PDA

View Full Version : The State is Doomed…and Other Reasons to be Optimistic




Lucille
12-14-2012, 05:33 PM
That's right. The non-voting, no confidence types are the ones with the mandate!

The State is Doomed…and Other Reasons to be Optimistic
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-state-is-doomed-and-other-reasons-to-be-optimistic/


The last few times I was invited here to speak, I talked about anarchy…the trend toward mass, geo-political decentralization, currency collapse, sovereign defaults…and the end of the global economic system as we know it.

For reasons unknown to me, people thought I was being pessimistic.

So today, I’m going to try something different. Something cheerier, peppier.

Therefore, the title of this presentation is:

“The State is Doomed…and Other Reasons to be Optimistic”

I’m fairly confident members of this audience have better things to do with their time than to follow tedious political cycles in the news. For those of you lucky enough to have escaped the circus, I’ll just let you know that there was an election in the US recently.
[...]
Now don’t worry if you didn’t catch the action. You didn’t miss anything. Both of these guys are pro war, pro Federal Reserve, pro bailouts, pro corporatism, pro currency debasement, pro IRS, pro Patriot Act, pro deficit spending, pro drones, pro NDAA, pro indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or due process…and plenty more besides.

They agreed, in other words, on basically all the major issues.

That means anti-liberty…anti-freedom…anti-individual…anti, in a word, You.

But…according to the system in place…one of them “had” to win.

As the terminally quotable Emma Goldman once quipped: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

Those following the election through the Daily Reckoning lens might have caught our own brand of commentary in the lead up to the election. I pulled this from a column I wrote titled, Obamney vs. Robama:


Gradually, the non-voter class is wizening up to the fact that the act of voting is more akin to kissing one or the other cheek on the same bloated derričre than exercising any quaint, propagandized notion of “civic duty.” After all, a buttock smooch will not change the chief function of that end of the political anatomy. Indeed, the soft seat of the body politick is built for expelling one thing and one thing only…as the candidates dutifully and effortlessly displayed.

Happily for us non-voters, we were once again the majority:

http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/12/DRUS12-14-12-4.png
[...]
All of which brings us to the last stage of what I’m going to call “Late, Degenerate Statism.”

The State is always, and has always, been an unworkable delusion. The great empires of history have all gone to ashes in service of precisely that point. Not one has survived the burden of its own aspirations. Each succumbs, in its own good time, to inexorable decay.

Often times, the final stages of Late, Degenerate Statism involve wanton acts of desperation, where broke and broken States try everything to hold onto and exercise brute power over those it affects to serve. We are talking here about capital controls, increased and burdensome regulation, censorship, surveillance, a tendency toward power centralization, consolidation of crony-corporate interests and, ultimately, police militarization or, The Police State.

Protesters, in addition to voters, need to be careful what they wish for…lest they get it, as the great H.L. Menken once said, “good and hard.

http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/12/DRUS12-14-12-8-300x195.jpg

Tracking this trend, a Center for Investigative Reporting study found that local and state police forces were the merry recipients of $34 billion in federal grants since September 11, 2001. What does all that money buy you? A whole lotta servin’ and protectin’…

Just look at this spiffy new Serve and Protect Vehicle, for instance, recently purchased by the Doraville Police Department in Georgia.

http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/12/DRUS12-14-12-9-300x197.png
“The Devil Went Down to Georgia…”

This regression is all part and parcel of, as I mentioned earlier, Late Stage, Degenerative Statism. What we’re seeing here is a graphic display of precisely what it is The State does and, more importantly, how it trends. That it is collapsing around us is cause not for lamentation, but for celebration.

In tomorrow’s issue, we’ll spend some time detailing a few ways in which the free market is developing creative workarounds to The State’s repressive and, thankfully, moribund existence.

BAllen
12-14-2012, 07:10 PM
A majority didn't vote. So what's your point? They don't care if you vote or not.

thequietkid10
12-14-2012, 07:50 PM
A majority didn't vote. So what's your point? They don't care if you vote or not.

Precisely they have the IRS and they have the guns and even those who didn't vote understand that much.

BAllen
12-14-2012, 11:06 PM
Precisely they have the IRS and they have the guns and even those who didn't vote understand that much.

The point I was making is that those who stayed home didn't make any difference. They thought someone would notice or care that they didn't vote. They could have made a difference but chose to let obama win.

FreeHampshire
12-14-2012, 11:16 PM
If the apathetic majority voted for the Libertarian Party then we would be all set, wouldn't we?

BAllen
12-14-2012, 11:25 PM
If the apathetic majority voted for the Libertarian Party then we would be all set, wouldn't we?

Didn't stand a chance. The only logical choice was Romney.

GunnyFreedom
12-14-2012, 11:48 PM
SMH - 'we hate Obama with a D, so the only logical choice is to vote for Obama with an R!'

That's exactly why 51% of America stayed home, and exactly why Obama won even thought he lost 10 million votes from 2008. As long as we continue to accept that as an option, then that's the only option we will ever get.

For ever.

Tod
12-15-2012, 12:03 AM
Didn't stand a chance. The only logical choice was Romney.

What is logical about a white Obama?

thoughtomator
12-15-2012, 03:59 AM
Didn't stand a chance. The only logical choice was Romney.

Romney was the least logical choice for any lover of liberty.

paulbot24
12-15-2012, 04:01 AM
What is logical about a white Obama?

You mean this doesn't look like a logical choice to you?

http://cocoperez.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/urban-outfitters-mitt-romney-2-legit-2-mitt-shirt.jpg

KrokHead
12-15-2012, 05:36 AM
A majority didn't vote. So what's your point? They don't care if you vote or not.

If they did vote it'd probably a run off between Snooki and Carly Rae Jepsen.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 10:34 AM
SMH - 'we hate Obama with a D, so the only logical choice is to vote for Obama with an R!'

That's exactly why 51% of America stayed home, and exactly why Obama won even thought he lost 10 million votes from 2008. As long as we continue to accept that as an option, then that's the only option we will ever get.

For ever.

That's the only option you will ever get, so by not voting they let obama win. It really is that simple. Some people don't understand logic. Rand is not his father, but I would still vote for him if he had the Republican nomination. I would vote for Ron Paul if he had the Republican nomination.

Origanalist
12-15-2012, 10:43 AM
That's the only option you will ever get, so by not voting they let obama win. It really is that simple. Some people don't understand logic. Rand is not his father, but I would still vote for him if he had the Republican nomination. I would vote for Ron Paul if he had the Republican nomination.

Nice, it sounds like you would vote for Joseph Stalin if he won the republican nomination.

GunnyFreedom
12-15-2012, 10:59 AM
That's the only option you will ever get, so by not voting they let obama win. It really is that simple. Some people don't understand logic. Rand is not his father, but I would still vote for him if he had the Republican nomination. I would vote for Ron Paul if he had the Republican nomination.

I understand logic just fine. Obama and Romney were identical except for melanin content. A Romney Presidency would have made Obama's policies acceptable to the Republican Party at large. Logically, that would be the worst thing that could have ever happened to the GOP.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 11:04 AM
I understand logic just fine. Obama and Romney were identical except for melanin content. A Romney Presidency would have made Obama's policies acceptable to the Republican Party at large. Logically, that would be the worst thing that could have ever happened to the GOP.

NOT true. Romney supported smaller government. He wanted to return more power to the states. He also wanted states to decide their own environmental policies. He would have increased drilling for more energy, which would put America back to work in a big way.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 11:05 AM
Nice, it sounds like you would vote for Joseph Stalin if he won the republican nomination.

That's what YOU did by not voting for Romney.

GunnyFreedom
12-15-2012, 11:09 AM
NOT true. Romney supported smaller government. He wanted to return more power to the states. He also wanted states to decide their own environmental policies. He would have increased drilling for more energy, which would put America back to work in a big way.

You obviously paid WAY to much attention to his rhetoric and WAY too little attention to his record. If you thought Romney was in any iota different than Obama, then you were fooling yourself. Romney lost because a majority of Americans didn't see any real difference either, and saw no compelling reason to come out and vote.

If the GOP keeps nominating socialist Democrats, then the GOP will keep losing. From now until the end of time. They will either learn that the only path to victory is to nominate a conservative, or the party will go extinct and make way for a party who WILL nominate a conservative.

Accepting socialist progressive Republicans is the only sure way to perpetuate the status quo.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 11:17 AM
You obviously paid WAY to much attention to his rhetoric and WAY too little attention to his record. If you thought Romney was in any iota different than Obama, then you were fooling yourself. Romney lost because a majority of Americans didn't see any real difference either, and saw no compelling reason to come out and vote.

If the GOP keeps nominating socialist Democrats, then the GOP will keep losing. From now until the end of time. They will either learn that the only path to victory is to nominate a conservative, or the party will go extinct and make way for a party who WILL nominate a conservative.

Accepting socialist progressive Republicans is the only sure way to perpetuate the status quo.

Well, we're obviously not going to agree on this. I believe Romney to be a man of good character and principles that would be good for our country. You do not. Enough said.
But, the fact remains Ron Paul never left the Republican Party, so he obviously believes in it. He could have easily gotten the Libertarian nomination, but chose to stay with Republicans.
There is no perfect candidate. Never has been, never will be. I understand your thinking now, I just don't agree with it. If the Republican Party fails, there's no guarantee another party will emerge. Do you not know that there are some countries with just one party? By not participating, you are encouraging that.

acptulsa
12-15-2012, 11:23 AM
That's the only option you will ever get, so by not voting they let obama win. It really is that simple. Some people don't understand logic.

You reject the notion that all of the apathetic supermajority could have said, 'What the hell, what have I got to lose?' gone off to vote Libertarian, and created a revolution. The option was clearly marked on their ballots, but you deny that it was an option. Yet despite the fact that both Obama and Romney are pro-war (in deed if not in word), both Obama and Romney are big government (in deed if not in word), both Obama and Romney are anti-civil liberty (in deed if not in word), and etc. you maintain that choosing one Obama over the other actually amounts to a substantive difference.

You're the one who needs a little study in logic, my man.


If the Republican Party fails, there's no guarantee another party will emerge. Do you not know that there are some countries with just one party? By not participating, you are encouraging that.

There is one party--the party of the status quo. It's like the NFL--there's an NFC and an AFC, sure, but they don't even differ in allowing or not allowing designated hitters. There is no difference at all.

If the Republican Party fails, people like you will become alarmed because you'll suddenly see that the powers that be have a monopoly; the pretense will no longer be there to feed your denial. That would be good for our chances of regaining our freedom, not bad.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo

How many times do you have to taste that lash before you grow up and stop bragging about voting for Kodos?

Zeeder
12-15-2012, 11:30 AM
That's what YOU did by not voting for Romney.

Seriously? Not voting for Romney........is voting for Stalin?

So who did I vote for, when I didn't vote for Obama? Or When I didn't vote for Clinton? Or when I didn't vote for Bush?

Here is how voting works. Your vote is your approval of that person and their policies. Not voting is dissaproval. It's simple.
Only a statist could warp language enough to turn "yes" into "no".

GunnyFreedom
12-15-2012, 11:36 AM
Well, we're obviously not going to agree on this. I believe Romney to be a man of good character and principles that would be good for our country. You do not. Enough said.
But, the fact remains Ron Paul never left the Republican Party, so he obviously believes in it. He could have easily gotten the Libertarian nomination, but chose to stay with Republicans.
There is no perfect candidate. Never has been, never will be. I understand your thinking now, I just don't agree with it. If the Republican Party fails, there's no guarantee another party will emerge. Do you not know that there are some countries with just one party? By not participating, you are encouraging that.

And I am not only a Republican, but a Republican holder of public office. It's not because Paul and I believe specifically in the GOP, but because the system is rigged to enable establishmentarian control such that every four years we have a choice between basically identical fascistic socialist tyrants.

I saw too much of Romney's tactics up close and personal out on the campaign trail to EVER buy that he has good character, any principles whatsoever, or would be good for the country. People of good character to not break people's bones, and do not allow their minions to break bones on their behalf in order to intimidate them away from the competition of ideas and say nothing.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate because there was only ever one perfect Man, and He would never run for public office. If He did, then it would by and large be Christians standing in the front of the line to crucify Him.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 11:43 AM
Seriously? Not voting for Romney........is voting for Stalin?

So who did I vote for, when I didn't vote for Obama? Or When I didn't vote for Clinton? Or when I didn't vote for Bush?

Here is how voting works. Your vote is your approval of that person and their policies. Not voting is dissaproval. It's simple.
Only a statist could warp language enough to turn "yes" into "no".

By not voting for Romney, you allowed obama to win. Understand?

Aeroneous
12-15-2012, 11:43 AM
If they did vote it'd probably a run off between Snooki and Carly Rae Jepsen.

Oh I can see the campaign slogans now.

"Vote me, maybe?"

...I can't come up with one for Snooki because I can honestly say I've never actually listened to a single word that mutated sack of human excrement has said.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 11:45 AM
And I am not only a Republican, but a Republican holder of public office. It's not because Paul and I believe specifically in the GOP, but because the system is rigged to enable establishmentarian control such that every four years we have a choice between basically identical fascistic socialist tyrants.

I saw too much of Romney's tactics up close and personal out on the campaign trail to EVER buy that he has good character, any principles whatsoever, or would be good for the country. People of good character to not break people's bones, and do not allow their minions to break bones on their behalf in order to intimidate them away from the competition of ideas and say nothing.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate because there was only ever one perfect Man, and He would never run for public office. If He did, then it would by and large be Christians standing in the front of the line to crucify Him.

Never heard of him breaking bones. But we sure know of the thug tactics of obama by having his cronies at the polling stations.

GunnyFreedom
12-15-2012, 11:56 AM
Never heard of him breaking bones. But we sure know of the thug tactics of obama by having his cronies at the polling stations.

Like I said, you paid too much attention to his rhetoric and not enough to his record. Obama's thuggery doesn't make Romney any less of a thug.

I was also a delegate to the RNC in Tampa, and saw Romney's thuggery there too. There were plenty of Paulers who would have given him a chance if he had behaved morally. He behaved immorally in the extreme, strong-arming delegations and cramming his will down our throats whether we wanted it or not. Even rigging the votes to cheat. The only person who lost that election for Romney, was Romney. And it was BECAUSE he lacked all character or any principle.

Zeeder
12-15-2012, 12:13 PM
By not voting for Romney, you allowed obama to win. Understand?

So when I didn't vote for Kerry........I allowed Bush to win? This is your logic?

I don't think you understand voting very well.

kcchiefs6465
12-15-2012, 12:45 PM
NOT true. Romney supported smaller government. He wanted to return more power to the states. He also wanted states to decide their own environmental policies. He would have increased drilling for more energy, which would put America back to work in a big way.
Ah yes, just as he would have protected right to choose, or was it end right to choose? And end Obamacare, or was it implement Obamacare? The man's word is only as good as the speech he is currently giving. No morals, no principles, and does not understand monetary policy, foreign policy, or Constitutional authority in the slightest. This is the man who said he would consult his lawyers before attacking Iran. His smug smirking face was enough for me to have reservations (it's as if he is constantly thinking how much smarter he is than everyone in the room) but then when you research his voting record... You can equate me not voting for him as voting for Obama all you want to and somehow justify that as logic, I'll stick to voting my conscience. Oh, and another thing, blame the GOP for Obama being in office.

Lucille
12-15-2012, 01:13 PM
I understand logic just fine. Obama and Romney were identical except for melanin content. A Romney Presidency would have made Obama's policies acceptable to the Republican Party at large. Logically, that would be the worst thing that could have ever happened to the GOP.

As the linked piece tried to explain:


I’m fairly confident members of this audience have better things to do with their time than to follow tedious political cycles in the news. For those of you lucky enough to have escaped the circus, I’ll just let you know that there was an election in the US recently. It was between this guy:

http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/12/DRUS12-14-12-1-300x225.jpg

And this guy:

http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/12/DRUS12-14-12-2-300x300.jpg

Now don’t worry if you didn’t catch the action. You didn’t miss anything. Both of these guys are pro war, pro Federal Reserve, pro bailouts, pro corporatism, pro currency debasement, pro IRS, pro Patriot Act, pro deficit spending, pro drones, pro NDAA, pro indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or due process…and plenty more besides.

They agreed, in other words, on basically all the major issues.


By not voting for Romney, you allowed obama to win. Understand?

It really depends on what state a person is in. My not voting for Romney didn't hurt him. He won all the electoral votes in AZ.

tangowhiskeykilo
12-15-2012, 02:17 PM
But, the fact remains Ron Paul never left the Republican Party, so he obviously believes in it. He could have easily gotten the Libertarian nomination, but chose to stay with Republicans.
Are you sure about this?? And this? Sure Paul believes in a party that ostracized him on a day to day basis and during elections. A party that has rejected the ideas of liberty and personal responsibility.

Keep living in your dream land and be a good cheerleader for your party.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 06:13 PM
Are you sure about this?? And this? Sure Paul believes in a party that ostracized him on a day to day basis and during elections. A party that has rejected the ideas of liberty and personal responsibility.

Keep living in your dream land and be a good cheerleader for your party.

It's Ron Paul's party, as well. FACT! He did not run as a Libertarian, so he obviously doesn't believe in them, does he?
Gotcha!

kcchiefs6465
12-15-2012, 07:14 PM
It's Ron Paul's party, as well. FACT! He did not run as a Libertarian, so he obviously doesn't believe in them, does he?
Gotcha!
The two party joke is why he did not run Libertarian. He has stated as much on numerous occasions. Who'd he endorse? Gotcha!

FreeHampshire
12-15-2012, 07:16 PM
Didn't stand a chance. The only logical choice was Romney.


The point being, if every apathetic person voted for a third party then we would have a third party. That defeats this whole "Do not vote" logic.

BAllen
12-15-2012, 07:23 PM
The two party joke is why he did not run Libertarian. He has stated as much on numerous occasions. Who'd he endorse? Gotcha!

No, he didn't want to be associated with the losertarians. His decision to stay in the GOP bears that out, doesn't it?
Slam dunk!

BAllen
12-15-2012, 07:26 PM
The point being, if every apathetic person voted for a third party then we would have a third party. That defeats this whole "Do not vote" logic.

That ain't gonna happen! Even RP won't support the losertarians.

kcchiefs6465
12-15-2012, 07:33 PM
No, he didn't want to be associated with the losertarians. His decision to stay in the GOP bears that out, doesn't it?
Slam dunk!
First, lmfao on 'slam dunk.' Gave me a much needed laugh. I have a list of reading materials should you want to shy away from the herders. Very informative and well documented/sourced. Many are available for free online. I don't want to discourage you from expanding your mind but your current mentality is the exact reason why we are in this situation. I'd urge you to look at some bi-partisan measures.. such as the military industrial complex, the suspension of civil liberties, the bombardment of various countries (dollar hegemony) sanctions etc. Also, no is the answer to your question.

kcchiefs6465
12-15-2012, 07:38 PM
That ain't gonna happen! Even RP won't support the losertarians.
Do you realize your beloved GOP party is dying? Most likely I will not vote for 'your' party again in 2016. And you know what, I hope they do. Keep nominating McCains and Romneys. It only makes me laugh that much harder at your arrogance, ignorance, and ridiculousness. I could not give a fuck about it. Quite honestly.

misterx
12-15-2012, 08:12 PM
SMH - 'we hate Obama with a D, so the only logical choice is to vote for Obama with an R!'

That's exactly why 51% of America stayed home, and exactly why Obama won even thought he lost 10 million votes from 2008. As long as we continue to accept that as an option, then that's the only option we will ever get.

For ever.

Uhh.. No. Half the country never votes. If every eligible person voted obama would have won every state in a landslide

BAllen
12-15-2012, 08:26 PM
Do you realize your beloved GOP party is dying? Most likely I will not vote for 'your' party again in 2016. And you know what, I hope they do. Keep nominating McCains and Romneys. It only makes me laugh that much harder at your arrogance, ignorance, and ridiculousness. I could not give a fuck about it. Quite honestly.

Wrong! The only chance we have is to restore the GOP to conservative principles. It takes work. You have to contact your reps regularly, to let them know you're staying on top of things. They have lobbyists in their ears regularly, so if you don't make your voice heard, who is going to have the most influence?

kcchiefs6465
12-15-2012, 10:10 PM
Wrong! The only chance we have is to restore the GOP to conservative principles.
And Romney was that guy?


It takes work. You have to contact your reps regularly, to let them know you're staying on top of things.
True. Up until the point they talk out the side of their mouth and so-called principled partisan sheep look the other way.

They have lobbyists in their ears regularly, so if you don't make your voice heard, who is going to have the most influence?
Even when/if I make my voice heard it is the lobbyist/big government conservatives and liberals that have the most influence. Here's a good place to start: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html. If and when you have a clear concise understanding and an agreement or disagreement with the literature accompanied by facts and supportive statements I will respond. Until then, I will wait until your trolling ass gets banned and your party rots in ashes.

BAllen
12-16-2012, 10:37 AM
And Romney was that guy?


True. Up until the point they talk out the side of their mouth and so-called principled partisan sheep look the other way.

Even when/if I make my voice heard it is the lobbyist/big government conservatives and liberals that have the most influence. Here's a good place to start: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html. If and when you have a clear concise understanding and an agreement or disagreement with the literature accompanied by facts and supportive statements I will respond. Until then, I will wait until your trolling ass gets banned and your party rots in ashes.

I am dealing with facts here.
1. Ron Paul is Republican, and has said he is the most conservative Republican.
2. He CHOSE to stay with Republicans when he could have become a Libertarian if he wished, and run on a third party ticket.

These are cold, hard facts! So, all of you who spout off about destroying the Republican Party so a third party will emerge are full of shit, and I'm calling you on it!!

acptulsa
12-16-2012, 11:00 AM
These are cold, hard facts! So, all of you who spout off about destroying the Republican Party so a third party will emerge are full of shit, and I'm calling you on it!!

And what happened when the Whig Party was destroyed? Do you really think the GOP has been with us since the beginning of time? The Whigs stopped doing what American conservatives wanted done, and it died. The GOP is no universal truth, no default position, no part of 'the natural order of things'. It is merely a party which arose when the conservative party in the U.S. went sour, and will last until it goes sour and something else comes along to replace it. That's all.

I just spent the last hour listening to Fox News promote gun control. Welcome to the liberal GOP. We will get it back on track, or we will board a new train. But some of us have enough sense not to sit around on a derailed coach reminiscing about how wonderful it was when that coach was worth a shit.

FreeHampshire
12-16-2012, 02:45 PM
I think the only answer is a State where taxation only exists to maintain a military and the government's duty mainly revolves around keeping immigrants out and enforcing tariffs. Unfortunately, the current nation-state of America will never be able to reduce itself to this size, as that would be a smaller State than the one formed in 1787. I think we need to scrap the whole system and start all over again.

VoluntaryAmerican
12-16-2012, 02:50 PM
The point I was making is that those who stayed home didn't make any difference. They thought someone would notice or care that they didn't vote. They could have made a difference but chose to let obama win.

Yeah, wrong.

I stayed home and didn't vote. I also live in a State that was going to Obama anyway.

But I donated to Ron Paul and voted for him in the primary, don't tell me that didn't make a difference.

The Republican party should care.. if they don't become more pro-liberty they're going to go extinct like the dinosaurs.

Lucille
12-19-2012, 02:04 PM
The State is Doomed…and Other Reasons to be Optimistic, Part II
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-state-is-doomed-and-other-reasons-to-be-optimistic-part-ii/#ixzz2FWujK4Bh


...At the first Rancho Santana Sessions conference, I urged people to give up on revolutions…be they Tea Party, Occupy or other. Give up on writing your congressman. Give up on pushing for change at the ballot box. Many a good and noble individual went to his grave having wasted valuable time and energy attempting to “throw the bums out.” As we know, when it comes to politics, the asshole supply is virtually without limit.

What we need is not a revolution which, by definition, only brings us back to our point of origin. (It’s why they say “history repeats.”) What we need is an evolution…a way to think beyond the false dichotomy offered by the Robamas and the Obamneys of the world.

I’ve mentioned here just a few voluntary, peer-2-peer solutions currently in operation. This is just the beginning…

Each and every day individuals are cooperating, sharing information, innovating and circumventing the fuzzy-knuckled, rule-by-jackboot mentality of The State. And they are doing so without asking permission.

They are building new models so clinicians and diagnosticians can share critical, life or death knowledge across arbitrary borders and neanderthalic, governmental jurisdictions.

They are working to create secure, cyber-cryptographic currencies that may eventually render central banks irrelevant and expose their thieving practices for exactly what they are.

They are providing new communication portals, through which individuals can come together peacefully in peer-secured environments to exchange goods and services without the state’s taxing and, worse still, “helping.”

The free market conversation is dynamic and exciting and full of promise and possibility. Its opposition, by contrast, will be remembered by future generations as a sad and unfortunate episode in the bawling infancy of our development as a species.

So let The State drive off the “fiscal cliff.” And good riddance to it!

As we’ve said before in The Daily Reckoning…

If your answer to the question “but who will build the…?” is, “the government”…then it is not government you are lacking. It is imagination.

It’s time to think differently. It’s time to imagine.