Protection: A contemplation

I write this article in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of protection from the State. Yes, this is a long article, so brew some coffee.

Protection?

People tend to feel content when there is a form of protection guarding them. Protection is the act of X being guarded against outside interference,Y, by means of B. B could be anything in particular. For example, X is a person and is walking down the street; he is confronted by Y who wants to physically harm him. X can use B as his/her form of protection, whether it be a gun, knife, or X's own body, all of that represents B. If a company had commercial property, in their best interest they would have B to guard them. B could be a wall, an alarm system, or even a security guard. All of these measures are to insure the survivability and productiveness of the property. The matter of protection insures the survivability for an individual as well. From antiquity the State has assumed the role of absolute protector over its own dominion. Let me explore my first reason why the State cannot be a rightful protector on economic grounds.

Factors of scarcity

Imagine if the State's aggression, wherever you live, were to be magnified that every facet of industry was completely subordinate. You only have 1 hamburger company, 1 car company, 1 bread company, 1 radio station, etc. Everyone would be in a cohesion of regimentation where the pursuit of goals are marginalized. No one could compete against the monopoly industry. Without this competition there is no assurance of quality and price. A business cannot calculate costs without competition from other businesses because in that scenario the consumers can properly show the level of demand for a given product. With that demand the business can adjust costs and prices. This is the norm in a market economy, when there is competition the prices will go down and the quality will go up.
The State is a monopoly on the use of force and protection. Although in the present age there are many private security companies, the State is overseer over all of them. I know this from personal experience because I am a security guard. The most I do is observe and report. I have no police powers. The State has assumed primary specialist in that field. For that reason, the State has no competition from anyone else from that region.If the notion of competition is universally viable, then the monopoly of the State is inefficient. The possibility of competing companies can bring about more efficiency and less cost. The companies would be subject to the demands of the consumer and for a protection company to assume a State-like role(i.e. murdering, stealing, destruction of a client/non-client property) then they would be subject to the scrutiny of the consumer and fault er like any business would. It doesn't have to be business companies to provide protection. Communities,churches, guilds, organizations of differing degrees can provide that needed service. As long as they're voluntary it is all perfectly fine.

The State as aggressor

The very nature of the State is aggression. Whatever power or wealth it accumulated, it came about through the initiation of violence. In the book, The State, Franz Oppenheimer details how the State was developed through conquest. The initiation of aggression is not grounds for legitimate protection. It is up to the property owner if he/she would like protection or not. If that person wants that protection, then he or she could be able to decide what type of protection they need. Considering that the State forced its will on the populace, it's hard to see how the State could rightfully protect a property owner. A private security company can be hired voluntarily, an alarm system company can be hired voluntarily but the State cannot be done away with voluntarily. It will not allow it. It yearns for power. Is that protection or is that slavery? If 4 men for example were to invade your property and then say you have to be under their "protection" is that really protection? Just think about it.

Helios

Dragging my body through the thicket
Covered in my blood I follow through
Joy of a closing abolition
I only need to touch the surface
Over the hill I see my end
My goal cries for domination
Personal conscience is deeply suppressed
Only my fortune lies in atonement
A light shineth over my complexion
The torch of the room giveth comfort
I peak towards the image
Meditation passes over my frame
Shouting indiscriminately in the smoke
Lungs filled with sweet intoxication
I walk about across the room
My soul friend envelopes me
The feminine spirit drains my agony
Whispers of love invigorate the senses
Laying on my spine
Blood dripping from my mouth
A descent of light poureth on me
But the torch is no more
I am enlightened

Heavenly Brush

I wrote this poem in the tradition of the Song of Solomon. Some may deem this offensive but I consider this no more offensive then the Canterbury Tales.

Embracing the depths of my fancy
A delight hath come about
Solemn humanity in my grasp
A wondrous warmth overcoming my sense
Pressing my complexion into her
Natural fluids intermingle in a crevice
Sounds of comfort command my attention
My nerves break into submission
*
My temple giveth sanctuary upon him
Oh wondrous might of my creation
My womb hath given pleasure
Twas my bosom that give nourishment
Suppleness embodies my spirit
His comprehension magnified to the heavens
Our spirits conjoin in transcendence
We fuse into one essence
Together as one

Eyes of Chaos

Of many good art sites, Mike Bohatch's Eyes of Chaos brings in a powerful aesthetic to the table. I could write incessantly on how great this site is but I prefer for you to make your own interpretation.

Sum of Substance

This is not about the song from Assuck. It is about an issue that has plagued cities in America and has plagued countries. The two countries really feeling the effects are Columbia and Afghanistan. What is the issue? It is the DRUG WAR. Also known as the "war on drugs". It varies depending which stooge is defending the policy.

In the news there was a meeting in Seville, Spain between top Nato military leaders on the talk of squashing the Opium trade in Afghanistan. One of the ways the pentagon will enact such a surge in the Drug War is by sending in William Wood, the overseer of the Drug War in Columbia, to Afghanistan. Well the news article deals further with the inadequacies and the detrimental effects that will be caused by this move, so I will not discuss that further. What I will discuss is my own perspective on the prohibition of contraband.

Well, first off, I live in California. Drugs flow through this State like water. I can easily, just as anyone can, find a local dealer that will provide me with an illegal substance such as marijuana, meth, or other Opiates. For cocaine I would have to venture 40 miles to Hollywood. There just isn't a big supply here. All these local dealers can be akin to other entrepreneurs or business man on the market. They provide a substance that is in demand. But with the advent of the Drug War, it is has skewed how markets would work without the force of law weighing heavily on the drug business.

The sale of drugs in a territory where it is prohibited creates what is known as a "black market". In a black market, the sale of any illegal contraband (contraband can be anything, it doesn't have to necessarily be drugs) will be prone to high prices and battles between the people willing enough to sell these products. Given that there is no protection under law for the sale of contraband, there will be violent action between the various drug cartels. There is no complete code of ethics and with the State collapsing on the market, there is no way to really create various contractual agreements. Wal-mart and Target do not engage in violent interaction, reason being is because the commodities they sell are not illegal, they will lose monetary resources through incessant fighting, and they follow the law of the State. Of course the State doesn't have legitimate law in the first place but with out the State there will arise codes of ethics between businesses just because of the necessity in the market. That I will discuss in the near future.

The moral case against drug use is that everyone is a private property owner. Even if you rent an apartment, your body is still your own private property. Whatever you put in your body, no matter how vile it is, is your own business and no one Else's unless you allow people into your life. The State acts like a nanny and tries to control the way people use there bodies. What shrewed arrogance we are facing! Do not let the State tell you what to do with your life in how you control your own body. Nature doesn't recognize that blatant authority. Now I will diverge and say If a drug user was in another's house and that house owner doesn't want there to be drugs then the drug user has to follow those dictates or leave. Since the government can't legitimately own property, then territorial dictation doesn't work.

For more information here is two outstanding links:
www.attackthesystem.com
www.adventuresinlegalland.com

Music of the Spirit

Instead of talking about an album specifically, I would like to speak about the band as a whole:Godflesh. I have thus far have only Streetcleaner and hope to get more albums very soon. The music of Godflesh is like an energetic spiral into the nether reaches. It encompasses the whole, and unites the three essences: mind, body, spirit. I've begun to listen to Godflesh since last week. It has been one of the few pieces of music Ive listened to at all this past week. It is that intense. So please, when you can, find Godflesh.Thank you.

Worst Arguments for the State

Many arguments have been aggrandized for the State. The range and depth of these arguments are a testament to the incoherency of man. Some of these arguments are sophisticated and require further dissection. Some are very lucid and can be countered expediently. However, there are two arguments that are frequented that are so atrocious, one must think there is an increasing intellectual incoherency. Presenting: "If you do not like this country/government then leave" and "This country has more freedoms then any other country, so quit complaining". The approach is not exactly the same with different people but the message is generally the same. It is time to obliterate these fallacies.

Argument #1: If you do not like this country/government then get out.

In this context I use government and country interchangeably because contemporary thought has blurred the distinctions. A government is a group of men exploiting the producers of a given territory; a country is that exploited territory.

For this government to have any validity, there has to be absolute property rights by the government. In order for there to be ownership of a given territory it has to follow 3 criteria: A) Take unused resources and manipulate it by your form so as to extend your presence in the material, B) Have it given to you by a property owner that followed the path of A, or C) If the property was clearly abandoned and there is no arise of any claims. With C though it is a little tricky and there still has to be a demonstration of A. With these protocols, does the State have this criteria for ownership?

None at all. The State, by it's own existence, exploits the wealth of the producers. Whatever monetary resources that was used by the US State in the past to purchase land from other Nation-states, those resources were stolen from the producers. Also in the existence of the State there has been the forceful removal of indigenous people from their private territories. In the context of the present, the argument of exile can only work on legitimate property.

In one example, let us say Ted was invited to John's company party. There are certain rules that the company enforces at all times regardless of how absurd it may be. Ted decided to show up to the party, for whatever reason, wearing a rival company's shirt. At the inception of the arrival a security guard approaches Ted and gives him 2 options: Wear a different shirt or simply leave the premises. The property of that company is legitimate because they followed the economic means to acquiring property. So the rules have the proper authority from the owners themselves. Since the State has never acquired property through these means then they have no authority or property claims in any nation. If someone does not want to be part of the government's domain, that person doesn't have to leave, the government has to.

Argument 2: This country has more freedoms then any other country,
so quit complaining.

This statement attempts to picture the world we live in as perpetual darkness and the Nation State(could be in any country) is a beacon of light. A world ruled by governments could be analogous to perpetual darkness. But as with every color, there too is differing degrees of lightness or darkness with that color. Not every State takes the same approach. Some are very totalitarian while others can be lax on the restrictions. Even though there are varying degrees of exploitation, it is still exploitation none the less and should be done away with.

Two men (another example) are captured by the Syndicate (hypothetical rebel group) and are subsequently tortured for perceived information. One is put in room A and the other in room B. In room A the man is being tortured by the use of slaps and punches. In room B the man is being tortured through the use of whips and wooden poles. Now let it be clear that the man in room B has sustained far greater injuries. One can say that person in room A shouldn't complain because he did not receive the greater punishment that was given in room B. How absurd to formulate such a view! Even though room A did not have the same amount of torture that was given in room B, there shouldn't have been torture in the first place. Two men were wrongfully accused, kidnapped, then tortured against their will. This is the tragedy of the story, this is the tragedy of our times. Coercion/exploitation is not seen one in the same for some reason.

I hope to have shown the ridiculousness of these arguments that are so loudly exclaimed. If you can, use these counter-arguments to whoever Statist you meet.

Heaven is Crimson

In my search for some inspirational photography, I picked a name out of a list that seemed peculiar: Red Heaven Studios. Well I do not know much about its goals but the vision is out in the open. A vision of wonder and articulating glimmer. Its pure photography. Highlighting some of the most random or obscure images in life. Pictures of people, pictures of surroundings, it is all here. Now the number of the pics is a bit lacking but it is all made up by the seemingless wonder into the photos. Without further ado, here is the site www.redheavenstudio.com

Cultural Autonomy: A prospect at the future

Well as I was scurrying through the news for an interesting story, I came across a recent outlook in regards to Kosovo. Now if anybody knows about Kosovo there is always association of blood and violence. Well I will agree with that notion. Unfortunately the Western media has at times demonized the Serbians and made the Albanians/Bosnians seem heroic. That is not all fact, both sides have committed conflict and strife. To really look into the reality of the situation one has to know the history of the region. A history rife with past glories, tragic endings, and tension thick enough to be cut with a knife.

The Serbians in the northern enclave and the Albanians in the southern enclave are already talking of separation from one another. The Albanians want all of Kosovo given the majority in the region. Serbia as to would like to recover Kosovo. In the middle ages Kosovo was the cradle of Serbian civilization at the height of its glory. When the Ottomans invaded and won the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and subsequently took over, it in effect wiped away the Serbian civilization until the independence was regained in 1878. Also there was the effect of unifying all the different cultures together and creating a future instability. After the Bosnian War and the 1999 Kosovo crisis, in which thousands of Albanians were driven out by the Serbs, there have been differentiating views on how to achieve a peace.

Now given that the Serbians dominate Northern Kosovo and the Albanians have control of the other 90 percent, it seems the best solution right now is to allow both territories to break away and go there different directions. In a world full of anguish, territorial disputes, and much conflict, succession seems like the most plausible goal into resolving disputes. In my consideration it is the natural way.

In a hypothetical situation, there is a community of 200 private property owners living conjointly and decide to form a collective will, so to speak. Now over a year some property owners would like to break away from the majority and live by there own rules and regulations. Now given there can be quite a bit of decisiveness and tension, in the end the secession of those individuals is permitting and should go through despite any other views. There is no mystical concept against secession of any sort, in the end it can solve some disputes, and maybe aggravate a few but it is the only way in the end to settle legitimate claims. If the people are forced together under the same banner despite differentiating opinions then it is a recipe for disaster. We can even look to America in the past when Lincoln mercilessly crushed all claims to secession in the Civil War. Now of course there is still a matter at hand of past ownership of certain territories as in the case with the Serbians feeling that Kosovo is essentially Serbian. Not saying that claim is invalid but in the present situation, given that many lines have been blurred through past Ottoman domination, the territory occupied predominantly by the Serbs should go to the Serbs and the rest should go to the Albanians. Whatever disputes albeit religious, ideological, or materialistic should be handled between the Serbs and the Albanians. Even though its not as clear cut a situation as it could be, it is the most fluid one at the moment. That goes for any other nationalist, secessionist, ideological, religious, or any other kind of territorial disputes.