Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Saturday, 28 November 2015

The Suffocation of Economic Central Control

Centralised control, whether 'the state' acting as if the market or, ostensibly, the 'market' acting as if 'the state', fails (as does tickling yourself fail to raise a chuckle).  What central 'control' is supposed to do is sense and react and therein lays the two fundamental problems:

1/. the input is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be sensitive enough, accurate enough, smart enough to take account of every permutation)?
2/. the output is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be reactive enough, delicate enough, effective enough to take account of every permutation)?

And that does not take account of the two secondary problems, (problems that would remain even if the system of centralised control, be it market or state, did not suffer from the two fundamental problems):

a/. the centralised control is always going to attempt to manipulate the market by way of attempting to provide favourable conditions bias to suit its own agenda
b/. the faulty outputs and bias manipulation of the centralised control will distort the market away from the form it would otherwise naturally be drawn to.

Centralised control treats the economy as though it is one big thing and that then all the micro commercial activities will feed from that initiative, as if little piranhas swarming onto whatever gigantic carcass has been fed to them.  That may be fine for feeding identical fish but the economy is rightly comprised of totally disparate elements - it is an ultimately diverse ecosystem.

The great thing about diverse ecosystems is that, left alone, they manage themselves.  There is still a form of centralised control of economies but that is because: each and every element of the whole is a self regulating economy in itself.  The effect of each element, free to act in its own best self interest, is that a system of each element's independent economy acts upon a plethora of spontaneous and autonomous sub-economies to effectively create a whole.

It is not only imposable to replicate or replace the effectiveness of this type of system, it is unnecessary to try (unless the intention of influencing is for one sub-economy to do so in order to attempt to change the whole for reasons of self-interest).  It is unnecessary to try to replicate a system of sub-economies because: since the sub-economy system is so refined and reactive it cannot be bettered for servicing the interests of the sub-economy system as a whole.

There is no such thing as 'the economy', it is just a conceptual idea to explain the 'system of sub-economies' as a whole, just as there is not such thing as a forest, that is just a word for the conceptual idea of many trees, plants, animals living together in one place, symbiotically acting as a if a whole too.

Friday, 27 November 2015

The Majority Voice of Minorities & the Minority Voice of Majorities

Without 'the state' there would be no legitimatised use of force to make people's actions not be 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' etc.  And so, instead, a natural order would form and prevail.  This was one of the matters I pondered and returned to whilst coming to accept and understand that statelessness is necessary and optimal for a properly functional human social order.  The question was: how could 'minorities' be protected from 'discrimination' in a stateless society.  The answer is not to offer a resolve to that supposed requirement but to understand that the question itself is invalid.

The supposed validity of the question is a premise advanced by 'the state' to help engender and consolidate a need for the existence of 'the state' to provide this function in society.  This role helps not only 'the state' to perpetuate, (that minorities believe without the protection of 'the state' they would be subjected to discrimination so therefore, they believe, the perpetuation of 'the state' is essential for their continued well-being and protection), the role also allows 'political factions', within the state, to assemble a 'majority of minorities' to then act in union against the actual, real, social majorities.

In having 'the state' act against the true social majorities (supposedly on the behalf of their 'anointed' minority groups) it mean that 'the state' uses violent force and the threat of force to 'make' the majority behave in a manner they would not freely opt to do.  This causes deep  distortions to social order which is then exemplified because it suits 'the state' to consolidate ever widening factions too, who believe that they are also dependent on, or want, perpetual 'state' force for their specific situation to be protected, preserved, advanced and respected.

So it suits the state to fill their territory with an ethnically and culturally disparate population, to have a large population living in subsidised housing, to support single mothers, to have a significant population dependent on welfare, to give 'respectability' to non-heterosexuals, assure government workers of pensions, women the power to make fathers pay for them and their children no matter what and so on.  It also, therefore, suits 'the state' to continuously add to these such factions comprising this state dependant element, to even cause endless frictions between each and all, so that then 'the state' is necessary to always remain as the 'only' solution to the apparent disorder that would result in the absence of rulers.

If, for example, it is that the natural, preferred, human social order is: to just live as nations of ethnically similar people; why not allow that resulting, stable, social order arise?  I am somewhat doubtful that that is the real natural universally preferable situation for modern cultured human societies but it is very difficult to measure as so much of our past cultures were dependent on rulers usurping this intrinsic tendency and building nationalism in the people as a binding force for 'state' perpetuation, influence and, of cause, unity to support war.

Now the social order is to be directed towards ever-deepening social union of the peoples and nations of the world.  Purportedly such global-union is a drive towards 'a world without wars' and for technocracy: the effective 'scientific management' of the global population and resource (the arguments against which is a separate matter to that being addressed here).  In order to allow 'the state' to dictate, within a supposedly representational democratic process, to bring about the changes required, the voice of the majorities need to be repressed else such a union will be rejected as would a socialist society, and, I consider the continuation of the cult of the religious belief in 'the state' itself.

Thursday, 19 November 2015

The Legitimacy of Authority between Leaders and Rulers

I have no issue with leaders, the existence of leaders is a good and proper circumstance within a natural human society.  It is rulers to whom I object and will struggle against.  A leader does not need to rule to lead but a ruler can only lead by rule.  Ron Paul, amongst others, helped lead me to a place where I could see that my innate desire for freedom was legitimate, conversely 'the state' rules that desire illegitimate and, in doing so, leads the masses to believe the legitimacy of that rule.

We cannot all be authorities on all things, there are those who are legitimate authorities on matters and by being so they are leaders in that field.  The ruler's authority is only supposed authority because they rule it so and that does not make them leaders in that field but rather just rulers of the field instead.

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World

The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all.

Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no man, no individual, no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'.

It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that jails a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man.

The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy.

And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult.

So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader.  You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects).

I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within.  I know, I understated.  To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction.  Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to.

To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, greatly more compassionate, wholly more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, ardvarkly more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody.

Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary.

And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless.

Tuesday, 10 November 2015

Statelessness is just the next scenario - or not!

The thing about beliefs is that they can appear to work, and as they endure they develop to become more refined and can apparently appear work better still. I have a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Now there are plenty of very serious and negative things about this dogma (and cult) but the fact is they are truly all very nice, apparently well balanced, people and generally appear to live satisfactory, happy lives. So why not all live like they do?

The cult belief in 'the state' is also a system of thinking that appears to work, with some limited success, in organising a deeply complicated world; and its followers, devotees, are all on the lookout for ways in which it can be reformed to function more effectively, more equitably too. So that appears also to be all good.

My opinion is that the concept of 'the state' is beyond being able to modify to reach closer to an ideal; because it is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental flaw can never be corrected and so, instead, will always contaminate 'the whole' to a point that 'the whole' will always be less than that which could be enjoyed (without the application of the concept of 'the state' being included in human society in the first place).

That does not mean a human society without a 'state' will undergo such an enormous seed change as is outwardly conceived as inevitable to occur in the absence of 'the state'.

Most aspects of our lives are already lived in an autonomous, self-directed, manner. The changes with statelessness would be more as if the operating system polarity was changed from a top-down to a to a ground up means of deriving most effective actions. Statelessness is just the next scenario on a road from clan chief, priest, tribal king, national monarch, imperial emperor and presidential statesman which will allow humanity to avoid the otherwise apparently inevitable alternative: a world state.

If we do not place the freedom into the hands of the individual now, to live as they wish without oppression, the danger is that this coming alternative could be, looks set to be, deeply oppressive and one that may well endure as-good-as indefinitely. If human society is subjected to a global state the natural condition of human society, the belief in the one right of the individual (to live as an individual with their property, in self and in effect), could be forgotten forever. That will be to the absolute detriment of humanity and yet is, I consider, near imposable to avoid without the understanding of how statelessness is the better alternative by far, the ideal.

Friday, 30 October 2015

Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

Thursday, 29 October 2015

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.