Volunteer Militias, the Police, Direct Democracy, and Anarchy Any solution which prevents governments from arising will also be the solution which was used to destroy governments in the first place. This solution must necessarily be something that can handle large-scale human trafficking rings, like the police. Indeed it must be able to overpower the police without having the ability to establish a new government. There is only one thing in history which has caused governments to experience premature death: the destruction of their law enforcement. So why has statelessness been so sporadic and temporary throughout history? Violence is an extremely valuable service to have on your side. And theres always been some rich guys willing to pay that price. Elections and welfare systems are instituted after-the-fact, as a form of PR management to try and prevent insurrection. We cannot outbid the robber barons for control over the police. We can, however, make it very dangerous to be a law enforcement officer. To make it dangerous is to make it more expensive to pay someone to run around kidnapping people. Less police officers will be hired and more will quit. At a certain point, the ratio becomes unsustainable. And, because governments are corporations, the government goes out of business. But anti-police insurrection also voices a strong social sentiment of rejection of the state. It creates a severe taboo: the taboo of being a police officer. In order to have a more sustainable insurrection and a more permanent statelessness than previous incidents in history, the means of smashing state must be reinforced. Previous successful insurrections only occurred when there were drastic state measures taken very quickly, such as the attempt of the Helvetic Republic to impose taxes on the Swiss, or the killing sprees against the Somali people, carried out under Siad Barre. However, once those states were abolished, new states were formed (albeit smaller and more numerous ones) that covered most of the territory previously claimed by federal state(s). Once conditions are comfortable, you see the tyranny but you dont care enough to fight it. Freedom fighters, if they are to have victory for long, must have the means of rapidly dissecting new governments. What destroys states is a volunteer phenomenon. Its self-defense. Its spontaneous community defense. So volunteer militias must establish themselves as the bedrock of our new society. But they must be permanent volunteer militias with people on call 24/7, and whos actions are decided on by direct democracy. The Swiss insurrection against the Helvetic Republic resulted in locally controlled direct democracies. These cantons managed to maintain a very free society in Switzerland for over 100 years. Direct democracy makes authoritarianism in politics impossible. So how could we get closer to anarchy than Switzerland got? If history is to judge, we would need to abolish our respective states with insurrectionary civilian militias that establish themselves as volunteers who take their orders by direct democracy. This creates the most cooperative non-hierarchical community security model that I can imagine. In this way, we will finally have real public servants. What is enforced is merely a consensus among the residents of given militias territory. Direct democracy applied directly to volunteer militias prevents another state from arising. What prevents these militias from ignoring the orders of their people? If they did so, they would instantly offend most of the people in their community (becoming new smaller targets for a new larger insurrectionary militia). Brutality against the public, on the part of a volunteer militia, would be suicide. Donations to these militias would naturally rise and fall based on the threat environment. The size of the militias would naturally grow and shrink based on threat environment. If a certain minority felt misrepresented by the volunteer militia in their territory, they could always form their own. The only people who volunteer militias wouldnt be available to are those who have such a minority opinion that they are viewed as crazy and hallucinating by everyone.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:44:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015