There are just two things the state is supposed to be good for, even according to the most minimal of Randian minarchists; internal security and external security. Everything else the state does is based upon its avowed huge competency in these two areas. And yet in Britain there are paedophiles, rapists, and murderers wandering around the streets at their leisure, while the staff in the Home Office luxuriate in their brand new £3 billion pounds wonder palace, with its airy views and contemporary chill-out zones. British troops are also fighting a meaningless war in Iraq, and dying almost every day, over a deliberately state-manufactured lie about WMDs being able to hit British sovereign territory in 45 minutes, while the airwaves are filled with army adverts trying to get people to sign up and get killed in a foreign land.
Add to this the daily violent murder in London every day in a newspaper near you, the general British street knife culture, and the passing of laws threatening imprisonment for drivers with the temerity to tune their car radios on the move, whilst violent robber hoodlums wander into welfare offices to sign for their weekly dole before scoring some smack with it in the pub. If you can find an area of British life that is more badly managed than internal security, you'll probably be looking at John Prescott's copious love handles.
So I can only ask this; if the paramount need for security is what lies at the heart of the state's claims to rule over us, and if the state is absolutely useless at providing security, then what exactly is the point of it? And where do all these idiot religious worshippers of the state then get off on moving out from their appallingly managed security base to inflict similar misery and chaos upon us in all their other business land-grabs, such as education, health, and transport?
Christ on a stick. Let us hope that one day we will be free of these publicly-educated morons and envious Guardian-reading fools. Roll on the Molinarian revolution, the privatisation of security, and the end of the state.
Read my lips, Minarchists. As long as we persist in our feeble, pathetic, and vain hopes for a state that can actually work, the situation is only going to get worse.
So come over the black side and join us here in the thinly-populated land of anarcho-capitalism. You have nothing to lose except your current legal inability to defend yourselves.
5 comments:
Well I've had plenty of interesting run-ins with the bunch of Randian nutters that call themselves a libertarian party down here in NZ. From what I can gather they really don't view themselves as statists. I eventually got one of them to say that their idea of a minimal govt was n't really a govt because to have statism you needed the idea that the state was good. Since there were against the state their state wasn't really a state.
Say what?
Also, when pressed on what their govt would actually be they were hard pressed to give a clear answer. One chap said they would 'allow' other militia as it would be wrong to ban self-defence, but when questioned on how they would 'allow' it without having the equally authority to not allow it (with all that that entails regarding infringing personal freedoms) they would simply reply with 'govt is needed to protect rights'.
Also, when I asked what would happen when I wanted to secede from the 'protection' of their govt (cos as you say the quality of service would probably be crap) I was told that only an idiot or a criminal would want to do so.
You *will* comply - it's for your own good.
By the way, have you tried this?
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=37281
It's complete rubbish of course but it was all the rage down here for a couple of days amongst many bloggers who thought themselves very risque and avant-garde for pretending to be pseudo-anarchists for a couple of minutes. And everyone one of them that I saw, without fail, felt the need to point our that of course they weren't really anarchists and that it was just a bit of fun. No really, we love the state already and we're terribly sorry we even thought about dabbling in the dark side. Yeah run back to your pink fluffy state boudours ya great wusses. Be careful with that there anarchism boys or you'll have someone's eye out.
Good God, gekko. When I saw '3 comments', after a six month rest, attached to a toss of some sand into the face of ALL THE IDIOT MINARCHISTS OUT THERE (FOOLS), I came into this comment page armed and ready for death or insurrection. So, to meet a fellow traveller was no fun indeed! :-)
As to your idiot Randian Minarchist friends, just say this to them:
"The reason Ayn Rand never followed 'Atlas Shrugged' up with a sequel is becaue secretly she realised that it was impossible to both support the idea of the state and attack it at one and the same time. Therefore, all she had left after the success of 'Atlas' was the retreat into the cultish sycophancy of a bunch of moronic Canadians. It was either that, or admit she was wrong in her statism. As a statist, she wasn't all bad, but where Mises said never give in to evil, the best she could say was 'Give in to evil, but only a little bit'. Pathetic."
Try that. See how it goes. In the end, of course, Objectivism is perhaps the very worst of statist religions, centred as it is upon the deification of Rand, and the "Perfect Man" idea of both Fountainhead and Atlas, plus their ideas of everyone being compulsorily forced into trying to become the perfect man, sitting round every night discussing the perfection of tap-dancing and sculpture, as according to the divine law of Augustus Caesar Rand.
I think you only really have to see 'Mozart was a Red', by Uncle Murray, a man who spent six months being indoctrinated by Nathaniel Brandon, to realise just how flawed the Randian movement became, wrecked by its fatal contradiction of both supporting and rejecting the state at one and the same time. Poor loves.
Randianism, of course, will never survive. Yes, the Christians had Jesus, and his religion has clearly survived beyond his death, as has Bhudda's religion, and that of Mohammed, but Randianism is a dead religion from the neck up. Without any St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas characters to push it on, and only second-handers available to push it, most of who appear to be living in what I imagine they think is Galt's Gulch in New Zealand, it is simply over. (Which is why I didn't put Atlas Shrugged into my 1,000 year book survivors below.)
If any Randians would like to disagree, please give us sport by entertaining us with a rejoinder. I promise to give you a serious reply, if you should care to enter the fray.
Pip pip!! :-)
PS. Any Minarchists who want to defend their statist principles are also welcome.
Post a Comment