informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Analysis posted Jul 18 2010, 10:09 PM Category: Commentary Source: InformationLiberation Print

11 Reasons We'd be Better Off with No Government at All

Chris | InformationLiberation

No government at all? Outlandish, you say?! After you read these 11 reasons, you'll be the first calling for shutting the whole shebang down!

1. We'd have absolutely no taxes. That means everything across the board would be cheaper and everyone would have about twice as much money.

2. We'd have no foreign wars. The US spends $1 trillion dollars a year on our interventionist foreign policy. If we shut the whole government down, that's $1 trillion dollars a year going towards computers, housing, food, technology etc., instead of being spent on bombs to kill people.

3. We'd have no corporate welfare. That means no more banker bailouts, no more handouts to the health insurance companies and big pharma, and no more subsidies for connected special interests. That translates to lower prices and more competition. Health care costs would drastically fall and housing would finally be more affordable.

4. We'd have no more drug war. The miserable drug war would come to an end and we'd stop wasting trillions of dollars to keep drug prices high.

5. We'd have no more police. That means instead of the government running a billion dollar protection racket with people getting abused left and right, we could take the billions we give to the government and instead pay private bodyguards to police our streets as an actual service to consumers at a mere fraction of the cost. The police would not be abusive for the same reason a private bodyguard doesn't beat up the person they're supposed to protect, they're dependent on you for their paycheck. Also they wouldn't have to enforce ridiculous drug laws which account for the majority of supposed crime.

6. No TSA! Let the companies themselves decide how to protect their passengers. If people want to fly in a jail cell and go through naked body scanners, so be it. If there is a market for it, the airliners could make special flights with extra security. As for the rest of us, we'd like to keep our clothes on, thanks!

7. Everyone could get a job in private industry. With private industry finally being able to keep the entirety of their earnings, everyone across the board would have more money. All corporations, big and small, would have double their current income, that means they can hire more people and put people back to work. Even a politician with absolutely no skills could get a job!

8. No more Federal Reserve. That means no more fiat money, no more business cycle, and no more inflation. Private industry could coin the money and have full reserve banks. We could move towards a %100 gold backed currency globally and give people truly sound money. No more devaluation of our money through the printing press, and no more silent corporate welfare through inflation.

9. No more artificially induced bubbles. Without the fed inducing the business cycle people would be able to invest wisely and the market could adjust faster to changes in the economy. Companies would be forced to adapt to serve consumers instead of merely adapting to gaming the system to get corporate welfare.

10. No more entrenched elite. The government's illegitimate monopoly on force is the only thing with allows a tiny group to stay in power perpetually through gaming the system and profiting off government handouts and grants of monopoly privilege. End the government, and you destroy their tool of conquest.

11. Freedom. What more is there to say? Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others. People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives. Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent, remove the rules and restrictions and give people freedom and you'll see a complete societal turn around, just read this!





Latest Commentary
- How Far Can the P2P Revolution Go?
- The Index Card of Allowable Opinion
- Should Government Have the Power to Quarantine?
- Obama Appointee Supports Individual Rights
- Let the Market Contain Ebola
- The State as a Royal Scam
- Glenn Greenwald TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters
- "Crush the Seed of Ishmael": A "Final Solution" to the "Muslim Problem"









Comments 41 - 60 of 92 Add Comment < Page of 5 >
prolibertarian

Posted: Jul 22 2010, 4:40 PM

Link
131156 To those that believe in more govt and more taxes:
You know what the great thing about America is still? That you are free to leave without anyone stopping you to go to those wonderful places in Europe or Canada that you speak of. Noone is stopping you nor do we want to stop you because we believe in freedom of choice. I wish there was a democratic republic that i could move to but there just isnt, as most places are socialistic, communistic, or dictatorial, or 2 of the three. I dont for the life of me understand why the people that want so much govt in their lives dont move to the places they believe will take care of them.

As far as the 11 reasons, they are great and all but not really realistic. Unfortunately with such a large populace now and so many ways to hide its much easier to be a criminal. And there are many now that are so lazy they will work hard to not go to work and get an actual job. Even if stealing is probably harder than any job they would go out and get and offers no job stability they still will do it simply because they are stupid. I wish people would se no govt and just behave themselves and go out and work and make something of themselves but many believe we are the fools for working. Though personally since most of those end up in jail or dead i think my retirement plan as pathetic as it is, is much better than theirs.

I wish we could simply do away with govt but it is necessary, remember we sit on a great many very valuable natural resources and although there are many of us that ARE armed there are many that are not. An invasion by China, Russia, Iran, is not out of the realm of possibility at all if we didnt have a govt or military of some sort, particularly the size and strength of our military. If we had no govt a Red Dawn scenario would not be far behind. Then we would have an even worse govt than we have now if you can even fathom that.

Again its a nice dream but unfortunately the only way it will work is if we nuke everyone else on the planet back to the stone age.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 22 2010, 6:27 PM

Link
7123 So... we're going back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when young children worked long days for pennies and drug companies could sell whatever poison they want, claiming it as a miracle cure?
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 23 2010, 2:32 PM

Link
128241 Fear - again dictating and propagating self-defeating and self-fulfilling attitudes- is the major obstacle here. Fear to be truly free, to start freedom from within is the barrier to overcome. Let go of fear!

Would you (or the people in your town as a group, for example) personally feel compelled to invade Guatemala for their natural resources? Plan a well-orchestrated and equipped invasion of Khazakhstan for their mineral wealth with your neighbors? Only states invade other states; if there is no state, there is nothing to invade...

To the question of drug companies making "poison"... how long do you think a drug company that knowingly markets a harmful drug (without the "approval and careful" review by the FDA, your statist drug safety valve...) would last? Would you buy their known poison or trust anything they would eventually try to market? Do you think other drug companies would see their demise and try not to follow their footsteps? The free market would take care of harmful, predatory, inefficient and dishonest companies, since the state would not be there to protect their monopolies with insiders, lobbyists, or corrupt state courts; they would not be able to influence "legislation" and "safety" from a statist monopoly point of view, which would make you safer, since the responsibility for your own safety would shift to you and your private, freely-chosen safety valves, which would compete for your business and do a much better job because of their long term self-interest.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 23 2010, 9:02 PM

Link
199247 Posted by 128241
Would you (or the people in your town as a group, for example) personally feel compelled to invade Guatemala for their natural resources? Plan a well-orchestrated and equipped invasion of Khazakhstan for their mineral wealth with your neighbors? Only states invade other states; if there is no state, there is nothing to invade...

To the question of drug companies making "poison"... how long do you think a drug company that knowingly markets a harmful drug (without the "approval and careful" review by the FDA, your statist drug safety valve...) would last? Would you buy their known poison or trust anything they would eventually try to market? Do you think other drug companies would see their demise and try not to follow their footsteps? The free market would take care of harmful, predatory, inefficient and dishonest companies, since the state would not be there to protect their monopolies with insiders, lobbyists, or corrupt state courts; they would not be able to influence "legislation" and "safety" from a statist monopoly point of view, which would make you safer, since the responsibility for your own safety would shift to you and your private, freely-chosen safety valves, which would compete for your business and do a much better job because of their long term self-interest.

Okay lets put it this way. Your right only states invade states. But imagine this a family or company needs oil as a resource in an anarchist "society". They could trade, or buy the other groups oil , or they could buy or manufacture weapons massacre the others and take it guaranteeing a permanent supply they could sell and use for their own needs. Who and what is their to stop them?

Secondly what is to stop a drug company from adding highly addictive substances to other wise beneficial drugs. In this society you support , their would be nothing to stop them not even the consumer, because the consumer population would become utterly enslaved .

Now once again I have to state, I believe in anarchy, our government and society is stagnant. It's time for change. But I don't believe that anarchy would be peaceful in any way.

I guess my final point is that in the end the strongest would rule in an anarchy, just like they do now, just more violent towards it's own people . I think the main reason people disagree with me on these things is that they have to high a regard for the rest of humanity. What I see here amongst the supporters of anarchy is truly a great ,not in numbers but in soul, part of humanity. You believe in the natural goodness of people because that's what you see in your selves. Unfortunately when you look at what has happened historically in situations where the government falls it's not your kind that come out on top it's the ones that want power. i mean really would you step up to lead against an oppressor? no? thought not. On the other hand the people that shouldn't have power, the ones that want it will step up.
If your against government because they have to much control and corruption. Open your eyes these things won't change just because the government is absolved they'll just change. and hopefully after all is said and done the next iteration of government will be a better one, probably not but hope is all we've got.
Anonymous blogger

Posted: Jul 25 2010, 1:26 AM

Link
207225 To 199247:

I feel sad for you. You say you believe in anarchy but choose - apparently against your own better intellectual judgement- to take sides with an entity that has no other intent than to exert a monopoly on violence (no matter who occupies its tentacles of power) over you and your children because of the fear that humanity can't take responsibility for their own actions and choose as individuals to be free. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of "sheeple".

Your self-fulfilling defeatism is depressing for those of us who would like to think the world coud be a better place, free of statist murder, corruption and conditioning of the masses to ultimately voluntarily accept their own eslavement.

As Aldous Huxley said, the population will actually be made to LOVE their servitude. Your post confirms his statement made in 1956.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 25 2010, 10:52 AM

Link
6813 one of the stupidest things i've read in a good while
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 12:24 AM

Link
199247 I'm sorry 207225 i seam to have mislead you in some way no were in my post did I say that I support the government, in fact I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.
And I have no fear that people can't take responsibility for their actions, many do. In anarchy the 'sheeple" as you so eloquently put it would be nothing but cannon fodder for people who could make their own choices, and understand the consequences of their actions. Which after a time would produce a stronger, more independent and hopefully saner general populace. In fact that's why I say that anarchy would likely be the stepping stone for a better social system (if you notice the tone of my post is a bit more optimistic, it's because I was a little depressed when I wrote my last one. sorry I really should know better). More intelligent and self responsible people = better society. Anarchist or otherwise

That actually brings me to another point. You say that company's and the like in an anarchist system would effectively be run by the intelligence and common sense of the consumer. Have you looked around recently those are 2 things in very short supply. At least as things currently stand.

I guess in summary all I'm trying to say is anarchy could be good, and the transition won't be easy. And that's the part I really worry about, if the cure kills as many as it saves is it really worth it, convince me otherwise, please do, I would genuinely appreciate it. Of course just because it's not all flowers and puppy's, doesn't mean we should give up perhaps we can find a way to make the change without people getting hurt.

And as an aside I'm getting really frustrated with this, because I'm really having difficulty placing my thoughts in an orderly manner and I don't think I'm quite getting the message i want across.

Oh and could someone could please tell me why I'm being accused of 'self-fulfilling defeatism" so often I'd appreciate it.
Anonymous blogger

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 12:54 AM

Link
207225 To 199247:

Glad you're feeling better. Your defeatism is improving.

Now, the right medicine for your questions and fears is information.
You could start right here:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31474

Then move on and explore this:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm

then go on to this:
http://c4ss.org/

and finally, absorbe some of this:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/

After this regimen, your self-defeatism wiil be cured.

Cheers!
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 1:52 AM

Link
199247 Interesting I just realized that the society in "The moon is a harsh mistress" By Robert A Heinlein.Is actually anarchist if I remember correctly, thier is one scene where a generally accepted "natural law" was violated by a tourist from earth and the group of people that took offense to his action instead of A. going to the state for arbitration (the state being none existent) B. simply shoving the perpetrator out an air lock . They choose a random "citizen" to be the arbitrator which provided the necessary third party to provide a fair and unbiased hearing. Honestly this thought never occurred to me. I've just assumed without a leadership of some kind, law would simply deteriorate. I usually pride my self at looking past the standard indoctrinations of our current society, but i still get the occasional kick in the pants that can shift my whole train of thinking. More update as I read
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 2:23 AM

Link
199247 okay well I do understand from were you arguing much better now. And indeed it does sound far more plausible and peaceful then I initially thought. And as I stated above, having a literary reference is proving to be significantly helpful in giving me a framework from which to view much of what has been said. And frankly i think you have a convert, surprisingly for me many of the views of the libertarian have actually proved to be very similar to my own personal beliefs. and the articles also pointed out some routes for dealing with things in my life i have become quite fed up with in a manner I had never considered. Namely monopolies, I live in Canada and I have spent most of my life in some pretty sparsely populated areas and in these areas I seam to find that monopolies rule weather they are government or not . and well lets just say I've got a bit to think on for a while.
KJ

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 6:29 AM

Link
6981 So instead of the government making the rules, the corporations would. I would rather have a government I had a say in (by and for the people) making laws I get to vote on than bowing to corporate industry. It's bad enough with the way the corporations game the system now. Take away government oversight and we'll be run by drug lords, robber barons, and profiteers.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 11:06 AM

Link
128241 Another must read so all these questions that keep popping up can be articulately answered is 'The Market of Liberty" by Linda & Morris Tannehill.

You can read it for free (or download the excellent audiobook)Here:
http://alexpeak.com/twr/tmfl/
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 11:45 AM

Link
168166 Groovy. this would work so nicely, especially since the profit motive has a long history of humanitarianism.

What a crock. Grow up.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2010, 3:18 PM

Link
199247 http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31474 read this before you judge, it actually does make allot of sense.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 29 2010, 6:34 AM

Link
7463 bwahahahahahaha




what an idiot.

Anonymous

Posted: Jul 30 2010, 11:23 PM

Link
199247 My how articulate and expressive you are. You only make yourself look like a fool by using one word rebuttals. Try to think once in a while .
Anonymous

Posted: Aug 01 2010, 5:14 PM

Link
99230 "I think the future will be an empathic civilization where it is not an utopia of sorts but a society based on human beings nature."

You don't think that human nature involves violence against it's fellow man, the ability to murder the innocent to acquire their property, or the genocide of entire populations because of racial and cultural differences...after all history is only rife with examples of the uglier side of human nature...oh and btw animals also kill each other and other species in competition for survival in a most natural way...

You can buy insurance against the life of your family and think that it provides some sort of security, but when your family is slaughtered the insurance company is the only one that benefits.
Anonymous

Posted: Aug 03 2010, 4:53 AM

Link
174101 the mortgage meltdown costs over $196trillion U.S./the 'right' hate 'illegals' but never do they speak of the banks, how is this...get the Mex off 'our' streets but DO NOT REGULATE THE BANKS. This is CORPORATE stance and ace backwards. the right hate new prez for everything yet say nothing of old prez' repeal of posse comitatus or habeas corpus, or P.U.H.C.A. or defunding satelite system that track storms, priceless.
and you speak of 'no government' daily; you speak of 'no people' when you speak of 'no government'. it is great way to atomize our collective. so, ok, Somalia..Mogadishu 2007 had approximately 7,000 murders. yes, thats right, approx 7,000! and it was because 'those N*****s are crazy' but try to look at the shock doctrine implemented..this was trigger, in fact. oh, and the overfishing done by european fisheries and the italian mafioso, camora, dumping toxic waste off the coast of Somalia for decades that led to those N*****s committing piracy in the gulf of aden.
I have to say first that there are thousands of whites who dont give a shit about color and simply are out to save the planet and they inform others to the point where it can cost them the ultimate sacrifice. But many of the 'other' whites are afraid to loose their 'whitehood', to be for the people regardless of color. Because they associate their 'whitehood' w/ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and unique privileges. Well, I hate to tell you, and dont say you were never told, that maintaining your 'whitehood' IS destroying this planet. WE can not have a 'whitehood' w/ out a dead planet. If you are successful in your fookedup venture we will have a planet of death, COMPLETELY!!!!!!! and the only way for you to prove anythng that you speak of is more death. So thanks all you 'crazys' out there who defend your death, sorry...'whitehood'. Thanks for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Anonymous

Posted: Aug 03 2010, 5:11 AM

Link
174101 ...let me show you a few good people who happen to be white
http://www.plunderthecrimeofourtime.com/ they are not talking about 'getting the fooking mex out', which, them being here is the endproduct of a predatory banking system, THATS RIGHT! thus they are not afraid to take a stand and I am w/ them because I'd rather die on a living planet rather than try living on a dead one as so many of you 'whitehoods' are attempting to do.
oh and you hate the welfare state then fooking stop the banks...and other large CORPs. The CORPS is 97% of the so called welfare state while simultaneously preaching the 'survival of the fittest' mantra but you go after the everyday man who avoids homelessness, WOW!!! ACCORN got $53million U.S. over the past 14yrs and you wanted ot shut them out of the universe, banks got bailed out $196trillion in a matter of months and you want to deregulate for more of the same. maybe big joke for you, huh.
Anonymous

Posted: Aug 03 2010, 5:38 AM

Link
174101 and remember the previous att. gen. under bush, Mukasey, said of the mortgage crisis that he wasnt going to act because it was a local issue; $196trillion U.S. stolen, 'a local issue'. LOL
and i know your stance is, 'those people who signedup for the mortgages, they are to blame...' Criminal activity on the part of the banking ind as a whole precipitated anyone actually having that ability to get a mortgage in the first place, no?
PLUNDER IS GROUNDLESS
Comments 41 - 60 of 92 < Page of 5 >


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Sarcastic "God Bless You" Triggers Miami Cop To Go On Psychotic Tirade - 10/29Graphic Video Released in "Firing Squad" Style Police Killing of Mentally Ill Man - 10/29Cop Attempts to Tackle Topless Protester, Rams Head First Into Wall Instead - 10/29Fed Using Uber Service Points Gun at Driver's Head: "Do You Want To Live Or Die?" - 10/29Dramatic Video Shows Man Refusing to Lie Down For Police, Despite Guns Pointed at Him - 10/27Zombies Are Us: The Walking Dead in the American Police State - 10/29FBI Agents Cut Internet Access, Pose As Repairmen To Perform Warrantless Search - 10/30Court: No Relief For Man Falsely Accused Of Running Red Light - 10/29

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top