Episode Details

We were taught to believe in the statist version of "freedom" in governmental schools Government is seen as a protector and provider for "the people" If we're going to enact the principles of statism, why limit it? The illusion of an ominous external enemy perpetuates the notion of governmental military "protection" Without "freedom" rhetoric and propaganda to accompany their violence, those in government have no perceived legitimacy Jan Helfeld who is a Minarchist Objectivist Debates Larken Rose an Anarcho-Capitalist. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PFPMovementRadio/2009/09/06/The-Jan-Helfeld-Show http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_666179.mp3 Minarchism is simply a form of statism Fear of freedom seems to be what largely separates minarchists from market anarchists The credo of all statists: necessity validates the initiation of force The political ideal of those in power is to convince the slaves that they are "free" Comfort through compliance garners various "benefits," all while destroying untold, unseen possibilities "Make believe is fun and comforting, but I wouldn't suggest it as a political philosophy." B.V. The obedience training process has to incorporate rationalization in order to deny plain truths A superman view of militaristic government (that can beat up all the bullies) can never be limited The notion of a "final authority" with a legalized monopoly that prevents conflict among humans has its origins in corrupt parent/child and teacher/child relationships Even in the "elite" private schools, obedience to authority is the MO The central planning pedagogical ramblings of Alexander Inglis... "The propaedeutic function of secondary education" http://tinyurl.com/y9cfm8d John Gatto's take on Inglis: http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm A European example of the ideological/pedagogical aftermath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_France How much lack of self-trust does it take to want to dominate and control others? Why do people think that those in government are different than other people? If "people are stupid and dangerous," why on Earth should they be able to "govern" others? Dumbocracy, where the "will of the people" fills the void of "God" as "authority" Those in government feel that they deserve to rule over others (it's okay for them because they're special or "chosen") Government is a fundamentally different concept than the "roving gangs" postulated by minarchists "The law" is viewed an an authority that we must obey, and breaking "the law" is seen as one of the greatest moral/political sins Because government is seen as a "protector" and/or "provider," its false legitimacy must be countered through discourse and non-compliance The most cleverly conniving in society will always infiltrate the coercive institution called government If you advocate the violation of one person's rights, then you advocate violence against an entire society You can't just change the people who're staffing government; you have to get rid of the entire coercive system The beauty of the free market is that you only pay for what you get, and you only get what you pay for Wal-Mart and the corporate structure: http://completeliberty.com/chapter4.php#80 The "free rider" and "public goods" fallacies lead to further rationalizations for the initiation of force Minarchism's political contradictions and errors about human nature - http://www.logicallearning.net/libertylaissez-f.html You can't protect someone while not protecting them (i.e., while taxing them) "For your ow