(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/18/2007)Dear Subscriber,
(Preface: I was already in the process of writing a blurb about
something, when someone sent me a very appropriate, albeit very
sickening, example--included below--illustrating the point.)
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "goodness-o-meter"? We could run
everyone through it, and only let the good guys have guns, or we
could put a label on the really bad guys to warn the rest of us. In
fact, if there was some magic way to tell who the smart,
benevolent, justice-loving people were, then "government" might
almost make sense (but not quite). We could make sure the good guys
had all the power, so they could protect us from the bad guys. And
that's the premise behind the desire for "government": the hope
that the people who become lawmakers, police, prosecutors and
judges are better than average guy. (If they're as bad as the rest
of us, giving them special powers obviously wouldn't improve the
situation.)
Trouble is, when you offer a job which includes having power over
others, good people very rarely apply. You see, good people don't
WANT to rule anyone else. Good people respect others, and so want
to leave them in freedom. It is almost always the megalomaniacs--
those who love dominion over others--who apply for authoritarian
positions.
One of the premises of the belief in "government" is the feeling
that we, the masses, are so unpredictable, negligent, and/or
malicious, that we need the best among us to get together, form a
government, and thereby keep us average folk in line. Trouble is,
the best among us don't want that job; the worst among us do.
I recently posted a link to a video capturing the antics of a
certain power-happy, god-complex fascist with a badge who works for
the St. George, Missouri police department. (Apparently CNN
reported it--after I did.) Yes, society needs to be protected from
the really nasty people, but when appointing authoritarian
"protectors," if you accidentally choose a nasty person--the kind
who usually seek positions of power--and you give him a badge, a
gun, and powers the rest of us don't have--well, you can see the
outcome. Yes, we'd all hope that people with power will not misuse
it, and the statists insist that we need a government of good guys,
in which case it's okay--necessary, in fact--to give them lots more
power than the rest of us have. It's for our own good, right?
Consider, for example, Mr. Atchison--an experienced crime-fighting
prosecutor down in Florida, working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the Department of Justice. He's the kind of guy who protects us
from the low-lifes of the world! He's the kind we need to give
extra power to, in order to keep our children safe! Well, actually,
as it turns out, he's the kind of low-life our children need to be
protected from.
(Warning: Even though the following is a mainstream news story,
it's quite disgusting and revolting, so feel free to skip it. Just
know that this federal prosecutor was apparently caught attempting
to do something exceedingly repulsive and evil--something he said
he has done before.)
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070918/NEWS04/709180375
What struck me about the story, however, wasn't just that one
person in a position of power got caught, or even the mention of
another Florida prosecutor getting in trouble for something
similar. It was the comment in the story, quoting from those who
investigate such crimes, saying that it's gotten to the point where
they are "almost unfazed when they discover prominent community
figures" engaging in such extreme sliminess.
I guess those investigators found out what I keep saying: people
who crave power (sometimes called "prominent community figures")
are not good people. The public desperately wants a group of good
guys to be in charge, and to have at their disposal the necessary
power to make sure justice prevails. So they hallucinate a
"government," and hope like heck that somehow righteous heroes will
take the job, and will use the power to rid the world of evil and
injustice!
But they don't. Thieving, demented, callous, sadistic control-
freaks get the job instead. But that doesn't deter the statists,
who then cry, "Well NEXT time we'll get someone GOOD in there!"
(When has that ever happened?) Again, righteous, good people--who
care about freedom and justice--don't WANT the job of forcibly
controlling their neighbors. It is an inherently IMMORAL job which
naturally attracts only those who don't mind using violence against
innocent people. It's not just bad luck that slimeballs and
lunatics always get into power; they're the only ones who would
WANT the job. If you had elections to choose a local car-jacker,
how many GOOD people do you think would apply?
Only nasty people--or unthinking puppets--WANT a job that includes
controlling everyone else, and this is true despite the fact that
cops and prosecutors sometimes use force to stop people who DESERVE
to be stopped--like (ironically) the federal prosecutor mention
above. A cop or prosecutor is not allowed to choose which "laws" to
enforce. It's his job to enforce them all, including the completely
immoral ones (any "law" that initiates violence against someone who
has committed no force or fraud against anyone else--which includes
most "laws"). The fact that sometimes he uses justifiable force
doesn't justify all the times he uses immoral force. Someone who
becomes a cop with good intentions will find that he is often
required to enforce unjustified commands, at which point he either
quits, or betrays his good intentions. Bad guys, on the other hand,
thrive in such a situation, as it gives them societal "permission"
(from statists, at least) to intrude, harass, extort, assault, and
murder in the name of the "law."
And, as lots of people have learned the hard way, once you give a
bad guy lots of power, it's not easy to take it away from him
again. When you find yourself at the mercy of some dishonest, power-
happy authoritarian psycho--whether it be a cop, a prosecutor, or a
judge--then you know just how important it is to NOT let nasty
people get those positions. But since nasty people are almost
always the only ones who ever APPLY for those jobs, what are we to
do?
Answer: DON'T GIVE ANYONE THE POSITION.
I know, I know: That's too extreme! We neeeeeeed super-human
protectors! No matter how often the ones we put there show
themselves to be slimeballs of the highest order, people still keep
hoping that having a ruling class (aka "government") will improve
society. How ironic that peoples' fear of the nasty and
irresponsible folk among us is what leads to those same nasty folk
acquiring enormous power over all of us. We fear a small monster,
and create a HUGE monster to protect us from the little one. And
when the huge one turns against us--as it always has and always
will--all that most of us can think of is what new, even bigger
monster we might try to replace it with (if it lets us). Meanwhile,
those crazies among us (anarchists) who say "Um, we don't need a
monster," are called extreme. Go figure.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
