Categories
- Activism (12)
- Aside (31)
- Commentary (85)
- Entertainment (7)
Tags
agorism anarchism Campaign for Liberty coercion collectivism constitution electoral politics feature Federal Reserve Frederic Bastiat libertarianism liberty local Murray Rothbard national natural rights non-aggression principle rights Ron Paul taxes Texas Liberty Campaign the state video war YouTubeArchives
News and Views
- Agorism Wiki
- Anarchoblogs
- Anything Peaceful
- Arm Your Mind for Liberty
- Austro-Athenian Empire
- blog of bile
- Center for a Stateless Society
- Check Your Premises
- DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left
- Fr33 Agents
- Free Advice
- Free Keene
- FSK'S Guide to Reality
- Glenn Greenwald
- Infoshop
- LiberaLaw
- Liberty for All
- LibertyActivism
- No State
- Polycentric Order
- Pro Libertate
- Rad Geek
- Strike the Root
- The Advocates for Self Government
- The Voluntaryist
- Wendy McElroy



Follow me on Twitter
Read with me on reddit
Share with me on drop.io
Snap me on Flickr
Study with me on Scribd
View me on deviantArt
Watch me on YouTube
Admin
RSS Blog Feed
RSS Blog Feed (Via E-mail)
If I Could Make One Presidential Decision
If I could only make one presidential decision, for practical and moral reasons, I’d have to resign. It only makes sense.
I’d want to disband the military or abolish the CIA. Maybe the government entirely? That would be ideal.
But what effect would it have? If we had some round robin presidential selection system, the odds are that the next president would be some statist. Even if I did abolish the CIA with my only decision, the following president would just re-enact the agency.
You could argue that would leave one less statist presidential decision to inflict upon everyone. I thought about that too. But if I did some radical move like that while working within the system, it would lead to calls for more centralized command and control. It would leave people confused. In turn, they would look to expanding government power to prevent such occurrence in the future.
Any change I made would just be ignored if it did not meet with the intersubjective consensus of the government bureaucrats.
There will always be political opportunists flocking to the next thing, so electoral success will come. But it is a lagging indicator of political progress. Society is currently arranged (not to say in an preconceived way) based on fear of others, which is a projection of the lack of honor people have for themselves.
That is why the government is as large as it is. Government is never responsible for reducing violence. It is constantly aggravating or inducing conflict at home and abroad. And so it aggregates power to itself. (I’m using government as a metaphor to mean the actions individuals take as representatives of the State.)
The only way it seems I can reduce government would be to change the minds of individuals, one at a time. If I want to promote individualism, I have to use the methodology of individualism. If, however, I wanted to promote collectivism, then using the collectivized abstraction of government would be ideal. Not so for liberty lovers. Put another way, if I want to abolish the authority some claim over me, I cannot do that from an inherently authoritarian position as president. Are you listening, Ron Paul?
Originally posted at I, justino.
Possibly Related Posts
About justino
A Texas native, justino believes that if you wish to be free, you must allow others to be free as well.