There is a common mistake underlying this article and almost all political discourse - a constant focus on the misleading reference to "left" and "right." There is no left and right. They are arbitrary and ever changing definitions of the political spectrum and should be completely ignored. All the "isms" being categorized into the "left" and "right" spectrum create confusion and obfuscate the true nature of politics and government. It's actually simple. The state (defined as a non-voluntary government) cannot exist without aggression / violence. It doesn't produce anything and therefore it cannot trade voluntarily for resources. It extracts through taxation (which is coercion, which is a form of aggression). The spectrum that should be applied in analyzing human interaction (and therefor politics - which is governance involving the state) is one that measures the amount of aggression applied in an interaction between individuals or entities. The spectrum spans from extreme statism to pure individual freedom. All the "isms" are just various forms and amounts of state aggression against individuals. For example, Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism fall on the individual freedom side of the spectrum (none to little statism). Dictatorship, monarchy and communism fall on the other end of the spectrum - extreme statism (a few people use aggression / violence to control others). We need to stop talking about the "left and right" and start identifying acts of aggression. If it's not a voluntary trade or act, then aggression is involved (e.g., force, coercion, violence, theft, etc). For example, drafting someone into the army is an act of state aggression. We are taught as children to not steal and be respectful of one another (e.g., don't take your sister's toy without asking politely) and we expect to treat each other as individuals and neighbors in the same manner. However, it's incredible that we don't hold the state to the same standard! We willingly allow the state to coerce us into confiscating our wealth. We allow the state to tax, fine, incarcerate, threaten and pillage individuals in order to maintain the power of the state. If we had all the taxes we paid over decades, we could have individually used that wealth and voluntarily directed it to those we each determined need it. There is no need for the state, but politicians constantly preach how they are going to "protect" you and "help" others. It's all a con. The state is just people like the rest of us, but with special powers. Everyone in this country needs to learn about the true nature of the state and stop using "left" and "right" to categorize positions and defend positions. We need to identify the specific acts of aggression and stand against them. Until we do, the state will continue to grow unabated and wreak havoc on this country. We are moving from individual freedom toward more statism. We are not necessarily "socialist," but there are many government entities and policies that are "socialist" in nature. But forget the term "socialism" and focus on the acts of aggression. For example, printing money is a state monopoly power that dilutes our purchasing power. The state has the power to print money and spend it wastefully. We as individuals are thrown in jail if we print money (it's called counterfeiting when free people do it). This is why the state is going after Trump so hard. The state sees that he's an anti-statist (especially against the military industrial complex), so the state is using its legal power (aggression) to defend itself against his freedom movement. The CIA and FBI are doing the same thing as they are powerful divisions of the state. I'm not defending Trump (he's also a statist on some issues). It's just an example of the state's power and how it uses it to control others. Julian Assange is a better example. He reported on the state's evil aggressions and the state went after him aggressively. He hasn't had a fair trial and has been in jail for over 10 years. I highly recommend this book for everyone in the country: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state. The state does not represent the people. The state no longer follows the Constitution and does not defend individual freedom. The state doesn’t lead to violence; the state is the manifestation of institutionalized violence (aggression). Allow me to anticipate what you will be told when you explain this to those who don't understand this concept. They will say, "Ah ha! I got you. If there is no state, there will be anarchy!" The response is simple. First, anarchy is not violence. Anarchy is a latin term that means "denial of the state." Don't let anyone trick you and associate "anarchy" with violence. Anyone who argues that statelessness leads to violence is self-defeating if the proposed solution is to establish the state. That is the logic few in this country understand. Anarcho-capitalists do not claim that a truly free and voluntary market will not include aggression. There will always be bad actors in a free market. But to argue that we need to form a monopoly state as a solution is ludicrous. This is explained in this article by Robert Higgs, "If Men We're Angels, The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-government": https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1982. The summary of this logical position is that there will be less aggression in a stateless society than in one controlled by the state (especially over time as the state grows). So the conclusion we all need to come to is that we need to shrink the state. Think about the extremes. Do you want a king or dictator telling us all what to do? Do you want a small group of people running a Communist system (BTW the communist leaders were rich) telling us what to do? Or do you want pure, individual freedom and then deal with any aggression voluntarily in a collaborative manner where you will at least have a choice? The more individual freedom we have, the more choices we have at our disposal to flourish and to defend ourselves from the aggression of others.
Years ago when speaking to my elderly PhD preacher neighbor he remarked how he was old enough to remember the Nuremberg trials which he then weaved into the dangers of Hitler’s “far right” party which he then weaved into worry over far right Trump and his far right supporters as Hitler rising 2.0.
My only concession to that line of thinking is yes, it is dangerous that Trump is viewed in zero sum fashion as either 100% good or 100% bad. No in-between. I don’t trust blind allegiance anymore than I trust blind hate. Both live on a vacuum.
But the evolution of Nazi’s from Germany’s Socialist Workers Party is blatantly obvious. They had frigging Socialist in the name!
There is a common mistake underlying this article and almost all political discourse - a constant focus on the misleading reference to "left" and "right." There is no left and right. They are arbitrary and ever changing definitions of the political spectrum and should be completely ignored. All the "isms" being categorized into the "left" and "right" spectrum create confusion and obfuscate the true nature of politics and government. It's actually simple. The state (defined as a non-voluntary government) cannot exist without aggression / violence. It doesn't produce anything and therefore it cannot trade voluntarily for resources. It extracts through taxation (which is coercion, which is a form of aggression). The spectrum that should be applied in analyzing human interaction (and therefor politics - which is governance involving the state) is one that measures the amount of aggression applied in an interaction between individuals or entities. The spectrum spans from extreme statism to pure individual freedom. All the "isms" are just various forms and amounts of state aggression against individuals. For example, Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism fall on the individual freedom side of the spectrum (none to little statism). Dictatorship, monarchy and communism fall on the other end of the spectrum - extreme statism (a few people use aggression / violence to control others). We need to stop talking about the "left and right" and start identifying acts of aggression. If it's not a voluntary trade or act, then aggression is involved (e.g., force, coercion, violence, theft, etc). For example, drafting someone into the army is an act of state aggression. We are taught as children to not steal and be respectful of one another (e.g., don't take your sister's toy without asking politely) and we expect to treat each other as individuals and neighbors in the same manner. However, it's incredible that we don't hold the state to the same standard! We willingly allow the state to coerce us into confiscating our wealth. We allow the state to tax, fine, incarcerate, threaten and pillage individuals in order to maintain the power of the state. If we had all the taxes we paid over decades, we could have individually used that wealth and voluntarily directed it to those we each determined need it. There is no need for the state, but politicians constantly preach how they are going to "protect" you and "help" others. It's all a con. The state is just people like the rest of us, but with special powers. Everyone in this country needs to learn about the true nature of the state and stop using "left" and "right" to categorize positions and defend positions. We need to identify the specific acts of aggression and stand against them. Until we do, the state will continue to grow unabated and wreak havoc on this country. We are moving from individual freedom toward more statism. We are not necessarily "socialist," but there are many government entities and policies that are "socialist" in nature. But forget the term "socialism" and focus on the acts of aggression. For example, printing money is a state monopoly power that dilutes our purchasing power. The state has the power to print money and spend it wastefully. We as individuals are thrown in jail if we print money (it's called counterfeiting when free people do it). This is why the state is going after Trump so hard. The state sees that he's an anti-statist (especially against the military industrial complex), so the state is using its legal power (aggression) to defend itself against his freedom movement. The CIA and FBI are doing the same thing as they are powerful divisions of the state. I'm not defending Trump (he's also a statist on some issues). It's just an example of the state's power and how it uses it to control others. Julian Assange is a better example. He reported on the state's evil aggressions and the state went after him aggressively. He hasn't had a fair trial and has been in jail for over 10 years. I highly recommend this book for everyone in the country: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state. The state does not represent the people. The state no longer follows the Constitution and does not defend individual freedom. The state doesn’t lead to violence; the state is the manifestation of institutionalized violence (aggression). Allow me to anticipate what you will be told when you explain this to those who don't understand this concept. They will say, "Ah ha! I got you. If there is no state, there will be anarchy!" The response is simple. First, anarchy is not violence. Anarchy is a latin term that means "denial of the state." Don't let anyone trick you and associate "anarchy" with violence. Anyone who argues that statelessness leads to violence is self-defeating if the proposed solution is to establish the state. That is the logic few in this country understand. Anarcho-capitalists do not claim that a truly free and voluntary market will not include aggression. There will always be bad actors in a free market. But to argue that we need to form a monopoly state as a solution is ludicrous. This is explained in this article by Robert Higgs, "If Men We're Angels, The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-government": https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1982. The summary of this logical position is that there will be less aggression in a stateless society than in one controlled by the state (especially over time as the state grows). So the conclusion we all need to come to is that we need to shrink the state. Think about the extremes. Do you want a king or dictator telling us all what to do? Do you want a small group of people running a Communist system (BTW the communist leaders were rich) telling us what to do? Or do you want pure, individual freedom and then deal with any aggression voluntarily in a collaborative manner where you will at least have a choice? The more individual freedom we have, the more choices we have at our disposal to flourish and to defend ourselves from the aggression of others.
Years ago when speaking to my elderly PhD preacher neighbor he remarked how he was old enough to remember the Nuremberg trials which he then weaved into the dangers of Hitler’s “far right” party which he then weaved into worry over far right Trump and his far right supporters as Hitler rising 2.0.
My only concession to that line of thinking is yes, it is dangerous that Trump is viewed in zero sum fashion as either 100% good or 100% bad. No in-between. I don’t trust blind allegiance anymore than I trust blind hate. Both live on a vacuum.
But the evolution of Nazi’s from Germany’s Socialist Workers Party is blatantly obvious. They had frigging Socialist in the name!
our future?