The honorable government walkout

aha.

i'll clarify something.

in the post about religious people hearing voices, i said recently that you can't just remove a government, and leave behind 'nothing.' i've said that you have to create some kind of structure for people to move into, something to support them. otherwise, i said, they'll just create something worse to fill the space.

however, think of how the government shares this very same idea, in a horrible, distorted, insane way.

they think they have to stay in iraq, UNTIL they've somehow stabilized things.

i advocate that they leave right this instant, today, and leave NOTHING in their place.

no setup, no structure, no support.

if the government disappeared this very instant, today, from the entire country, leaving nothing in its place, WE WOULD INSTANTLY BE BETTER OFF.

so do not let my previous statements be distorted and misinterpreted.

when you devise an intentional community, starting from scratch, it is an entirely different thing. you must plan ahead for what you will do as people start attempting to govern you in the future. but this is a completely different situation, not at all the same as invading a country, destroying it, and then claiming that you're obligated to stay until things are settled.

i got this idea because of reading something scott adams wrote in 'economics of the war.' (hi scott! i recall that he has a google alert for people taking his name in vain on the internet. i don't remember exactly how to trigger the google alert.) he talks as though there might be some remote, conceivable possibility that our being in iraq and afghanistan could be helpful - that it might be possible or necessary to stabilize the countries we destroyed, or that it might prevent 'terrorist' attacks on our country.

i believe that the soldiers could simply walk out, get on an airplane, and go home right this instant, now, and iraq and afghanistan would immediately be better off because of it.

so what's the difference? what do my previous statements mean? what is the context? how can those statements be twisted to rationalize iraq?

i said you can't just have 'anarchy' right this very instant, merely by wishing it. but i say that FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of a helpless citizen, a victim of government, who DESIRES anarchy right this instant, and knows it's hopeless to expect the morons in government to actually do the right thing for once - shut down their computers, walk out of the building, drive away and never come back to work for the government - today, right now.

it is totally different when someone in the government says, from THEIR perspective, that you're not allowed to have anarchy right this instant, because they themselves are standing in your way, even though they are physically capable of leaving and could do it, by choice, and THEY are responsible for preventing the 'onset' of anarchy right now.

when you yourself are the one who has control over whether anarchy occurs or not, it's totally different from the viewpoint of the person who has no choice about it. i can sit here at home, knowing that i can't do a damn thing about the government, and so i say that anarchy can't happen right now, because the government is evil and stupid and they refuse to move. i have no power over them. but they have power over themselves. it doesn't make sense for THEM to say that they're not able to stop governing right now! all they have to do is leave. they are the ones controlling themselves. just like i myself could walk out of this room right now, or go take a walk, or go take a nap, or go read a book. i control those things. but i don't control the IRS agents who will take away my car if i don't pay my taxes.

you can't have something that depends on actions taken by OTHER PEOPLE who you have no control over. you can't have it right this instant merely by wishing it. other people control what the government does. we already know that complaining and writing letters, etc, is useless, and evil insane delusional moron puppets like george bush are just going to blindly keep mass murdering thousands of human beings without flinching or blinking an eye, and taxing us to death, and ruining our money. (harry browne - freedom in an unfree world - describes things you have control over, and things you don't, and what kinds of actions you take to deal with these things.)

all they have to do is merely turn off the lights, shut the doors, and walk out, and we would instantly be healed, right that very second. the recovery would be unimaginably rapid and dramatic. it is something that they can't conceive of. the government really doesn't know just how evil and wasteful government-as-such really is, and how quickly and instantly a great many problems would heal themselves right away - within DAYS. but they don't believe. they don't understand anarchy.

so when i say we can't have anarchy right this second merely by wishing it, it's because most people are too stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, and misguided to really imagine it. they won't stop governing and attacking people and stealing and killing and ruining lives. and i can't force them to understand.

so anarchism with a plan - that is why i am talking about anarchism with a specific plan. the words 'anarchy' and 'anarchism' are too vague. they have no direction.

by what means do we intend to remove ourselves from the world of government? and also, do we wish to dismantle the existing government, or abandon them all and survive alone ourselves, always welcoming new immigrants who come to us? the latter method was used by the people who, long ago, left europe and came to north america - although they fought and killed the natives, which is controversial to me - i am not sure how to settle that. (much of the death was caused by disease, and i believe it was MOSTLY accidental. i don't put much weight on the story of the 'smallpox-infected blanket' that was given to the natives. slaves are much more valuable than dead bodies. they would have gained much more by enslaving the natives than by mass-murdering them on purpose.)

what phases are in this plan - what order - what time frame? do you separate first, hide, and for a number of years build your wealth, and then do something to shut off the government's supercomputers, shut off their psychotronic satellites, shut off their spy network, turn off their electricity - how long until that? how much wealth is needed? what devices? what resources? what knowledge?

or, on the other hand, do you separate, and live for the sake of life, welcoming immigrants, perhaps seeking immigrants actively through your missionary outreach, inviting, always looking for new members, but doing nothing to change the evil of the outer world? let the evil be as it is, but make your world open to those sufferers born out there?

and focus on growing, and making your world much happier, much healthier, much more fulfilling and human and rewarding to live in - a world where people really feel free and happy and alive. it's a place where people really, really want to go. you don't waste your money trying to make any active dismantling plans at all, upon the outside world's evil. but you build passive defenses as strong as possible - you build your shields, you build your invisibility, you build your untraceability, you build all that's needed to merely evade the evil. there might be times when you need to destroy the machines in a specific, targeted way - it could be cheaper to blow up a psychotronic satellite, rather than try to build a large shield around your world.

they will always keep inventing new weapons and going through your shield. i think this evil will never end. but how do you direct your resources most effectively, when resources are always so limited? people's opinions will be strongly in conflict over this. different strategies will appear and different sects will fight against the government and against each other. i don't want to see wasted resources. everyone will disagree about how best to use the resources we have saved and developed.

there is such a thing as just wanting to live a good, happy life as soon as possible, before we die, because we are atheists and we do not wait for the afterlife. this is, actually, a great virtue of atheists! we are not interested in an afterlife. but we are, however, interested in the future world of our children. we care about that.

so there are indeed strongly conflicting differences in the overall strategy, the overall approach, of anarchism, or agorism, or whatever name we give it.

i tend to favor the approach of building a safe world, and inviting people into it, and using a passive defense and evasion as much as possible, staying out of reach. also, based on what i have observed, religious communities that live this way, without (for instance) 'hoarding weapons' in anticipation of an apocalypse, don't usually become the victims of government raids. the only exception was the fraudulent raid of the yearning for zion ranch in texas - i don't know if their community had any weapons or not - and that happened, possibly, because we had been theorizing that maybe polygamy ostracizes the rejected men, who MIGHT POSSIBLY tend to become 'terrorists' (an undefined word) - i have a feeling that this theory was a mistake. it was just a theory. it wasn't intended to be a specific recommendation for somebody to attack in order to prevent the undefinable 'terrorism.'

i think we should build our community, and demonstrate that anarchy is a happy and healthy world to live in, right now, in this lifetime, and in the future lives of our children. and we invite the sufferers to join us, always, while we also protect the rules and the culture of our community.