Government disclaimer

I'm required to give a disclaimer anytime I say things like 'the government is always your number one enemy.'

Individual employees of the government are human beings. Some of them are very good people. All members of government cannot be stereotyped together in a single group. All parts of the government are not the same. The government is an enormous institution with many different departments. Not all departments are directly responsible for, or even know about, activities done by other parts of the government.



Government in general, and some individual employees of government, can be described as wasteful, or ineffective, or incompetent. But other parts of government and other individuals might be more effective or more competent.

Harry Browne talks about this problem in 'Why Government Doesn't Work.' You can make a very general statement about the government not working, in spite of the fact that parts of it may have hardworking, competent people with good intentions.

I'd invite former government employees to work with me in a community, but I'd have to think about some kind of trustworthiness criteria. As the government gets larger, more and more people have no choice except to work for the government in small, petty, bureaucratic positions. They can't all be rejected merely because they once worked for the government. I'd have to think about what happens to people who worked in more important positions. If the government collapses there will be a need to reconcile with people formerly classified as 'the enemy' in general. If some group of people becomes more powerful financially or technologically than our existing government, I do NOT wish to see the old government 'punished' as a uniform group.

If there are real, visible signs that the government is actually collapsing, some people will betray it, abandon it, and join whatever group looks stronger. The stronger group might not be a good one. They may be worse than the previous government.

It would be nice if some people betrayed or turned away from a strong government even to join a weaker group of people. It would be nice if people joined an 'underdog' group even if they did not expect to get all the benefits they can get by working for the government. We would do our best to explain why one ideology is better than another one, why one way of life is better than another one, even if there is less money, less power, and less social status.

Revolutions bring more endless suffering if one group punishes another group, who then turns around and retaliates against them, over and over. Peaceful revolutions MUST reconcile and integrate former enemies somehow. I don't know how to do it.

Please note that until very, very recently, I actually called myself a libertarian and a minarchist, not an anarchist or agorist. Also, it was only relatively recently that I read the anti-federalist papers and started thinking seriously about totally shutting down the national government instead of trying to fix it. I used to believe that a national government was a required part of the 'system' and that it could not be shut down.



I have to give disclaimers like this because it's possible that some idiot will misinterpret my words to mean that it's okay to hurt government employees. I do not advocate hurting or killing individual people. Employees of government are people.

Instead, I advocate dismantling the system of government in a way that is peaceful, and I admit that I don't know the exact details of how this is to be done. I do not advocate violent revolution. I do not normally advocate destruction of property.

There might be exceptions to 'no destruction of property' but I would have to carefully think it through because it's something I don't have enough knowledge about - you would have to be very specific about what property was to be destroyed and why. For instance, if there were psychotronic satellites, I would probably advocate destroying them.

I'll say it again: I'm not the world's best independent thinker. I do best if I can refer to a trusted author who's already written about a subject thoroughly. I don't have many anarchist or agorist authors yet. Most of what I've read is on the internet, in essay form. So, right now I have many ideas that are inconsistent, vague, or uncertain.

There is a lot that I don't know about anarchism or agorism. I don't know a good plan for what to do and how to do it. I don't know how to peacefully undermine government and make it collapse. I don't know how to build strong communities afterwards. I don't know about common law or how to arbitrate disagreements and conflicts. I don't know the details of how people may use force against each other. My interpretation of agorism is a very vague, general idea, and the specifics could vary greatly. Different people could have drastically different visions of what constitutes agorism.

I'm giving my ideology a new name and not officially calling myself a libertarian anymore. Anarchism is so general and vague that my particular type of anarchism needs to be refined somehow. I might be calling myself an agorist, but this is not yet set in stone.

Reconciling with individual members of government is crucial for a peaceful revolution. I don't yet know how to trust, accept, or integrate former government employees into the community. There must be a way to decide who is accepted and who is rejected. There must be some useful work for people to do after long years of habitually working under the government mindset. Reconciliation is important and it will eventually have to be done. It must be part of the overall plan.

This issue comes up because some of the personas who talk to me claim to be government employees. Not all of them do. Some of them behave more like computers or random noises. They all have different personalities and come from different places. When I say 'government is the number one enemy,' the ones who claim to be government employees get anxious.

Anyway, that is the government disclaimer.