Total Privacy = Total Destruction Of The State

The state cannot exist without invasions of privacy.  Without invasions of privacy, taxes could not be imposed.  If all transactions and accounting records were private, incomes and revenues could not be verified.  Tax evasion could not be prosecuted because no proof of incomes could be obtained.

Further, state currencies could not be imposed.  If all transactions were private, the state would have no way of knowing what unit of account its subjects may have used to conduct their trades in.  If a secret private currency were to run along side a state issued currency, the state issued currency would eventually become worthless.

If a person could be paid in secret, not have to pay taxes or the cost of inflation, and knew they could never be caught because the transactions are totally private, and the private currency was accepted everywhere the state currency was, wouldn’t they try to avoid the state issued currency in favor of the private currency? Because of these facts, all forms of privacy are abhorrent to the state.

The state, which is nothing more than a large group of brainwashed individuals who believe they have been granted the legitimate right to control others through the use of force, depends on having total information of all its subjects doings in order to maintain its own survival. – But survival of what?  Survival of the belief system.  There is no “thing” that anyone can point to and say, “there is the state!”  The state isn’t real.  The state is a belief in peoples’ minds.

Since the state is nothing more than a belief that resides in the minds of certain people, the cult members that compose a “state” must continually check their subjects for signs that belief in the cult might be waning. This natural paranoia of cult members is what drives the expansion of the surveillance state.  The Snowden leaks have made it clear that the NSA is just as concerned about what its own subjects are thinking as it is about foreigners.

Again, the NSA is just a group of cult members who believe they have the legitimate right to invade the privacy of everyone on the planet to ensure that the belief in the death cult called the American government is not being threatened.  Since the state isn’t a physical “thing,” but a belief, the NSA isn’t ultimately concerned about protecting “things.”  The cult of the NSA does what it does because they are terrified some other cult belief system will throw them out of power.

Why should Americans be concerned with what the Chinese are doing? “Americans” are simply people who believe that living under the death cult of the American state is superior to that of living under the Chinese state – otherwise why bother having any American state at all?  Why not just let the Chinese run things? Why not hand over the American government to the Chinese?  What does that question even mean?   Does it mean handing over the belief in the legitimacy of one death cult to another death cult?  What the hell?

The state is a belief – not a thing.  In order to get someone out of a cult, you have to seclude them from the cult group.  Privacy is a key component when it comes to the toppling of cult belief systems.   If I were to transport you to another human world where all transactions were private (no states), would you stand in terror, waiting to be struck down by terrorists or criminals?  Of course not.  You would quickly come to accept that as the reality of how things should be.

If the entire world views it as normal to have complete transaction privacy, you would view it as normal.  It would be ABNORMAL to assume you, or anyone else, had the legitimacy to peek inside peoples’ pocketbooks.  Obviously the death cult called a “state” could not exist in such a world.

Even if an entire population were to fully believe that the human condition could be improved by having people elect leaders from the masses, and then granting those few elected people the power to use organized threats of violence to assume control over resources; in a world where violating privacy was impossible, the public couldn’t impose such a system on themselves even if they wanted to.

Privacy.

Dig it.

  • ilivefreeordie

    Great article!
    Death Cult = Tax Farm = State.
    Enough is enough, spread the word.

  • Karl McGaugh

    This is bull. I have dug to the bottom of the sophomore attempt to embrace “no state” The true libertarian will recognise that the “free trade mutual respect law” is unenforceable without a Godly enlightened population. Mans natural state of consciousness has not evolved high enough to allow the “no state” libertarianism to work. Tribal war is the true outcome of “no state”. The “state” has many meanings, and my family stands as a free state with your family. Unfortunately due to the human flaw of starving to death we will have real life and death, eat or be eaten choices. My state will attack your state when my starvation time comes. The non-violence law will be put to the test and my law enforcement will attempt to overthrow your law enforcement. War! The true libertarian will understand that liberty is dependent on peace. The Common Law and the enforcement of that law is the only thing that keeps the peace. Law enforcement = peace = true state.

    • EyingTheLies

      There is no “peace”, just silent weapons!!!

      • http://vitaminDCouncil.org/ EinRand

        Peace exists between Peoples that respect the ‘Non-Agression Principle’. If we agree to trade, then we each agree to better ourselves. Only governments and criminals resort to force. The Business Man must seek your consent, the Politician your subservience.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      I don’t even know where to being with that one. So basically your argument is that I’m right, but you think humanity is too mean for voluntary solutions to work, therefore we should avoid voluntary solutions.

      What the fuck kind of argument is that?

      • Karl McGaugh

        I am glad you asked. This is not a head game. Robbery produces more food? Man A has food and man B has none. Man B robs man A and takes his food. When a man gets hungry enough he will fight to get some food. Witness the riots when the food runs out in the city markets. If you don’t see this then you have never been starving. The mind becomes a monster that rationalizes robbing and killing as the righteous behavior against those that are keeping food from the starving. This is the natural instinct of all biological organisms. It’s called self preservation and reason has nothing to do with it.

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          So your argument is that we should socialize food distribution?

          Mao managed to kill 80 million when he socialized agriculture. Stalin managed to kill around 10 million. So yeah, socialism – it works.

          • Karl McGaugh

            Free market capitalism is the way. However laws are needed to prevent monopoly. Absolutely no socialized anything except The Jury system of courts. A written constitution of laws and rights is essential for equal justice and the absolute power of the 12 person jury to judge the law as well as the crime. The law and the courts give rise to an elected law enforcement system (gov). Term limits of 1 term for all elected. There is one body of law that I want you to dig deep into. It’s called the Peoples Grand Jury. It’s been outlawed by modern courts but it is the source of the peoples power to punish lawbreakers in the ruling class. http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan195.htm

          • http://vitaminDCouncil.org/ EinRand

            No laws are needed to prevent monopoly, only to prevent the government form limiting your ability to vote with your dollar. Monopolies are created by government subsidization of one campaign contributor over another regime critic.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            The law is we lock people in cages for smoking plants.

            That’s the law.

            Your changes would not prevent “the law” from being obscene as it is now.

            You have a misguided faith in the system. You still believe it can be reformed. This belief stems from you being afraid. Stop being afraid of shit.

          • Karl McGaugh

            You twist my viewpoint and insult me simply because I disagree with your view. Your ego is strutting for some respect and when you don’t get it you lash out like a wounded animal. Then you rationalize your libertine indignation by telling me it’s my fault the whole world is messed up. Duhh! This conversation is over!

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Well you’ll have to forgive me. I just don’t see how using violence to solve social problems can be an effective positive solution.

          • http://vitaminDCouncil.org/ EinRand

            And they (the Communist apologists) reply that mankind is too greedy to give up their individual lives as fodder for their future Utopia that somehow never materializes after the mass graves.

        • http://vitaminDCouncil.org/ EinRand

          Men (defined as those that are not animals and thus possess the faculty of rational thought) have the capacity to band together in a society to defend against animals (defined as organisms that are guided by nothing more than perception). If you will not effort of thought, then I will join with other like minded to survive the TRIBALIST that refuse to delay immediate gratification. We are HUMAN.