Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. – H.L. Mencken
As an organism which is at best symbiotic with (and in the overwhelming majority of cases parasitic on) society, government is a non-producer; its only means of support is to drain money from those who are producers. When a government is small and efficient, the funds thus consumed go to providing useful functions such as public works, territorial defense and a means of adjudicating disputes; in the typical case, they also support a hopelessly inefficient bureaucracy, pay thugs to enforce leaders’ arbitrary whims on the people, and line the pockets of functionaries at every level of government (not to mention their cronies ostensibly outside of the government). But in the case of pathologically bloated modern regimes, the primary usage of stolen resources is the funding of yet more growth and increased means of stealing still more money; in other words, the theft itself becomes the primary function of government rather than a means of enabling some useful (or at least mostly-harmless) function. Expressed more succinctly, proper governments eat to live, but tyrannical governments live to eat.
The process by which lean, minimal government feeds is best described as leeching; it’s slow, gradual and so minimally intrusive a healthy host may not even notice the drain. The feeding of a typical government is more like that of a lamprey; it debilitates its host and causes serious, permanent damage. But an overgrown monster-government is like a rapacious predator which tears its prey to pieces and scatters fragments everywhere, ruining that which it does not consume. Minimal governments can survive on reasonable taxes, fees, monopolies or the like; most governments require all of those plus fines, tolls, tariffs, unfunded mandates and political contributions. But the Oriental despotism under which we now exist requires still more, and therefore has given itself the right to openly steal the assets of citizens. Usually, this is accomplished by accusing the victim of violating some arbitrary rule against a consensual behavior which it has defined as a “crime” and demonized to the point where the sheeple accept that definition.
In the UK, this is usually accomplished by targeting “brothels”. When the businesspeople so pillaged own actual brothels (especially more than one), the media can be counted upon to disseminate pro-robbery propaganda, as in this January 31st article in which the Evening Chronicle describes the victim as the owner of a “sleazy brothel empire”, laments that the government was “only” able to steal £42,212 of her “ill-gotten gains”, and describes her business as a “debauched operation” which the police robbed by perpetrating a scam…though the paper bizarrely applies that label to her business (which provided a valuable service to willing customers) rather than to police trickery which benefits only the police. Furthermore, the media chooses to ignore the fact that this same law is used to victimize escorts who share premises, stealing their property and life savings while ignoring violent (but poor) criminals.
When using prostitution as an excuse for banditry, US jurisdictions prefer to pander to neofeminist “end demand” rhetoric and “human trafficking” hysteria by robbing the clients of streetwalkers instead:
Police in eight states participated in prostitution stings over the past 10 days, coordinated by Cook County [Illinois] Sheriff Tom Dart…there were 565 arrests – including 314 men allegedly soliciting sex. A total of 227 people were arrested on prostitution charges and other misdemeanor counts, and two more were arrested on human trafficking charges. The roundup was all part of what Dart calls the “National Day of Johns Arrests.” Twenty law enforcement agencies in eight states ran sting operations…If the johns are all convicted, fines will be in the neighborhood of nearly $475,000. While prostitution is often characterized as a victimless crime, the sheriff’s office says that is not true. Dart’s office says customers of prostitutes “perpetuate a violent, exploitative industry,” and if there were no johns, there would be no abusive pimps and traffickers either. “Large sporting events, such as the Super Bowl, bring out competitiveness in all of us, including, unfortunately, pimps and sex traffickers…In the days leading up to and including Super Bowl Sunday, my office coordinated with 19 other[s]…to send a strong message that our communities refuse to tolerate the sale of human beings for sex.”
Obviously, Sheriff Dart is perfectly OK with the sale of human beings for government profit. But whether the melodramatic rhetoric is quasi-Victorian or neofeminist, it serves the same purpose: rationalizing armed robbery by denying women’s agency and casting the perpetrators as “protecting” women from “exploitation” (except government exploitation, of course). Nor do these authorized crime syndicates limit themselves to stealing cash and automobiles from clients; the hysteria over “human trafficking” has allowed them to grab even juicier prizes from innocent bystanders:
A southern California flight school owner faces the loss of his two-year-old business, along with the Cessna 172 he rented to a well-known customer. The Jan. 20 seizure of N5283E…[was] the fourth…of a light aircraft involved in the smuggling of people, rather than drugs, since 2010…Denney Marsh, owner of Hemet-Ryan Flight School…said [local business owner Lino] Rodriguez-Chavez, arrested Jan. 20 after allegedly picking up three men from a Motel 6 and driving them to Imperial County Airport, had taken flight lessons at the school…“He’s not somebody who just showed up at the door like the newspaper said,” Marsh said. “I have no idea how to prevent this…Oddly enough, the building that I’m in stores seized airplanes,” Marsh said. “I frequently send my pilots down with 83E to bring back other airplanes for storage that they’ve seized”…Marsh…is not optimistic he will ever see it again. Federal officials have offered few options: Marsh can file a motion with the federal court that, if he loses, is not subject to appeal. Or, he has been told,
he can post a $5,000 bond and apply for a hearing, with no guarantee the aircraft will be returned…
Of course, it’s accusations of drug trafficking which net the largest profits; a quarter-million dollar aircraft is small potatoes compared to a million-dollar motel:
Imagine you own a million-dollar piece of property free and clear, but then the federal government and local law enforcement agents announce that they are going to take it from you, not compensate you one dime, and then use the money they get from selling your land to pad their budgets—all this even though you have never so much as been accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one. That is the nightmare [faced by] Russ Caswell and his family…in Tewksbury, Mass., where they stand to lose the family-operated motel they have owned for two generations. Seeking to circumvent state law and cash in on the profits, the Tewksbury Police Department is working with the U.S. Department of Justice to take and sell the Caswells’ property because a tiny fraction of people who have stayed at the Motel Caswell during the past 20 years have been arrested for crimes. Keep in mind, the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property. And the arrests the government complains of represent less than .05 percent of the 125,000 rooms the Caswells have rented over that period of time. Despite all this, the Caswells stand to lose literally everything they have worked for because of this effort by federal and local law enforcement officials not to pursue justice, but rather to police for profit.
The list of “crimes” which excuse police robbery will inevitably grow; they’re already stealing cars for selected misdemeanors, and more are coming soon. Imagine losing your stereo over a noise complaint, your car for speeding or your house for fighting with your spouse, and then realize that even if you don’t break any laws at all the SCOTUS ruled seven years ago that it’s perfectly OK for politicians to steal your home for the “crime” of being in an area their developer buddies want to build something on. The precedents for these abuses are already well-established, and they aren’t going to stop until the peasantry wakes up and takes a stand against its bandit overlords.
One Year Ago Today
“Legislators Gone Wild” describes out-of-control politicians defining first as last, freedom as slavery, zygotes as citizens and yours truly as a double murderess.
Hi Maggie,
Another excellent article. I actually subbed to your site and get your column pushed to my phone now. You stand as the ONLY blog I get pushed to my phone. Quite an achievement! You are making more sense than even the men in the MRA area.
The end of guvment is coming for those who wish it. For your MALE readers they are welcome to consider joining the MBA.
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/
If your sex worker readers (99% of women are women) want to form a WOMENs business association I would be PLEASED to host sites etc for them.
The MBA will provide all the services that are typically the domain of LEGITIMATE guvments.
Anyone reading this who thinks guvments in the english speaking world are anything BUT a bunch of criminals? I have news for you.
Your readers might be interested in reading my lawful notice sent to all members of the Irish Parliament denouncing the guvment as NOT LEGITIMATE and all members as criminals. Link below.
Apparently the very orwellian titled “Minister for Justice and Equality” calling himself Alan Shatter has point blank refused to issue me a letter guaranteeing that the guvment will secure my inalienable rights.
The letter that is in the link will give your readers an object lesson in the purpose of guvment as envisaged by the US Declaration of Independence.
Given that Alan Shatter, as “Minister for Justice and Equality” has decided to refuse my citizenship application (after the guvment sat on it for FOURYEARS hoping I would go away) with the only comment being about my demand for a written guarantee that the guvment will secure my rights is all the evidence any man might need of the criminality of the guvment. Not to mention the sexism and discrimination that is inherent in the members of the Irish guvment, men and women alike. That the irish guvment welcomes a woman who is a KNOWN criminal and child abuser who can’t do anything of significant use for a jon and rejects and honest man of honour and integrity shows the sexism in spades.
I have called on Irish MEN to form juries and put these criminals on trial. Those men are still so gutless they are not willing to do so. I guess they deserve to be taxed into poverty to repay the EUR85B in Odious Debt that was incurred by the criminals in the guvment then, eh?
Apparently men in the “free man” and “fathers rights” areas are not very keen at all at defending their rights via the jury trial. Those who refuse to defend their rights do not deserve to have them. And since Alan Shatter has made it CLEAR that the Irish Guvment refuses t o secure the rights of the irish people it is clear that the Irish people, and the rest of the english speaking world, have to take matters into their own hands to defend their rights just like the “terrorists” who were called “revolutionaries” did in the US in the 1770s.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland/Forums/tabid/105/forumid/96/threadid/1712/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Yo Brother!
The revolutionaries of the 1770’s were no where near terroists. 😀
A terrorist makes use, normally, of NON-military targets and personnel and the aim is usually killing as many as possible in order to wear down the opposition’s will to fight. This was not the case with the founding fathers of the US. There were a couple of cases of MOB VIOLENCE and “tarring and feathering” but that is a very long shot away from real terrorism. The Boston Tea Party – was NOT an act of terror.
But – you’re not the only one getting “loose” with the definition these days – as the US government is well ahead of you there.
Incidentally, all of my ancestors who were alive in the colonies at the time of the Revolution were … Torries. They were poor Scott Highlanders who came here after losing a series of wars with the British Government in Scotland. They didn’t feel the British could be beaten (having previously fought them) and thus, supported the Royalists. They fled the Carolinas for Kentucky when the torry cause in the colonies was lost. Eventually they settled along the Gulf Coast, just in time for the Civil War – where they again chose the wrong damned side. 😛
Krulac,
the legislation in Australia defines a “terrorist” to be “any person who pursues a political agenda”. So you are better off not using YOUR definition of terrorist and using the definitions your guvments are pushing on you to show the hypocrisy of the criminals in the guvment.
I have taken the step of denouncing these criminals in my own name in public. Would be nice if a few more people joined in. Though I am doing this from the relative safety of Germany. I have spoken to MANY german police and law enforcement officers to tell them what I am doing. They “get it” immediately and I do not see myself being jailed in Germany for speaking out against nazi style guvments in the west.
Interesting remark that however proves to be false after a quick Google search, revealing that Paragraph 100.1 of the Australian Criminal Code defines a “terrorist act” thus:
“terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.”
“A terrorist makes use, normally, of NON-military targets and personnel and the aim is usually killing as many as possible in order to wear down the opposition’s will to fight.”
The founding fathers had no problem using government aggression against people to enforce arbitrary rules. The knowledge that this aggression will be (and has been) used also has the effect of intimidating other people comply with these rules. Without that violent aggression, nobody would submit to it’s authority, it’s will. Governments don’t need to plant bombs because they’ve already worn people’s will to fight
Change your definition to:
“A government makes use, normally, of NON-military targets and personnel and the aim is usually intimidating with force and killing as many as NECESSARY in order to wear down the opposition’s will to fight.”
If you think that those changes make a difference that’s worth a damn: Fear is fear. Hurt is hurt. Dead is dead. That they are “smarter” about it than people called terrorists is irrelevant. They intimidate (and kill when necessary) on a scale beyond what terrorists do. And they get near universally praised for it, unlike terrorists.
I do not believe you are very well acquainted with the organisation of governments: they are usually comprised of people, who themselves are friends with people and have grown up with people, and have gone to school with people, and interact with people on their daily basis – Skynet has not yet overtaken the world. All statements generalising governments are as logically weak as all comments generalising any arbitrarily defined group of people: it is the very same as if you were generalising prostitutes. Not all prostitues are wicked, in fact the least are, and the same is it with the people in goverment. Some are dumb, some are disconnected from the world, some are easily intimidated, some are easily “swayed”, some may in fact be wicked, but many do their job because they think it is right and well, and some even do it well. They are, as far as supertribal governments are concerned, not even particularly unified, and may battle each other over disagreements. Good examples are various ministers competing for more funding, or the good old “judicative striking down a law passed by legislative”. Your personal opinion changes little about the universe that expands above you, the animals that breed around you, and the governments that administrate, seldom really unified about their course of action, the states before you.
Personally I think your comment amounts to nothing short of libel, and either way it suffers from being fallacious through and through.
>”(99% of women are women)”
And what are the other 1%? Inquiring minds want to know…
LOL! 😀
LOL! A typo…I meant to say 99% of whom are women. As Maggie has pointed out…men who try to be prostitutes generally starve.
Back in the days of Charles Dickens, the Victorians first banned brothels in 1885 (the UK thus becoming the first European country to do so). It is, I think, indicative of the total failure of this law that the ‘prudish’ Victorians – who would quite happily and frequently sentence people to six months hard labour for passing off a false shilling (five pence in today’s money) accorded the crime of owning or managing a brothel worthy of mere maximum three months prison sentence, but today that penalty has been increased 28-fold to seven years, on top of which comes extortionate ‘proceeds of crime’ proceedings which frequently result in further prison terms of up to four years, after which the money – usually a fanciful estimate of what the business might notionally have earned – is still deemed owing.
Furthermore, I cannot for the life of me believe that the Victorian parliament had any intention of preventing sex workers from working together to enhance their safety, or of exposing them to the relentless attack of criminal gangs should they choose to do so through the criminals’ knowledge that they live in fear of the so-called police: this phenomenon is down to our judiciary’s extraordinary and supremely unwisely wide definition of ‘brothel,’ which the Victorians failed to define in their act and which no UK parliament has defined since.
Yep and …
Yep and …
The fitness supplement industry in the UNITED KINGDOM is right now taking a huge hit from their Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/UK-begins-DMAA-crackdown
This week all the suppliers are removing HUGE amounts of inventory from their shelves and online storefronts as the MHRA is now cracking down on any product containing …
Ephedra
Yohimbe (Rauwolfia)
DMAA (1,3-Dimethylamylamine)
Sida Cordifolia
Evodia
Synephrine (if it is a high-concentration extract)
GABA
Melatonin
Prohormones (DHEA, Andro, etc)
Appears the “big concern” here that got the ball rolling was DMAA. It’s merely a stimulant, and it’s only used as a replacement for Ephedrine, which was outlawed years ago. I use DMAA every morning in my pre-workout drink, it’s really harmless and it’s been used in the US for years without any problems – even from abusers. It’s banned by the Olympic Anti-Doping squad though, because being more “awake” might enhance their performance. Whatever – the EU follows suit and bans it.
Half those compounds, I’ve never heard of but I know Ephedra, Yohimbe, and DHEA and – Ephedra and Yohimbe in VERY HIGH doses can cause problems but seriously … DHEA? It’s a full on steroid by the way (for those who don’t know) … and it’s sold in Wallmart. However, it’s completely legal – it escaped banning because Orrin Hatch in Utah went to war to keep it legal and because more old people use it than athletes.
We’re now bracing to see the US follow suit on this and the FDA is already rattling the sabers. I know there is a lot of “snake oil” out there being sold – but a lot of these products are legitimate and do serve a purpose – and are totally safe when used correctly.
I just can’t believe where this world is headed.
“I just can’t believe where this world is headed.”
Imagine a boot stomping on a human face…..forever.
The guvments have amassed so many guns and so many willing robots, that men have precisely and ONLY two choices.
1. Lawful courts based on the jury trial.
2. Civil war with a very slight chance of winning.
As evil as he was Winston Churchill did say some very true things.
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
We are still at the point were we can defend our rights in courts. But the opportunity to do so is fading fast. I can see it.
If the bullets start flying I am leaving because I have arranged to leave.
I will not take a bullet for those who HATED ON ME these last 4 years.
I will not take a bullet for those who refused to listen to me.
I will not take a bullet for those who refused to join CAF. They can take the bullets for themselves.
They can call me a “chicken” for not taking bullets on their behalf all they like. I have done all I can for a long time, risked my life, had everything I owned stolen. And barely ANYONE gives a shit about me. It is very enlightening to see how much MAN-HATRED is in your society.
You’re a Balko reader, aren’t you, Maggie?
More writers need to be covering these issues. I doubt many will do so, and certainly not in prose as smooth or lucid as yours.
Thank you, Ashlyn! Yes, I read The Agitator every day, and have a link to it in “Friends of Whores” at the right. In fact, that motel seizure item came from there.
The Supreme Court decision (Kelo v. City of New London) was shocking when announced, essentially saying that there are no limits on eminent domain powers of local governments–taking your property in order to give it to another private entity is OK as long as the government says it will be used for the public good–like building a waterfront hotel.
One of the worst decisions in the past couple of decades.
Maggie,
When I was about 7 years old we went through the observation room at Grand Coulee Dam where you could see the fish ladder.
About half-way through, this lamprey – about 3 feet long – came up and attached its mouth to the glass.
Talk about a scary sight – round sucker-like lips and concentric rows of triangular teeth that disappeared into the darkness of its gullet.
I don’t think that you could have come up with a more apt metaphor for our gov’t functionaries than that.
Lampreys are one of the few creatures I cannot look upon without being filled with loathing and a desire to kill it, sort of like a lot of people have with snakes. Personally, I’ve got no issue at all with snakes:
The problem is that (particularly in the West), the concept of Government has changed from the provision of necessary social services (roads, water) and common defence (police, army), into the promotion of political, economic, and even religious philosophies (not the religions themselves).
This is the equivalent of hiring economics professors to be janitors, and biologists to be chefs. And then when people complain about the quality of the cleanliness and food, an election is held to select the candidates who have the best theory as to why the floors are not clean and the food tastes like cardboard.
Somehow, the concept of getting the job done has completely disappeared along the way.
As for prostitution, how about this? Establish a Religious Charitable foundation devoted to worshippers of Aphrodite, and open it to all sex workers and their clients, who by their actions have already proven their devotion to Aphrodite. Then label anyone who takes actions against prostitutes as practising religious discrimination and persecution, and demand legal protection. Also sue the pants/skirts off of them. Aphrodite worship is eco-friendly, since worshippers are obviously too busy to be consuming carbon-dioxide creating products. Aphrodite worship is excellent exercise and will fight obesity. Aphrodite worship also offers a powerful alternative to recreational drug use. Aphrodite worship will keep the 99% too busy to bother the 1% and hence should be popular with the Illuminati.
Nope, that won’t work either; religious freedom in the US is limited to Judeo-Christians of sects large enough to have a political voice.
It was Hubbard and Scientology that brought that comment to mind. Despite the group’s somewhat um, dubious underpinnings, they have still managed to make people at least a little reluctant to attack them.
To pull that off, you’d have to stoop to their level. They’re worse than most governments.
when i see politicians i have the desire to hit them,i just cant handle looking at them anymore,not even on tv.they are completely useless and the only thing that they are capable of is producing propaganda and lying to our faces.oh,the good imf will help us out of the economic crisis,oh,in the next two years we will not have such big economic deficiency,but for this to happen you need to have a wage of 400 euros per month and expect to live.oh,the swedish model is working,no trafficking and prostitution has been dramatically decreased.at least in greece for all our stupidity when we elected those bastards,now we have understood what we did and what happens to us.do the swedish understand what they have done to ses workers?
Apparently, 81% of Swedes understand, but it’s too late to do anything about it short of massive protests (which they’re too sheepish to perform).
When a government exists to serve it’s people, it sees it’s people as it’s lifeblood, as it’s purpose.
When a government exists to serve a different master, the aristocracy, or the rich, the people become a resource to be mined, or controlled, and exploited.
We’re in the latter situation, now. Our government is in the business of protecting the position and property of the few, not the needs of the many.
“Good habits” must be forced on the masses, so we’ll be compliant and useful to the rich.
The only way out of this is to keep money, and power, from pooling in the hands of a few.
I always find it odd when talking with a “Small gummit” conservative that they are usually also “lawn order” types. They don’t want to pay for education, health care, but they want to pay for more cops.
More cops always equals more crime. Think about it- Add 20 more cops to a town, and unless the criminals step up and get busy (and you can’t depend on them) those cops will have to fill up their arrest sheets somehow. And that’s by making up crime, and preying on you.
ALL government is driven by one purpose: to grow. The only way to control that is with powerful rules that stop it from even STARTING to do so. And the only reason 99.99% of people enter government is to rule; the only way to stop that is by either setting aside a group (nobles or whatever) whose job it is to do so, or limiting elected officials’ time in any given position, and (again) punishing any overreach of power swiftly and dramatically. I’d favor the penalty for gross malfeasance in lower officials to be life imprisonment, and for elected officials/nobles exile or death. Want to avoid those possibilities? Don’t run for office or become a cop.
Which is why I recommend to people to simply turn their back on the guvments. Rescind their consent to be governed. Anyone who has read the declaration of independence will read.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
Note the word CONSENT.
The Magna Carta established as a fact that a free man can not be acted on with force by the king, aka guvment.
In Singapore, where I lived for many years, a significant proportion of the police (including ranking officers) are national servicemen who are in it for only two years. This dilutes the “us verses them” attitude and the bully mentality, since the officers know they will soon be on the other side of the fence.
Despite what the Western press tends to say, the police in Singapore are generally polite and service minded, and certainly never come into your home and shoot your dog.
While all government may want to grow, that doesn’t mean it should be allowed to do so. To rule requires power, the ability to make decisions by an individual or small group and enforce them on others. This is what must be diluted. It doesn’t matter how small the government is if it’s got massive power. One dictator and a secret police force can oppress a population even more efficiently than a more diverse government.
That’s why most of the power has to remain in the hands of the people.
I totally agree it shouldn’t be allowed to grow at all. The best government is like a bonsai tree: small and elegant and requiring constant care to ensure it stays that way. As Michael Gilson De Lomos expressed it, “The Constitution, in a very significant sense, is not a mechanism for making decisions but preventing them.”
Like the bonsai analogy. I’ll add it to the fire analogy I stole from somebody else.
Each growth no matter how tiny, results in more people who have a vested interest in the government not shrinking, because their own livelihood depends on it. The inevitable result, government size only ever goes in one direction. Bigger. You can’t stop government growing. If you want government the best you can do is overthrow it and start over, just to repeat the process.
The USA is a good example. It had one of the smallest governments of the time, overthrowing British rule and only took less than 150 years to break the pathetic restraints of the Constitution. Now it is becoming increasingly draconian by the year and in general (slavery/equal rights excepted) makes the Britain of that time look like a paradise of liberty. (Not that modern Britain is a paradise of liberty either).
Unsure that the US makes UK look like a paradise of liberty. I have to follow EU law, UK law, local government bylaws and, now, Welsh law. It’s getting like you have to have PhDs in staying out of prison here.
My comparison was between the USA of today and the Britain of the time of the war of independence to throw off British tyranny. If you set aside the issue of slavery and equal legal standing for all (which was as bad in Britain at that time) the USA has become significantly less free on other regards than the tyrannical British government of the time that it overthrew.
Thus my argument that governments grow over time, even ones that (again slavery etc not withstanding) start off relatively small, with Constitution that was supposed to limit the size of Government.
And has done no such thing.
.