Sunday, May 05, 2013

Prefer government to the mob? Why?

Over and over again, when discussing a free society with statists, they object that without "government" there would be freelance mobs forming that would still steal from and attack the innocent, and that these mobs would be worse than government- which is supposedly restrained by the laws.  To me it is a very weak, and bizarre, justification.  It's grasping at straws.

I don't doubt that freelance thugs would arise.  There will ALWAYS be bad guys.  The freelancers might even be more openly brutal than the tax parasites that infest society now.  (Although, I am beginning to doubt that, after seeing how many people are killed mistakenly (?) by reavers and other Registered Liberty Offenders every week.  Dead is dead- what do the dead care who it was that murdered them?)

Even so, I would prefer the honesty of a mob to the lie of government.

Plus, if I shoot a mob goon who is threatening or robbing me, few people would pretend I had done wrong.  If I shoot a puppetician or an IRS mugger I can count on being tried, convicted, and executed by a brainwashed "majority", and probably in reality by the perforated government employee's gang.

Even if the dead freelance mobster's associates came after me, I could keep shooting them.  I could hire people to help me shoot them, or even invite people with a grudge against the mob to shoot with me.  They'd probably jump at the opportunity.  No one would pretend I didn't have the absolute right to do so.  Well, no one but the mobsters, themselves.

With government it is different due to the fact that even people who recognize how corrupt, evil, and broken the "system" is have been brainwashed into believing there is some sort of nebulous "legitimacy" in the theft and aggression committed by government goons.  So not only do you have to face The State's wrath if you justifiably kill some of its employees in self defense or defense of property (really, the same thing), but you have to face condemnation and betrayal by your neighbors who support the bad guys.

If the same sorts of people will always find some gang to join so that they can attack and steal, why not remove the veil of legitimacy and make them at least be open about what they really are? Since cops and criminals have virtually identical personality traits, why let any of them practice their craft openly?  Good people still outnumber the bad- we don't need them.  I don't need them.

Mob or government... why pretend a difference, beyond indoctrinated perception, exists?  Cast off your indoctrination and see things as they really are.




  1. I don't know if enlisting the aid of others to defend yourself, or to avenge a wrong done by a gang (whether they are government or independent) would in fact be any different than joining or forming anotehr gang to join the battle.
    If that is the real effect - then the opinion that it descends into gang warfare is correct.
    On the other hand, if the majority of people took an interest in this, sufficient to participate, you could have all gangs being defeated by a large group of people intent on keeping the peace and upholding freedom and right.
    Which is more likely? Is there another possibility?
    It seems to me that people tend to defer responsibilities - especially where there is danger - to others, even if, at first all of the people took part.
    After a while (after all the bad guys have been dealt with - or after it becomes apparent that this is a task that never ends) - they would elect a sheriff and some deputies to protect them.
    The corruption would start soon after that.
    maybe I just don't think people are up to it because so many of them fall for:
    - religion
    - government
    - banksters
    - insurance policies
    - etc.
    If we were accustomed to a different way of life, it might be more reasonable to think we/they could handle it.
    I'm sure you could handle it. I'm sure I could handle it. I have doubts about the majority of people because I think dishonesty and sloth have taken hold here.
    It's just my opinion - but I think it would require seaparation from the herd.
    I guess that makes me a secessionist :)

  2. Which is why I see reliance on The State as something that has been like a crutch that wasn't necessary in the beginning, but has made the person weak from leaning on it for so long.
    Is it nicer to keep lying to the person about the necessity of the crutch, or to encourage them to toss it aside and learn to walk tall again? Maybe just tell them about the crutch once, then leave them to their disease if they don't want to walk on their own.

  3. You are right. Let's drop the crutches - even if we have to crawl through the mud.

    It's better to crawl than to grovel.

  4. And so what if it did? We are robbed now of 7/8ths of everyone's productivity.

    Even one day of actual Liberty would be worthwhile, no matter how long it lasted.

    And what could possibly be worse than what you describe now, where it is "illegal" to defend one's self from the predations of the gang, just because they're the biggest gang and have declared it "illegal"?

  5. I concur with your frustration in trying to communicate with a Statist. They always complain about how there would be gangs of bad people without the State.....well excuse me but what world are they living in? In this world we have an authoritarian and meddling State (actually, hundreds of them) and STILL have gangs of freelance plain clothed bad guys in addition to the State thugs! This must be another example of the "two wrongs make a right" perversion of logic that they perpetually engage in. I agree that it would be much an improvement to have only to deal with thugs that were stripped of the social sanction of the herd.