There is now a revived discussion of “national divorce” in America as apparently started by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I heard her on with Sean Hannity on the radio, and she seems to want to divide the country into “left” and “right,” even though there are a lot of people in the middle. And she says we would still be the “United States of America” with the federal government in Washington. So what she is suggesting just isn’t doable.
There are people who just want to live their lives, and want to live in peace and freedom, and want to be left alone. That is actually our basic right as human beings. The people who don’t want to leave the rest of us alone are the problem. They are the aggressors, the boundary-violators, the property trespassers, the coercers and intimidators, the thieves, the violence initiators and criminals. They are the ones who want to use the apparatus and police enforcement of government to force their will onto others and jail them for non-compliance.
We should just have a free society, a decentralized society. That would require, at the very least, getting rid of the federal government altogether. “But that would mean we would no longer be the United States of America, in other words no longer a country,” people would say.
Yes, that’s right. Greene and her cohorts on the “right” need to face the fact that the territory is just too big to be all one single country. It’s too big in area or square miles and it’s too big in population. This is one reason why it is becoming more and more divided.
Greene and fellow nationalists like Donald Trump seem to love and worship their treasured USA, which is really just a myth and not an entity of the real world. In the centralized “America,” what we really have is a self-serving centralized bureaucracy in which the elite few live off the labor of the masses. And that’s it.
I don’t know about “national divorce,” but we have a right to live in freedom. The first thing to do is get rid of the income tax.
As I wrote in my recent article, the income tax (or really any involuntary confiscation of wealth by bureaucrats) is involuntary, not based on a legitimate voluntary contract, and therefore is nothing but theft.
And the income tax is the main enabler of all the criminality in society right now, everything from the Biden crime family ties with Ukraine and the morons of CONgress sending billions to Ukraine, to the CDC/FDA/NIH/Pharma complex committing fraud/theft on a massive scale and injuring and killing people, and all points between.
Even many conservatives express their brainwashed mantra that “well the income tax is the price you have to pay,” and “you owe society something in return for its letting you live in freedom,” etc., etc.
Well no, we don’t owe society anything, that is, if we have an inherent right to live our lives, in freedom. Society as a whole isn’t giving us our freedom. There is no obligation to “pay back society.” If so, then we are owned by the society or community in which we live, and we don’t really have self-ownership.
The free society is based on self-ownership, private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, and the non-aggression principle.
But sadly even conservatives lapse into promoting a society of government ownership that violates those principles. Like the people on the “left” and the other nationalists, they are sufferers of “Stockholm Syndrome,” as Gary Barnett noted recently.
What we really have is a society of compulsory obedience to government diktats. For example, there are people who live in their community and they have their own education groups to teach the kids in the neighborhood reading and writing and math. But there are other people in that community who like the idea of a local government running the government schools and with a government school committee that determines the curriculum.
But the first group of people aren’t participating in that, and they aren’t going to pay the taxes that are demanded to fund the government schools. What happens to that first group of voluntary education advocates? The government-loving group will send the government police after the first group and arrest them for not forking over the loot, and arrest them for “truant” kids.
And on and on. There are many other examples. And speaking of government police, in a free society if you are worried about community security, there will be no restrictions on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, or their right to use them in self-defense. (Except for nuclear weapons which are indiscriminate, as Murray Rothbard pointed out here.)
Related to that subject, I wonder what today’s conservatives would pick if given the choice between a society with an armed government and a disarmed civilian population, or a society with a disarmed government and an armed civilian population. Hmmm.
But when it comes to MTG and other conservatives’ suggesting a “national divorce,” they probably won’t want to let go of this fantasized mythological “America,” from (government) border to border and coast to coast and sea to shining sea, and some sort of made-up collective ownership of the territory as a whole by the “citizens,” which doesn’t exist.
There is no such collective ownership. No one owns the territory. What we have here, or are supposed to have, is a society of many, many parcels of private property with many private owners of private property.
But with that fantasized collective ownership of the territory as a whole that many nationalists and conservatives seem to have, there is that anti-immigration sentiment, which goes against the principles of private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. They need to get over that, quite frankly. (I have addressed that here.)
Anyway, the “national divorce” that is needed to restore freedom in society is not a divorce between left and right, or liberal and conservative, but a divorce between the people and the government (by abolishing the government and having a voluntary society).
Scott Lazarowitz's Blog 