, but also of a building a network of people and opinion-molders. Pointing guns at people and asserting the "right" to do so is insufficient; socialized-police apologists must exist everywhere to say "well, he should have respected the officers safety by not remaining stiff when he ordered him to do so after being stopped on the roadside for a cracked windshield, so he had to die." My man Eric Garner had to be choked to death because he was selling un-taxed cigarettes, or something like that. Either way, he should have just complied.
It is for this reason that the government is keenly aware that they must monopolize the provision of schooling; not for educational purposes or that of "equality", as it's socialist-supporter think of its "benevolence", but to indoctrinate the masses (think: the "pledge of allegiance") into at least passively accepting the necessity of centralized government. It needs people, in addition, that at the very minimum will say "government is a necessary evil." In fact, many think it's a necessary good!
It's because enough people waved flags, or told you in civics class the wonderful purpose government serves that is totally disconnected from reality. It's because enough people have been fooled at this point, having members of the military in their family and so feeling sympathetic, having seen (or what they thought they saw) people be "helped" by the government's welfare (though not seeing the not-even-equal loss it created by doing so), etc.
The State is thus relegated to being a fact of life (think: "the only sure thing is death and taxes", when the latter doesn't have to be true), existing and thriving because enough people think that it should or that doing anything about it is futile. While there is no shortage of enthusiastic (active) supporters of the State (think: Republicans, Democrats), most, i'd say, are what we could call passive supporters. These are the people who don't cheer on statism, but they don't oppose it ideologically. They have accepted it for what it is.
The quotable Trump: Well, paraphrase
We're in for a treat, friends. Trump is ramping up the statist-speak—of the "we're in this together"-collectivism—more than ever before. America's inevitable fascist future has arrived. Trumps speaks during the inauguration of the "national effort to rebuild our country." Like any fascist, that's his prescription for us: The "nation" before the individual as the way of the State.
The nationalism was strong, speaking of "America first." If only Trump meant anti-globalism (as in the move to a world-government) and not "we're going to put a 35% border tax on it." I guess somehow this isn't seen as a blatant tax on us, not just "them", as if people offering us exchange for better prices are enemies. Why would Trump want Americans to return to doing things we do worse? Should Americans make sweaters and TVs again?
"Protection[ism] will lead to prosperity", Trump says, trying to make us believe that tariffs and taxes on imports benefit the American consumer. This is totally fallacious on every economic account, and he knows it. As if starting trade-wars with China is just what average Americans need. This line of thinking easily goes hand-in-hand with catchy slogan "buy American", or "buy local", the fallacy that not engaging in free trade and a global division of labor is good for the economy, as was the theme of his speech.
He reaffirmed all the things they want us to believe about the nature of our relationship with those who make up the State. I never heard so much "we are the government....the government is us" garbage in my life. He may as well be Bernie Sanders.
Really, how could any "democratic socialist" oppose the engaging in government-spending, i.e., redistributing stolen property, when he lists every possible infrastructure project as a contender for being rebuilt by the government?: "Roads, railways, tunnels, bridges.." Since when was it ever the job of the government to build the damn roads? When was it ever the role of the U.S. Government to do any of these things Trump has mentioned?
Trump says lastly and conclusively, "you will not be ignored." Funny, that's the only thing I want the State to do is ignore me! There was once a time when the "U.S. Government", and as it was conceived, was virtually non-existent. There was no massive regulatory and taxation, welfare-state that told private property owners what to do with their property. Trump would have been irrelevant to their lives. There was no minimum wages. None of that.
Now, why is an "inauguration" any different from a few people throwing a party and electing one of their friends to head their private company? Imagine if instead, Trump was elected the President of ABC Co., and his words were substituted for "we're going to make this company great...we're going to put our workers before our profit...we're going to fix all the pipes, drains, electrical, air-conditioning....you're going to have new desks and computers and rolling-chairs..." Then this would be of no bearing on anyone else's life outside the company. Rather, he's speaking for a whole "country" of 300+ million people of whom he feels it's now his job to "help", i.e., to rule. If to quote Mencken one more time:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
The way I see anarchism
Anyone in an anarchist society expropriating other men are clearly criminals. Unlike the State, they don't have the facade of legitimacy; they're without the public support that states attain over their lifespan. This is also why I'd say that humanity breaking out into "might makes right" under statelessness is an invalid criticism of anarchists, for successful statism must have public approval. Whether a dictatorship or democracy, the bulk of the people must believe in it or have at least decided to not do anything about it. One must only imagine the outcry by the socialist-left if Walmart began coercing their customers into buying their products upon entry of their property.
It appears ironic to me when someone says that "anarchism is impossible", disagreeing with it only on grounds of practicality, and perhaps not even for what is says (e.g. the non-aggression principle: that no one should initiate violence against anyone; anyone who does so is the aggressor and criminal), when the existence of a State rests solely upon they themselves believing in it.
Many excuses are made for the voluntariness of taxation, but the State is patently coercive and not voluntary. It takes a stretch of the imagination to make the case that I consented to whatever Trump wants to do to me, because, "democracy." The only way anyone (like "public choice" economists, and of course the public at large) could equate taxation to being some sort of "club dues" is if, geeze, you tell me.
While it might be true that markets, justice, and freedom presuppose property rights, it does not follow that this must be provided by a monopolistic agency: the State. If this were true, then why isn't this logic concluded all the way through with the notion that there need be a world government? Wouldn't it be unacceptable to have competing governments in a state of anarchy as it would with private businesses?
Has it ever been considered: a massive decentralization of "government"?; that we attempt to achieve a voluntary society?; that competing agencies offer us protection, etc., rather than one single supposedly voluntary organization affectionately called "the U.S. Military?", or the other, local and compulsorily funded ones called "the police?"; that education is privately offered on the market rather than forcing children to attend their one-size fits all schooling that teaches the statist-history?
So, for those who assert that we could/should never get rid of government—and of course continue the cycle of voting, paying taxes, and apologizing for the whole system in a state of apathy—is say: you're wrong.
But there is no law in the universe that says statism is inevitable and permanent. It doesn't have to be this way, no matter what any statist says. We can have liberty. You, my friend, can give up on the idea that some people calling themselves "the government" have a right to rob me but I don't have a right to rob them. You can adopt the consistent ethical principle of private property, which instead of socialism's one-sided "we can steal from and hurt you but if you steal from or hurt us you have to go to our prisons" no one gets to aggress against anyone. That's the universalizable principle; furthermore the only ethic defensible in argumentation.
Frankly, I think we should shame people for being non-contractors of property, i.e., welfare recipients, the military, etc. Instead of them receiving praise from us (think: "thank you for your service"), we should hold them in contempt. We must move away from the theft-culture that is government and back to a spirit of freedom; and that of privacy and production and prosperity. We should not think of the businessman as the enemy, but the State and those who want to use it to invade our rights to own ourselves and those scarce resources of which we appropriate for ourselves.
America lost its love of liberty and resistance to power and died its death due to dupes and slaves. Stop believing in their bogus arguments for their essentiality. Their all lies. If you believe them, well, I think Mencken would have simply called you an "idiot." I would agree. Shame on anyone would finds these people's veil of legitimacy to be respected.
It's time we read books that smash the State and have an ideological, not violent, motivation to resist socialism once again.