Or Do Without It
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Democracy, advertised as the best available form of government, has at least three unadvertised imperfections. First, it enables democratic governments to claim legitimacy for their police powers by asserting that those powers are authorized by the people. Whether or not the powers are legitimate, it’s a fact that all governments, democratic or otherwise, exercise the same police powers, for the same reasons, and with the same results. Second, by voluntarily participating in a democracy, people submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the government. Since the participation is voluntary, the jurisdiction, no matter how oppressive it might become, is legitimate. Third, democracy inveigles people into the false belief that they have some kind of control over their government. Actually, the power to vote doesn’t provide any control at all over either the officials or the government.
Democracy also has an unadvertised limitation. That is, if a government is too large for all of its voters to get together in one place, all at the same time, and vote by a show of hands, so that every vote is known to be legitimate and every vote is known to have been counted, then that government is too large to be a successful democracy. In any such large government, the voting must be conducted in remote locations, and the elections must be administered by some kind of a bureaucracy. That will provide an irresistible opportunity for every possible kind of voter fraud, and give the government every possible excuse to surveil and control the voters. As a result, any such large government will eventually degenerate into a police state. The only way to avoid such an eventuality is for such a large government to be divided into as many smaller governments as it takes to make small, local elections feasible. Such small governments might form alliances or associations with one another, for one purpose or another, but the jurisdiction of each small government must always supercede the jurisdiction of any alliance of them. Otherwise, they’ll eventually consolidate into one large government, and become a police state.
The arguments against small governments fail when we consider that the consolidation, in the past, of small governments into large governments, for example, the consolidation of city states into nation states, hasn’t made things better. People are not happier, or more secure, with large governments than they were with small governments. Any improvement in our conditions that might have happened is attributable to technology, not to large governments. The police powers of large governments are just as oppressive as were the police powers of small governments. The world isn’t more peaceful now than it was then. The transition from small governments to large governments only enabled large conflicts. Small conflicts still occur, but I doubt that any two city states that ever existed could have perpetrated such an atrocity as World War II. It took large governments to do that. In most ways, large governments have made things worse, not better.
Most people believe that government is a necessary evil, and that democracy is the best available form of government. I suggest that such beliefs are based on false assumptions, misinformation, and missing information. Before we accept such beliefs, it might be useful to study my essays under the heading Essays About Liberty, Sovereignty, and the Doctrine of Social Contract, in Pharos. Those essays might provide a better understanding of government, and of some better ways that we might manage it, or even do without it.
Letters to the Editor
That story from that Arkansas prisoner in your Sept Frontiersman, I find no reason not to believe his story.
Arkansas, a red state, loves to deprive people of as much as they can. Politicians love to use such treatment in their ads as “tough on crime”!
I saw on the news one day that in California, students get free breakfast, free lunch, and students deemed “nutritionally deprived” get sent home with a bag dinner. I was amazed. I said to my cellie, “is that common”, he said “yeah, doesn’t every kid in the U.S.A. get free food?”
HA HA HA, I grew up as a child in Louisiana, Georgia, and rural Oregon. If you
Phoenix, AZ’s Maricopa County jail feeds worse than Arkansas. 7 days a week, you get a roll and an orange for breakfast, no lunch, and a dehydrated vegetable biscuit for dinner. Sheriff Joe Arpaio bragged that it cost more to feed a dog (K9 unit) daily than he spent on an inmate. He also put inmates in tents during the 125º summers.
My point, Republican run states love to degrade inmates as much as they can. It’s the governors’ and sheriffs’ “tough on crime” stance for campaign fodder.
Anyway be well.
—S. H., a prisoner
Additional four-food group: Donuts. They contain sugar, grease, white flour and salt.
Also, another cardiologists’ diet: “If it tastes good, spit it out.”
Your discussion of the pro-choice people and pro-life people [page 2, October issue] left out an important group of people: The unborn child. Or is it not a person?
When it is removed from its mother with a chemical abortion and is wiggling on the table, is it a person? Is deserving of medical care?
Another subject: Banned Books.
A banned book is a book that its existence is against the law. Child pornography books are banned. Mere possession will get you fined or imprisoned. Books or pamphlets advocating killing people are banned.
Is a school board removing a book from the tax paid school library banning a book? I think not. Do not taxpayers deserve control of how their tax dollars are spent? I hope so. I believe they are entitled to decide the course materials, the standards of instruction, and subject matter they are paying for.
They elect school boards to make these decisions and go to board meetings to tell them how they want their tax dollars used.
Should a taxpayer financed elementary school have Hustler magazine in its library? If a parent asks to remove it [is that] “banning” the magazine? Of course not. Are the taxpayers allowed to control how their tax dollars are spent? I hope so.
Is the word “nigger” allowed in government schools. In books or in the classroom? Should it be allowed? Is it a banned word? Would you use it in the Frontiersman? Should the USPS allow material using the word “nigger” in the government mail?
—B. G., Lee’s Summit, Missouri
Just because a thing is evil, that doesn’t mean that the thing should also be illegal. Legislative prohibitions based on somebody’s morality lead to such things as the witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, and so forth. The morality enforcers work the same everywhere, no matter what morality they’re enforcing. In 1978, I wrote, “Vice squads, narcotics squads, and other such groups are more dangerous than the activities that they pretend to control.” It seems obvious to me that objections to such publications as Hustler magazine aren’t any more valid than were the objections of the Catholic priests and the conquistadors to the Maya codices, or the objections of early Christians to the “pagan” content of the library in Alexandria.
Regarding Hustler magazine, or anyting else, in the schools, my editorial reply on page 2 of the October issue provided the answers to all such concerns. Notice that I didn’t advocate the abolition of the government schools. I advocated that attendance at those schools should be voluntary, that other schools should be openly available, and that parents should be able to determine which schools their kids attend, or if their kids will attend any school at all. I didn’t advocate either a prohibition or a requirement. I advocated choice. If parents don’t want their kids to see Hustler magazine, or anything else, in a school, then they won’t send their kids to that school.
Finally, are you suggesting that the Post Office should emulate the thought police, in Orwell’s 1984, and that it should check everybody’s mail, to make sure that nobody’s using any banned words?
Recently I participated in a casual libertarian discussion group. There were five or six guys, ranging in age from about twenty-five, to about seventy.
The topics being discussed were abortion and the war in Ukraine. All participants apparently subscribed to the official Libertarian Party position that the proper purpose of government is to protect lives and property.
All present supported a woman’s right to choose an abortion, so the talk moved to more abstract questions, such as:
How does a government decide who to protect? and How much protection should be offered?
One of the “old timers” stated that the parameters of protection should be based on
community consensus. It was quickly objected that in Alabama in 1860, there was no consensus to support protecting the rights of black slaves.
The talk’s focus shifted [to] the Ukraine war. Does a government have the right to forcefully protect people who are outside it’s geographic borders? Can it rightfully protect people who have not asked for help? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on these topics.
—Sir Donald the Elusive
The debate about women having a right to an abortion is off point. Neither women nor men have any rights at all. There are plenty of privileges, but no rights. An unexpected consequence is that, regardless of the ceaseless complaints of the feminists, men and women already have exactly, precisely, equal rights. Zero equals zero. See The Ravings of a Mad Man, in Pharos. More generally, the women aren’t seeking equal rights. They never have. They’re seeking special privileges. They always have.
The comments about the rights of black people in 1860 Alabama, or the rights of anybody else anywhere else, are also off point. We can’t have an understanding of rights until we agree on the definition and the nature of rights. My definition is presented in The Ravings of a Mad Man, previously mentioned. An analysis of things that are incorrectly called rights, but which are not rights, is available in Rights Galore, in the May 2010 issue of this newsletter.
The question of whether or not a government has a right to protect people beyond its borders is off point. The actual issue is the nature of the borders. I suggest my essay The Long and Winding Doctrine: Social Contract, in Pharos.
Regarding how a government decides who to protect, recall our overcreature theory, from the 1980s. According to that theory, a government is an independent, self-ruling entity that behaves in its own best interests. Thus, it protects people, or eliminates them, according to whichever behavior best serves its own interests. Any control over a government that its citizens appear to have is an illusion. Actually, they’re merely responding to self-generated, internal incentives within the entity. A slightly more complete presentation of the theory is included in Proliferation, in the April 2008 issue of this newsletter. Even if the theory isn’t valid, it remains a good predictive model. The results are the same, either way.
At the Blondes Anonymous Meeting
As Retold by Sam Aurelius Milam III
The blonde spent all week learning the capitols of every state. At her next BA meeting, she jumped up, waving her arms, and shouting, “I want to share! Me! Me! Let me share!”
The other blondes settled back, folded their arms, and waited.
The blonde made her way to the front, stood behind the little podium, and smiled.
“Hi! I’m Blondie!”
“I’ve learned the capitols of every state! Ask me any one! I know them all!”
One of the other blondes ventured a suggestion.
The blonde said, “That’s so easy! It’s T!”
The blondes were so impressed with her that they gave her an extra donut.
Limericks Written for a Poet Named Jeffrey
Sam Aurelius Milam III.
I wrote these limericks while I was living on Mecham’s farm, in Idaho. Jeffrey was a local resident and sometime poet who challenged me to prove that I could write a limerick.
Lord Jeffrey, a poet of note
Collected the poems that he wrote.
He read some out loud
and they baffled the crowd
Which gave Jeffrey a reason to gloat.
A worker told Jeffrey, I hear
That what he wrote wasn’t real clear.
So Jeffrey replied
That his poetry tried
To deliver a path to good cheer.
Whatever you think of a verse
Remember that things could get worse.
A poet can speak
With his tongue in his cheek
My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; Betty; Eric, of Stockton, California; and Sir Donald the Elusive.
Hillbilly Etiquette for Polite Society
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
• The dogs should be fed on the floor, not on the table, no matter how good their manners are.
• Overnight guests should never have to share a bed with more than one dog, unless it’s a cold night an’ the furnace ain’t workin’.
The Long and the Short of It
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
• The Pythagorean theorem: 24 words
• The Lord’s prayer: 66 words
• Archimedes’ Principle: 67 words
• The 10 Commandments: 179 words
• The Gettysburg address: 286 words
• The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
• U.S. government regulations on cabbage sales: 26,911 words
Some Principles of Business
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
• Any simple problem can be made unsolvable if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
• Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
• A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.
Availability — Assuming the availability of sufficient funds, subscriptions to this newsletter in print, copies of past issues in print, and copies of the website on CDs are available upon request. Funding for this newsletter is from sources over which I don't have any control, so it might become necessary for me to terminate these offers or to cancel one or more subscriptions at any time, without notice. All past issues are presently available for free download at the internet address shown below. Contributions are welcome.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving printed copies of this newsletter, then return your copy unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby given to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must apply to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I consider letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. You can use firstname.lastname@example.org for PayPal payments. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor