DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20636--------------------------------------------------
Κάτω η Πολιτ&#
953;κή, Κάτω το Κ&#
961;άτος!
By: Pinochet88 Date: February 7, 2016, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new
roman]Πολιτική
σημαίνει
διαχείριση
του Κράτους,
δηλαδή
διαχείριση
της βίαιης
αναδιανομή`
2;,
η οποία
απάδει των
ηθών κάθε
γνήσια
πολιτισμέν_
1;ς
κοινωνίας. Η
πολιτική
πρέπει να
απορριφθεί
από τη ζωή
μας διότι
εδράζεται
στη βία και
τον
καταναγκασ_
6;ό.
Μια
Ελευθερη
Καπιταλιστ_
3;κή
Κοινωνία
δεν μπορεί
να έχει
πολιτικούς,
γιατί δεν
μπορεί να
έχει
κλέφτες,
παράσιτα,
καταστροφε^
3;ς
του μόχθου
των
παραγωγών.
Στο
παρακάτω
άρθρο, ο
κληρονόμος
της
ιδεολογική`
2;
παρακαταθή_
4;ης
του Μάρεϋ
Ρόθμπαρντ,
Λιου
Ρόκγουελ,
αναλύει τις
αποτρόπαιε`
2;
αρχές και
αξίες της
πολιτικής
και
κατατείνει
στο
συμπέρασμα
ότι η ελπίδα
για την
απελεύθερω`
3;η
του
ανθρώπου
από τα δεσμά
του Κράτους
δεν μπορεί
παρά να
ερείδεται
σε μια
αντιπολιτι_
4;ή
επανάσταση,
η οποία θα
αποκαθηλώσ^
9;ι
από τις
συνειδήσει`
2;
του κόσμου
την
παρασιτική
νοοτροπία
της
πολιτικής
σκέψης και
την
παθητική
αποδοχή της
βίαιης
κρατικής
εκμετάλλευ`
3;ης
ανθρώπου
από άνθρωπο.
[/font]
[hr]
[center]
The Truth About Politics
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.[/center]
[font=times new roman]The very first votes of the 2016
presidential election season were cast this week in the Iowa
caucuses. This is supposed to fill us with happy thoughts about
self-government, civic virtue, rational deliberation, and about
politics as the way the people’s will is put into effect.
But to the contrary, we should spurn what the establishment
would have us celebrate. Politics operates according to
principles that would horrify us if we observed them in our
private lives, and that would get us arrested if we tried to
live by them. The state can steal and call it taxation, kidnap
and call it conscription, kill and call it war.
And yet we are taught to fear capitalism, of all things.
But what, after all, are capitalism and the free market? They
are nothing more than the sum total of voluntary exchanges in
society.
When we engage in a voluntary exchange — when I buy apples for
$5, or when you hire someone for $25 per hour — both sides are
better off than they would have been in the absence of the
exchange.
We can’t say the same for our interactions with the state, since
we pay the state under threat of violence. The state sure winds
up better off, though. That’s for sure.
Business firms that increase their profits thanks to some new
innovation cannot rest on their laurels. Other firms will adopt
the innovation themselves, and those abnormally high profits
will dissipate. The original firm must continue to press
forward, striving to devise still newer ways to please their
fellow men.
The state operates under no such conditions. It can remain as
backward as it likes. Other firms are typically prohibited from
competing with it.
The state’s priorities arbitrarily override your own. Ethanol
“is important for the farmers,” one candidate says. So because
the state has decided some interest group’s foolish and
economically nonsensical pet project is “important,” what you
yourself would have preferred to do with your money is simply
set aside and ignored, and you are forced to subsidize what the
state seeks to privilege.
Our schools and media portray corporations as sinister, and
government as benign. But who wouldn’t rather take a sales call
from Norwegian Cruise Line than an audit demand from the
Internal Revenue Service?
Or imagine if a corporation fabricated a web of untruths, used
them as a pretext to launch a violent attack on a people that
had never caused Americans any harm, and brought about as many
as a million deaths and millions more internal and external
refugees. That corporation would be broken up and never heard
from again. It would be denounced ceaselessly until the end of
time.
Now all those things did happen, but they were carried out by
the state. And as we all know, there have been no repercussions
for anyone. No one has been punished. In fact, the perpetrators
earn six-figure speaking fees. The whole thing is shrugged off
as at worst an honest mistake. Some people are still outraged
about it, but even they seem to take for granted that there’s
really nothing that can be done about behavior like this on the
part of the American regime.
Imagine there were a corporation that was somehow so entrenched
that despite being responsible for a staggering death toll, it
evaded all responsibility and simply carried on as before. The
outrage would be deafening and overwhelming.
But so relentless has been the propaganda, ever since all of us
were children, about the state’s benign nature that many people
simply cannot bring themselves to think as badly about the state
as they have been taught to think about corporations — even
though the crimes of the state put to shame all the misdeeds of
all existing corporations put together. Meanwhile, opponents of
the state are routinely portrayed as incorrigible misanthropes,
when in fact, in light of the state’s true nature, we are
mankind’s greatest advocates.
The market brings people together. People of divergent and
sometimes antagonistic racial, religious, and philosophical
backgrounds are happy to trade with one another. Beyond that,
the international division of labor as it exists today is the
greatest and most extraordinary example of human cooperation in
the history of the world. Countless firms produce countless
intermediate goods that eventually combine to become finished
consumer products. And the entire structure of production, in
all its complexity, is aimed at satisfying consumer preferences
as effectively as possible.
The state, on the other hand, pits us against each other. If one
of us wins a state favor, it comes at the expense of everyone
else. For one group to be benefited, another must first be
expropriated. At one time or another the state has pitted the
old against the young, blacks against whites, the poor against
the rich, the industrialists against agriculture, women against
men.
Meanwhile, all the anti-social effort devoted to extracting
favors from the state is effort that is not available to produce
goods and services and increase the general prosperity.
The market is about anticipating the needs of our fellow men and
exerting ourselves to meet those needs in the most
cost-effective manner — in other words, by wasting the fewest
possible resources, and making what we offer as affordable as we
can for those we serve.
Ah, but we need the state, virtually everyone tells us. Whether
it’s “monopoly,” or drugs, the bad guys overseas, or the scores
of other bogeymen the state uses to justify itself, we’re
constantly being reminded of why the state is supposed to be
indispensable. To be sure, these and other rationales for the
state sound plausible enough, which is why the state and its
apologists use them. But the first halting steps toward
intellectual liberation come when someone considers the
possibility that the truth about these things might be different
from what he hears on TV, or learned in school.
The small minority of people who administer the state with funds
expropriated by the productive private sector need to justify
this situation, lest the public become restless or entertain
subversive ideas about the real relationship between the state
and themselves. And this is where the state’s various platitudes
about the people governing themselves, or taxation being
voluntary, or government employees being the servants of the
people, enter the picture.
Think for a moment just about this last claim: that government
employees are our servants. These people staff an institution
that decides how much of our income and wealth to expropriate in
order to fund itself. They will imprison us if we do not pay.
And we are to believe that these people are our servants?
For those not gullible enough to fall for such a transparent
canard, the rationales become mildly more sophisticated. All
right, all right, the state may say, it’s not quite right to say
that the people govern themselves. But, they hasten to add, we
can offer the next best thing: the people will be represented by
individuals chosen from among them.
As Gerard Casey has argued, though, the idea of political
representation is not meaningful. When an agent represents a
business owner in a negotiation, he ensures that the owner's
interests are pursued. If the owner’s interests are defended
only weakly, ignored, or downright defied, the owner chooses
different representation.
None of this bears any resemblance to political representation.
Here, a so-called representative is chosen by some people but
actively opposed by others. Yet he is said to “represent” all of
them. But how can this be, when he can’t possibly know them all,
and even if he did, he’d discover they have mutually exclusive
views and priorities?
Even if we focus entirely on those people who did vote for the
representative, is their vote supposed to imply consent to his
every decision? Some of them may have voted for him not for his
positions or merits, but simply because he was less bad than the
alternative. Others may have chosen him for one or two of his
stances, but may be indifferent or hostile on everything else.
How can even these people — who actually voted for the
representative — seriously be said to be “represented” by him?
But the idea of political representation, while meaningless, is
not without its usefulness to the modern state. It helps to
conceal the brute fact that, despite all the talk about “popular
rule” and “governing ourselves,” even the “free societies” of
the West amount to some people ruling, and others being ruled.
When the results are announced this primary season amid cheers
and celebration, then, remember what it all represents: the
triumph of compulsion over cooperation, coercion over freedom,
and propaganda over truth. The civics textbooks may write with
breathless awe about the American political system, but this is
by far the worst thing about the US. Rather than celebrate the
anti-social world of politics, let us raise a glass to the
anti-politics of the free market, which has yielded more wealth
and prosperity through peace and cooperation than the state and
its politicians could with all the coercion in the world.
sauce
HTML http://bc.vc/jKy74V[/font]
*****************************************************