The Monopoly On Force

There are books and books of laws regulating how and when citizens are allowed to use force.  Usually it is only acceptable in defense of your life or to prevent immediate bodily harm.  What constitutes bodily harm and life?  Some would say that anything short of murdering you is not a threat to your life, others would say as long as they weren't going to murder you, or maim you, then it wasn't a threat to your life.

So what is your life?  Everybody's life is different, but everybody's life has at least one factor in common.  That factor is money.  If a thug mugs you in the street and takes all your money in your wallet, is he taking your life?  No, but he is taking part of your life and he is threatening your life.  How?  Well, you trade your time and skill for that money.  You use that money to buy food, pay for electricity, heat, and to pay your rent or mortgage.  Without that money, how are you going to eat, stay warm, sleep?  But it's only $20 you say.  It may have only been $20, but you worked for that $20, you used some of your life to earn that $20, and nobody has a right to that $20.  Nobody has a right to $1 of yours.

However, somebody thinks that they have a right to your $1, and to more.  That somebody is the government.  The government can legally steal your money through a process called taxation.  They tax us under penalty of wage garnishments, jail, and worse.  Simply put, they are legally forcing us to pay taxes.  I say legally forcing because somewhere along they way, they passed a law that said it's OK for them to tax us and to enforce it.  Now, I don't think all taxes are wrong.  OK, well, I think all taxes are wrong, but I do think we should have a flat tax.  Income tax, sales tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, and more are all infringing on individual rights.

The difference between legal and illegal is so simple it's frightening.  The only thing that separates the two is the government's word.  If the government decrees that it is legal to come take your firstborn son, then it's legal.  Everytime I make this example, the first thing people say is, "Isn't that a bit ridiculous?  I mean, that would never happen here."  When it comes to the government, nothing is ridiculous.

After hurricane Katrina, the police (government) went around to law-abiding citizens, pointed automatic rifles at them, and demanded they surrender their firearms.  They beat up an old lady who had an unloaded handgun.  What recourse do citizens have when armed officers arrive, wearing bullet-proof vests, and demand you surrender your property?  Unless you're prepared for that sort of combat, or prepared to die, there's not much recourse.  It doesn't matter if you're pro-gun or anti-gun, the fact is that these people paid money for these guns, making them the property of the individual citizens.  The police of New Orleans confiscated the property of law-abiding citizens.  It's no different than if the government decided to confiscate everybody's cigarettes, everybody's SUVs, everybody's anything.

Remember, with eminent domain, the government can legally confiscate your land for the 'public good.'  Since the government makes the laws and controls the police and army, they have a monopoly on force.  The government can literally get away with anything it wants.  All it has to do is make it legal first.  Just look at the state-wide smoking bans in effect, and those to come.  They're even trying to regulate what you do in your own home, in terms of smoking, and even eating.  The government has banned trans-fat in New York City.  What's next?  Who's next?  I'm not saying you should panic, I'm saying you should be aware.  It's hard to believe a government of the people, by the people and for the people would seek to infringe upon us in this manner, but they can, will, and have.  It is important to vote, and not just vote, but being aware of the issues, and the candidates.  Use your mind, it's the one thing they can never take.

© Nate Phillipps 2010

Faith Through Fear: Part 1

The government has instituted a policy, an unofficial policy, of faith through fear. This concept was lifted from the church, but probably works better for the government, because they are experts at exploiting it. How it works for the church, is that you have a supreme, all-knowing entity that has set down rules for your life.  The church then tells you that if you do not follow those rules, or if you do not love this higher power with your whole heart, you will be condemned to hell.  The government uses the same technique, except they base it in the real world.  If you don't trust the government to take care of you, you will be blown up by a terrorist.  The government bases it in reality, but very loosely.  The government’s goal is to wrap all of its citizens up in a blanket of “Public Safety.”


I use the term blanket, because the concept of public safety is as effective at saving your life as tossing a blanket over your head if a criminal breaks into your home, in hopes they won’t see you. Public safety is a concept for the naïve and uninformed. The only person you can rely on to keep you safe, to protect your life and property, is yourself.

The government wants you to believe that they will take care of you, because if you believe that, then they have control. Is it a coincidence that the H1N1 scare came as the government was struggling to pass a major health care reform, that would give the government unprecedented control over the health care industry?  Is it a coincidence that the regulations the government imposed on Wall Street caused a financial collapse?  If you think it was, look at what the government is doing now; trying to pass more regualtions and restrictions on Wall Street.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am merely using some exaggerated examples to show the importance of asking one question, is this for our own ‘good,’ or is this a faith through fear tactic?

The government wants to employ the use of full body imaging devices at airports. These devices have been proven to be ineffective in addition to the government lying about how long the images are stored.  These devices have the capability to save images, just like your computer.  Do they honestly expect us to believe that some security guard they're paying minimum wage won't save some of the images?  With such flawed technology, why would anyone want to institute this?  Their response is always, “Public safety.” Does the government and/or airlines have the right to invade our privacy in this manner? Or is this another faith through fear tactic?

It is not my intention to denounce one political party over another; simply, I am denouncing politicians, all politicians, everywhere. All the government should do is maintain a standing army, maintain a police force, and maintain a court system. The government should not do a single thing more that those three core functions. However, through fear, we are tricked and forced, to grant the government sanction.

© Nate Phillipps 2010