Subject: The Ultimate Argument against Statism
From: Veronica
Date: 23/3/14 8:20 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

It is said: “All are Equal under the Law”. Yes?

It is also said: “Society is civilised by the Rule of Law”. Yes?

Now … put those two things together, and we have: “Society is civilised by THE SAME Rules of Law”. Yes?

So … let’s look at these Rules (actually, just one of them will do … the argument is always the same):

Can you enforce someone else to pay you a chunk of what you earn? Each week, or each month? With the threat of doing “nasty things to you” … if you don’t co-operate?

No … you can’t. You KNOW that’s NOT one of the possible Rules.

But, that’s what “Governments” do. It’s called “Income Tax”.

So … we IMMEDIATELY have the situation whereby “There is one Rule for you … and a different one for them” … don’t we?

Consequently it is impossible to hold the statement: “Society is civilised by THE SAME Rules of Lawas, actually, true.

It CANNOT be true.

It can NEVER be true … while the BELIEF of Statism persists within your head.

So … if The Rules must be different … by definition … who is making them?

Oh … “The Government”! The “Statists”!

They make the Rules for YOU … and MUST MAKE a different set for THEMSELVES!

Now, if they are making a different set for themselves, what is to stop them providing the means to enable corruption? Answer: Nothing. Nothing at all.

Nothing to stop them.

They are, what is known as: “A Law unto themselves”.

And they MUST be … in order to actually BE “a Government”.

So, when you see evidence of utter corruption within Corporations & Government Agencies (etc.) … why are you upset? Why are you surprised? It almost goes without saying: THAT’S WHAT WILL HAPPEN!

It’s ‘normal’. Perfectly normal. It’s ‘natural’. It’s a natural consequence of TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES.

If one set – the set that applies to you – is a MORAL SET … and the set that applies to the Statists is a DIFFERENT SET … then THEIR SET must be IMMORAL.

If the Statists’ SET is IMMORAL … then it must be CORRUPT … BY DEFINITION.

Q.E.D.

While you continue to believe in, and support (by voting) Statism, you are giving oxygen to a SECOND CORRUPT SET of Rules which apply to THEM … and not to YOU.

And, if that’s the case, why should you be angry … upset  … when you discover (for example) paedophilia (but that’s just one example) is an endemic part of THEIR RULE SET?

If you were sane, you’d say: “Oh yes … that’s OK … My Rules – the ones I live by – don’t apply to THEM. So, if paedophilia is in THEIR RULE SET, that’s fine. No problem!

Of course, if you were INSANE … and completely IRRATIONAL … you COULD get very upset about “paedophilia in the highest echelons of Government” …  couldn’t you? But that would only be if you were IRRATIONAL … because, after all, you are perfectly happy to support THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT … and THE IDEA OF TWO RULE SETS … by VOTING.

By DOUBLE-THINKING.

Why, for example, should you be upset about the way women are dismissed when they claim to have been raped? After, THEIR RULE SET contains the Rule: “We don’t give a flying fuck about women being raped … largely because … from our point of view … they generally deserve it”.

And that’s one of THEIR RULES - that you supported - by Voting.

Of course, if you DO get upset by all these things … what is your remedy?

DON’T FUCKING VOTE FOR IT!

DON’T FUCKING VOTE … for TWO SETS OF RULES.

Stick ONE SET OF RULES, viz:

1.       You own yourself … and no-one else owns you i.e. you are Sovereign.

2.       You can do anything you like EXCEPT impinge upon the Sovereignty (Freedom) of another. Which means YOU NEVER –INITIATE – any form of force or violence … under any circumstances.

3.       BUT anyone, who’s Sovereignty/Freedom is impinged upon, has the innate right to SELF-DEFENCE … WHATEVER THAT TAKES. For example: You would be perfectly entitled to employ the “George Carlin” method of self defence, if someone was threatening you. You would be perfectly entitled to blow their head off. And – if turned out that “they didn’t really mean it” … too fucking bad.

That would be the Rule Set … and ALL would be EQUAL under it.

It’s called: ANARCHY … which is synonymous with Volutaryism, Freedom, and One Rule Set (i.e. The Common Law) for everyone.

You want to try to argue FOR Statism? ANY KIND of Statism? Oh ... good luck!

Vxxx