the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111

absence of any claimed “authority,” the thugs decided to try to force their formercustomers to keep paying, the backlash from the people would be swift and severe, as noone would feel any “legal” obligation to allow themselves to be oppressed.A non-authoritarian protection system would also lack another particularly ludicrousaspect of nearly all “government” forms of “defense.” It is standard, not only for“governments” to force people to fund “defense” schemes, but to refuse to even tell thepeople what all they are funding. The U.S. “government,” and in particular the CIA(though many other agencies also engage in secret operations), has spent decades, andtrillions of dollars, much of which still remains unaccounted for, on operations its“customers”-the American people-are prohibited from knowing about. Indeed, anyonewho tried to tell the American people what all they are funding would be imprisoned-orworse-for causing a breach of “national security.” With nearly unlimited power, nearlyunlimited funds, and permission to do all of its deeds in secret, it is utterly absurd toimagine that the military and the CIA would only do useful, righteous things. Indeed,more and more, the American people are learning that the CIA has for decades engaged indrug-running and gun-running, torture, assassination, buying influence with foreigngovernments, installing puppet dictators, and all sorts of other destructive and evilpractices. Even President Harry Truman, who created the CIA, later stated that he neverwould have done so if he had known it would become the “American Gestapo.” Anyprivate company that offered protection or defense services would get no customers at allif its sales pitch was: “If you give us huge sums of money, we will protect you; we justwon’t tell you what you’re paying for, and we won’t tell you what we do or how we doit.” The only reason “government” gets funding based on such a ridiculous premise isbecause it gets its money through violent coercion, not voluntary trade. The people arenot given a choice of whether to fund it or not.There is another preposterous aspect of “protection” via “government” which wouldnever occur with private defense and protection providers. Under the guise of “guncontrol” and other weapons “laws,” authoritarian regimes often forcibly prevent thepeople from being able to defend themselves, while making the ridiculous claim that it isbeing done for the safety of the very people being disarmed. Those in power know fullwell that a disarmed public is a helpless public, and that is precisely what tyrants want.The idea that a person who does not mind violating “laws” against theft or murder isgoing to mind violating weapons “laws” is absurd. Crime statistics and common senseboth demonstrate that passing a “law” against private weapon ownership will effect onlythe “law-abiding,” with the result being that the basically good people will end up less