"It's a Free Country!"

in #anarchism7 years ago

At this point, calling the United States a “free country” is profoundly idiotic. Even the most basic example of living free is “illegal” for a dozen different reasons, and would be violently crushed here in the “land of the free.” Consider this hypothetical: “Hey, I just want to buy a piece of unused land somewhere, build a house, grow some stuff, trade goods and services with my neighbors, mind my own business and raise a family!” In a “free country” (ignoring the fact that that phrase is, all by itself, an oxymoron), wouldn't that be allowed?

However, if you were to try such a thing in the U.S., you would learn a few things, such as:

1 - Even after you pay for a piece of land, you have to continue to pay off various levels of political parasites every year, for the “privilege” of hanging onto what you already bought. This is called “property taxes,” and aside from ridiculous euphemisms and statist spin, it means that you don't own anything. You merely rent it from the ruling class. And if you fail to pay that rent, they send men with guns to take it from you.

(Imagine the same thing in any other setting, like you buy a car, but the ruling class demands that you give them money every year for the “privilege” of keeping the car you already paid for. Oh… wait. They already do that, too.)

2 - You can't build anything on “your” property without buying the permission of the ruling class.

3 - Even if you buy such permission, in most places what you can build is severely restricted by all manner of codes and ordinances.

4 - If what you build doesn't qualify for an “occupancy permit,” then it is a “crime” for you to live in your own structure on your own property.

5 - In many places, the state will tell you how you’re allowed to raise your own children, requiring you to either hand them over to an institution to be indoctrinated (“educated”), or requiring you to apply for permission to “homeschool,” which in many places requires you to fill out all sorts of paperwork about curriculums, etc., where you try to convince your masters that they should let you educate your own children.

6 - As soon as you try to trade anything—goods or services—several layers of parasites will demand a cut, and will likely forcibly restrict what you're allowed to do. You will need licenses and permits, might need to collect sales taxes, pay income taxes, etc. And this is true even if you never use currency, but only barter for everything. Yes, if you and your live-and-let-live neighbors wants to trade tomatoes for chicken eggs, the federal parasites think you both have to pay them (in dollars, not tomatoes and eggs) for the privilege of doing so. If you don’t do that, then any trade is considered a “crime.”

7 - And if you want to have a means of transportation, or the means to hunt and/or protect yourself, or a source of electricity, or a source of water, or almost anything else, there are countless other laws and regulations, fees and licenses and permits, insurance requirements and inspections, which make it so you can't “legally” do anything without first buying the permission of the ruling class. The list goes on and on.

If someone did a more thorough and specific breakdown of a specific hypothetical scenario like that, showing all of the ways in which living free is “illegal” in the good old U.S.S.A., it would be really depressing, but possibly really informative for all the duped subjects who still refer to the U.S. as a “free country.” In fact, due to advances in technology, surveillance and communication, the parasite class in the U.S. controls and restricts more aspects of everyday life than even most of the famous tyrannies in history did.

And no, having a fairly comfortable cage is not the same thing as being free. If you’re content with being domesticated livestock as long as the barn is nice, and has air conditioning and a widescreen TV, that’s kind of sad, but at the very least, don’t refer to that as “freedom.” Because it’s not.

(P.S. If you respond to this article by saying, “If you don't like it, then leave!” then you're just a well-trained slave demonstrating what a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome you have.)

Sort:  

It's real simple: freedom is inversely proportional to population density.
The more people around you, the more rules.

As soon as you have two neighbors, two of the three of you will soon be getting together to stop the third from doing something the other two don't like.

Yes, it's the facts of life, people need rule makers.

Very simple. Utterly false.

I've said before that building codes are one part best practices and one part excuses for bureaucratic interference with progress, with the balance skewing more toward the latter depending on the mood of the bureaucrats involved on any given day.

As an architectural drafter with just enough engineering knowledge to be dangerous, I can say with professional certainty that building codes do not produce safer buildings. They just get in the way of actually serving the needs of the clients.

I've had the displeasure of dealing with a lot of that recently, and it's obvious that safety is NOT the real goal of it. CONTROL and REVENUE are the goals.

For those that don't realize it, building codes and permits were originally implemented for structures built for use by governments to be certain that contractors were doing things right.

Over time these started being applied to people and their property due to public ignorance.

This is a very common method for people calling themselves government to implement control and has happened again and again (drivers licenses being the most obvious case).

You also can't just leave without buying permission from the ruling class first.

Dang it, I should have included that!

Hi Larken,

Here's a few references that may be useful to some of your readers:

I dug out an old article reprinted in August in the Laissez Faire Today email newsletter. I've mention (and linked) LFT because it has been a good source of "actionable information" in a lot of areas having to do with what I call "practical liberty."

The article is originally from Nomad Capitalist, and I found the original here:

Countries with no property taxes where you REALLY own your home

There was also a follow-up article in LFT originally published on a Casey Research website:

Where to Buy Property Without Paying Property Tax

I discovered that there's at least one town somewhere in Texas that doesn't get you for property tax, though I guess they make up for it in other ways:

No property taxes? Even some in Stafford don't see how

I have as yet to figure out how to avoid the PT on "my own" home that is (otherwise) bought and paid for... 'Course, the the federal and state alphabet agencies have published papers against it claiming that they own it... For that story, check out the Topical Table of Contents for my blog by clicking on the GIF below:😄😇😄

@creatr

Some very interesting articles there, @creatr - didn't know about Stafford before. And the one about 'Countries where..." has some good discussion as well. It's important to note also about Stafford, it's a "Home Rule" city...

Although scholars have used a variety of flowery phrases to describe the concept of home rule, the principle is simple: home rule is the right of citizens at the grassroots level to manage their own affairs with minimum interference from the state. Home rule assumes that governmental problems should be solved at the lowest possible level, closest to the people.
As mentioned earlier, home rule cities look to the state to tell them what they are prohibited from doing, rather than for specific grants of authority to undertake particular functions.

Interesting, hadn't heard about the "home rule" city type before... Thanks! ;)

I traveled to 5 countries this year alone and every time I hit American soil I'm grateful. If we could just roll back most of our changes to America circa 1970s minus racism and high inflation from the Jimmy Carter years.

  1. Your gratefulness to be back home doesn't mean you're free here. You're not.

  2. Having a slave plantation be slightly more free than others is not the same as ACTUALLY being free. Americans don't talk about the "land of the slightly freer than some places."

  3. The U.S. is not even the MOST free slave plantation, socially or economically.

True and I do appreciate the irony of your post, first it's content then followed by dictating terms of response.

I wasn't dictating terms of response. You responded how you wanted to. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you.

Reads like you're replying to your own post. How can you add the last statement to your post then deflect on me pointing it out? Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reading your post.

The point is he was not dictating how you could respond, he was responding to your response. No one here is threatening or hurting you because of what you wrote or might later write.

@troglodactyl I don't feel hurt or threatened. Please elaborate for the poster or yourself which post of mine you have an issue with here and why. Did I deserve "If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you"? What a childish, insulting, anti-anarchist thing to say to someone.

What's the problem? Can you please enunciate what dictating means, because in this context it is read that he was telling you how you should respond, when I don't see how that is. He was making a point, which stands still, that by replying to the article with some ignorant remark like GTFO very much validates the efforts of educators all over this glorious usa. To keep saying that he dictated is clearly dismissive to his own words "I did not". Is his stance in question?Is it called into question simply because you ignored his statement and decided that you can ask how he can deflect without offering anything to show, clearly what you're talking about, as he has made it clear it wasn't to do with that if you didn't comprehend the words the first time. What are you saying with "dictating the terms of the response"?

What's the problem? Can you please enunciate what dictating means, because in this context it is read that he was telling you how you should respond, when I don't see how that is.(P.S. If you respond to this article by saying, “If you don't like it, then leave!” then you're just a well-trained slave demonstrating what a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome you have.)If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you.

Now my words: Who keeps saying that he dictated? I made the observation once and he did in his last statement, still.

To dictate implies clear authority, just or otherwise, recognized or not. It says: I command you to do this and you are to abide by it.
Who is he dictating? What is he dictating? Am I dictating when I presume that someone showing certain attitude or is simply a certain way is probably because of a certain factor? Or is it dictating when I am telling someone what to do, what to think? Am I dictating when I presume that someone focusing on something that isn't there and agreeing to the points I made previously only for them to then right after ridicule the post, the entire train of thought, because of an invented irony, and expressing that the internet is not the best place for someone like YOU, a you which glazes over the facts and agrees that what he said didn't mean much of anything, but even if what he said was true it's funny because of what a hitler he is, preaching anarchy. Reading comprehension is epic fail brow.

Was it not worth putting it in clear words exactly what you meant when you said it was ironic that this post "dictates the terms".. and decided that by quoting without context really settles a question which is asking to please provide a clearer meaning to your words which say "he is telling people how they should do things" very clearly with "dictating terms". Your observation of irony is... wrong. Your observation of dictating terms, is also wrong as he didn't tell anyone what to do, dictating as a verb and how you used it is conveying a specific sentiment, and this authority figure which is inherently in the figure of speech dictating terms, and especially when you allude that you can observe dictating from the statement about the internet not being the best place for people who have a difficult time discussing the valid points because they have tripped over some perceived infraction in logic land, a place that is never questioned, dare I.

Is it my responsibility to connect the dots in regards to what the definition of irony is or how the definition of dictate is applied to statements like "(P.S. If you respond to this article by saying, “If you don't like it, then leave!” then you're just a well-trained slave demonstrating what a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome you have.)"? I think not.
Would you prefer that I use the noun mandate instead of dictate?
Please don't forget to look up the definition of bloviate when you have a moment ;-)

No you're not responsible for defending your arguments. You are not responsible for defending your conjectures. You are not responsible for explaining the nonsense everyone sees as your thoughts.

You can switch up the definition of "TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO" with whatever other synonym you want of Impose Thy Will, it will not change the words or give the context the author initially set up with "If you respond with". You clearly have that certain specific, precise ax to grind, and why do I make that speculation, because rhetorically: is it my business to ASK what people mean and to reach an understanding and not appease to emotion but meaning, logic, context, or even better and much more easy: invent, laugh, and rinse and repeat?

What arguments should I be defending sir?
I am an observationalist imperious to your underlying insults so please address me with the same level of respect I will address you or not at all, thank you!
edit after reading your last post: I have no axe to grind nor waffle burning in my toaster but thanks for playing.

O I don't know, that he's telling you what to say, that's he's telling you what to do, or you know, those things you have been arguing..

If you want to label observation as an argument, so be it, I'm on season 2 episode 10 of Mad Men and am heading back into my theater room for the night. I really just came out to input some trades on the exchanges and here we are.
Here's a question for you: How many accounts in ratio does a steemian(steemit member) have on medium average? Night Night

Extracting truth out of your observation is like pulling teeth.
Observe.

I traveled to 5 countries this year alone and every time I hit American soil I'm grateful. If we could just roll back most of our changes to America circa 1970s minus racism and high inflation from the Jimmy Carter years.

Your gratefulness to be back home doesn't mean you're free here. You're not.
Having a slave plantation be slightly more free than others is not the same as ACTUALLY being free. Americans don't talk about the "land of the slightly freer than some places."
The U.S. is not even the MOST free slave plantation, socially or economically.

True and I do appreciate the irony of your post, first it's content then followed by dictating terms of response.

I wasn't dictating terms of response. You responded how you wanted to. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you.

Reads like you're replying to your own post. How can you add the last statement to your post then deflect on me pointing it out? Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reading your post.

So to summarise:
An article about the immorality/insanity of religion such as statism stirs something in you which compels you to express how grateful you are to come back to the plantation after traveling to 5 different countries. Just this year.
Everybody was like WOW when.. when..
mur freedom, less cunntrol, @rocktehv0te, doesnt matter youre still stoopid pesant- expressing his depraved need of control of the conversation.
That made you recoil, understandably, because this character comes on the scene to rub it in your face that being grateful for being less enslaved definitely means everything possibly awful:

that motherfuckinglicking meanie.

And you being one for everything virtuous and rationale and nobal3, so nuble, you say why yes, you are right kind sirs, you are correct about that one thing there and I appreciate that ironic request at the end, that part where you were talking about stuff and things as well, that was funny like that too.

Who would have thought that the evil determined bastards would sneer back with: meh meh, whatHaterever this never happens this REQUEST, WOOT REQUEST HUH, YOU BETTER HIDE, I KNOW YOUR IPZ!

Again, it's completely understandable to and if I could be blunt: ask hims evilness "how comes brah, I'm just making obz bro"
(your words are levels and levels of eloquence above that pessant of a paraphrase of mine, numi pare rau)

So was that an average of 2 accounts per steemian or more?
Based on your experience I guess we can both agree on at least 2 accounts, correct?

I only got off the funny farm to see Taiwan, Thailand, and Cambodia this year...and I dreaded the return to my slave quarters and my slave like existence. At least I know I am a free range slave...and free ranging is only permitted by the Masters at a fee and with a chip in place to track you.

In my humble opinion the USA not the usa is one of the very few countries one can feel they've won the lottery for being born in. God bless the United States of America!

Which countries? I've felt the exact opposite and have been to about 100.

Egypt, Malaysia, Honduras, Dominica, Turks and Caicos and Venezuela were new to me this year.
I have not been to near 100 countries, just six new ones this year and repeat trips to Mexico and the Abaco Islands, Bahamas(my future retirement home).
Edit: Oops, I was in Barbados but didn't have time to explore so am not considering that a visit and look forward to going back, I love making new friends and learning their culture.
My business partner is teaching every bartender of every country we go to how to make a Tom Collins.

Lots of other countries have much bigger issues than taxes as far a freedom goes. I think relatively speaking we have it pretty good in the USA. For instance, in some countries you might be hunted down and jailed or harassed by government-backed cronies for badmouthing your own government. Sometimes we don't know how good we really have it until it's gone. I'm more than happy to pay taxes to support a police-and-military-backed government that supports human and animal rights much better than most countries, in fact I'm proud to. It may be far from perfect, but it could be far worse.

How much worse does it have to get before you stop licking boot?

Aww, I luv u2 as well.

Taoteh.. I am close to gouging out my eyes now.... Talk about missing the entire point of the essay..

Aww, I love u2.

You're happy to pay. I'm not. You can speak and act for yourself. I'll do the same for me. This is how civilized people live without being at each others throats.

Agreed, nice to see somebody civilized with an opposing viewpoint. Thanks very much for your perspective. I was not trying to stir the pot.

Relatively speaking we can conclude that a little bit of tyranny is ok because other countries have more tyranny, and I'm happy to lick boot because the perceived human and animal rights is much better than most countries, in fact SO i am smitten to do so, it might not be the perfect tyranny and individual rights mix, but it could be far worse.

It could be so bad that you need to actually have a conversation and resolve problems without an ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.
http://www.laughteronlineuniversity.com/practice-hooponopono-four-simple-steps/

If I thought it would be a polite conversation I would. Maybe that's half the problem. I didn't comment here to get shit all over, sorry. Was just saying how things are far worse other places and I think idealism has to be married to reality to accomplish anything productive in this world.

It's the federal government's duty to keep us away from vile and evil.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm

Please, please be sarcasm.

Have there been many groups of humans that don't eventually create rules which they then delegate to others to enforce? If so, at what scale?

That seems to be the argument I run into over and over again when discussing this stuff. I'm not sure if it's a lack of imagination or if humans always create a ruling class because they perceive it to improve their well being. I think we need many, many more examples of people truly living free before others will take it seriously. Until then, to them it just sounds like impractical idealism wrapped in ideology. They are not convinced by just hearing the negatives (many of which they agree with). Instead they want to see a positive. They want to see something better. And becuase people are selfish, arguing from a moral angle doesn't seem to work, especially if they've convinced themselves the well being people (and especially them personally) experience now is better than it would be with no government rulers using force to maintain order.

Maybe the real question is: do humans really want to be free?

This is a difficult question to answer, because we don't have words for it yet. But, I will try.

The first problem is the indoctrination/hollywood view of laws. All we have to do is pass a law and it will make it allllll better. This thinking is everywhere, and reinforced in popular media. This thinking is wrong; so very wrong, and its implications are never talked about.

Case in point, there are people that want to outlaw guns. They actually believe that passing a law will get rid of guns! Well, you can't blame them when the mainstream media NEVER talk about hot burglary in places like the UK. Everyone with a thinking brain knows there is no way to get rid of guns. And everyone who has to live at the edges of the wilderness knows that a gun is necessary. But still, there are people that are convinced, no, it is a belief that is more powerful than most believe in the creator, that we could get rid of guns by passing a law.

We think about laws incorrectly, that is the first problem.


Every society has rules. And these rules have to be enforced. If you can't enforce these rules, then society breaks down.

"Hey you, stay off my property." think about trying to enforce that. There are lots of stalkers then continually violate private property and personal space... and very few of them are ever punished. Why? because you are no longer allowed to defend yourself.

So, societies rules need to be enforced, and they have to be enforceable. One of the best ways was to tar and feather a person and then run them out on a rail. This was a very clear line of you have gone to far, and we don't want you around these parts no more.

Society's rules are not easy to put into a law book. In fact, they don't mesh with THE LAW at all.


People are cowards. The vast majority of people are so scared of even enforcing their personal boundaries. At work and with friends, they will let people walk over them so that they don't have to make waves.

These people want someone big and brave to look out for them. But what they most want is to not have to pay the cost of repercussions from standing up for themselves. These people will gladly give up some freedom for some security. Thank goodness most of this is in interpersonal areas, which aren't under the rule of law yet.

So, it is a combination of delusion and not growing up that is the cause of the ruling class.
Just think about this? All the sit coms? Have any of them taught people how to deal effectively with boundaries?

I agree with much of what you said here. I think many would rather call the police on their neighbors than deal with the conflict of asking them to turn their music down. Some may go further and see it as specialization. They've outsourced "keeping the peace" to the "peace officers." Unfortunately, that's now how that works out in practice. Again though, many view their own lives as void of conflict and violence and think, "Well, this system isn't so bad. It would be worse if I didn't have the government providing these services I enjoy, that's for sure!"

The hard part for me is convincing them they are mistaken and how much better things would be if there wasn't a monopoly on currency creation, security services, etc, etc. I think we need a lot more practical examples of what we do want before people will be convinced voluntaryist / anarchist / relationalist ideas are pragmatic and practical enough to work in place of government.

I agree. Most people believe the movies/TV about cops... up until they have to deal with them for real. Lily-da-vine had a post today about people needing to run into the actual police to wake up.

And since this is a Larken Rose piece, Well what about...
the roads - You mean the things that aren't being maintained?
the police - You mean the people that are stealing more than the reported criminals?
the justice system - sorry, no justice here.
the water and electric - sorry, those are private corporations

Lord of the Flies comes to mind...

I get so sick of statists using a fictional narrative about children to represent their view on how adults would act in the real world without rulers.

I'm not labeling you a statist, I'm just sick of the "Lord of the flies" non-answer. The stories we tell ourselves are important and fiction has its place, but we have to move beyond that, IMO, when discussing practical solutions for millions of individuals living together in cities.

Again, not directing my reply at you directly as much as just venting.

People who mention "Lord of the Flies" also never seem to remember the ending. It was NOT "Thank goodness authority showed up and saved the day, so now we can have peace and harmony!" They were "rescued" by a WAR SHIP. (Also, they were children raised in a heavily authoritarian indoctrination camp, so having them fighting over who is "in charge" is not surprising.)

Yep. I remember and appreciative your discussion on the ending. It seems funny how much our brains connect to stories which shape our understanding even if the story or our interpretation of it is incorrect. Religion does this very effectively.

I was going to leave this alone, but your vent @lukestokes really gets my ire. Simply because someone says something about a novel, both you and @larkenrose jump on it. I'm HARDLY a statist. If anything, a "Libertarian with a conscience". Perhaps a "minarchist". But some laws still are necessary to a civilised society.
I totally agree we've gone way too far in the US, and the 'elites' are clamping down everywhere. So, the article resonates. It's a matter of degree.

Again, not directing my reply at you directly as much as just venting.

I wasn't calling you a statist, I just tire at the reference because it doesn't add anything of value for me, but demonstrates (from my perspective) how much people think in terms of labels, memes, and larger (often fabricated) ideas instead of first principles.

Glad my venting enabled your venting as well. We can both get each other worked up and that's okay. We can both learn and grow because of it.

Apathetic, DUMB AF and they deserve it, what your sentiment boils down to. Examples won't equate to understanding/education.. The conversation about classism, which needs to happen

We are in deed on the track, a little need to invoke "them" and "us", but because classism won't evaporate from the discussion.

Great stuff. RS and UV for you

Land of the Slightly Free and Home of the Slave is what I call all this stuff and it is the same here in #Canadastan

Imagine responding to every bureaucrat that tries to stick their hand in your pocket with, 'How much would I have to pay to never hear from you people again?' I don't want to be on their monthly or yearly plan - if I can't live without being parasited I'd rather get it all out of the way up front...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.28
TRX 0.11
JST 0.030
BTC 68342.52
ETH 3806.60
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.63